Major attack in USA in October?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-09 07:00pm

With the US election in November, if Al-Quaeda follows its current pattern, they will attempt to launch some kind of major attack inside the US in October. Is anyone concerned about this? Do you feel that Homeland Security is probably going to stop such an attack? Or do you feel that they might avoid their usual tactics in this case for some reason?

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2004-09-09 07:16pm

This is unlikely unless Al Queda believes that another attack would act in their favor. In Spain, they knew an attack would likely sway the electorate towards those advocating a withdrawal from Iraq and discontinued backing of US policy.

What would happen if the US were attacked is less clearcut. It may galvanise the electorate for or against Bush. Also, since neither candidate is advocating anything other then a continuance of the terrorism war (although Kerry would prefer a more international, law-enforcement type campaign), so it would have little concievable benefit for the terrorists.

I believe a more likely scenario would be an attack a bit after the inaguaration, in the hopes that this might cause a suspension of term limits or other ill-advised moves on the part of our leaders.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-09 07:25pm

I know a few days ago that Dick Cheney was saying that if John Kerry was elected their would be another 9/11 and since the Bush Administration would never use fearmongering in order to gather votes and obviously has some evidence to back that up that they aren't telling us (for national security reasons, of course), that means the next big terrorist attack will be some time next year in Febuary.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-09 07:26pm

I'm actually not all that worried. Al Qaeda has usually taken a considerable amount of time between attacks, though if they had anything left in them they would probably throw it at us in October.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-09-09 07:36pm

I would bet money that a major attack will occur in October,

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-09 07:41pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I know a few days ago that Dick Cheney was saying that if John Kerry was elected their would be another 9/11 and since the Bush Administration would never use fearmongering in order to gather votes and obviously has some evidence to back that up that they aren't telling us (for national security reasons, of course), that means the next big terrorist attack will be some time next year in Febuary.

No he didn't, goddammit! God, people have been reporting this little meme left and right and it's bullshit.

What Dick Cheney actually said was that if John Kerry was elected, the response by the United States in the event of another terrorist attack would be inadequate/weak. An informed statement? Probably not. Fair? Probably not. Saying that if you vote for John Kerry, you're voting for another huge terrorist attack? No, it's not that, either.

Mitth`raw`nuruodo · Post by **Mitth`raw`nuruodo** » 2004-09-09 07:41pm

*raises eyebrow* Gil... please tell me you aren't being serious. If you were joking, you used the wrong smiley.

Lonestar, why?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-09 07:45pm

Joe wrote:No he didn't, goddammit! God, people have been reporting this little meme left and right and it's bullshit.

What Dick Cheney actually said was that if John Kerry was elected, the response by the United States in the event of another terrorist attack would be inadequate/weak. An informed statement? Probably not. Fair? Probably not. Saying that if you vote for John Kerry, you're voting for another huge terrorist attack? No, it's not that, either.

Uh-huh.

Cheney told Republican supporters at a town hall meeting in Des Moines that they needed to make "the right choice" in the November 2 election.

"If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney said.

"And then we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mindset, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us."

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-09 07:46pm

Could one make the argument that Bush is a great thing for this holy war that OBL and others are advocating?

Shrub's foreign policy alienates the Muslim part of the world, and can galvanise them against him & the west.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-09 07:53pm

Gandalf wrote:Could one make the argument that Bush is a great thing for this holy war that OBL and others are advocating?

Shrub's foreign policy alienates the Muslim part of the world, and can galvanise them against him & the west.

The Iraq War has certainly been very beneficial for Al-Quaeda.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-09 07:54pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:snip

The full quote:

Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we're not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-09 07:59pm

I quoted everything you did, Joe.

He's saying right there in black and white that if Kerry gets elected, it will put the country at major risk of another devestating terrorist attack, and after that happens he'll respond poorly.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-09-09 08:10pm

I'm kind of doubtful of an attack in the near future, although I believe that it would doom Bush's campaign, as it would basically be saying "The War on Terror hasn't worked".

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-09 08:14pm

It's a conditional probability. He's not saying there will be a terrorist attack if Kerry is elected; he's saying if there is a terrorist attack and Kerry is elected, X will happen. That's how I read it, that's how I interpreted it when I first saw it, and I'm not going to spend anymore time pissing and moaning over this shit with you. I just don't care anymore.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-09-09 08:16pm

To others, it would say that the military and the intelligence agencies don't have enough money and power, else that wouldn't have happened.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-09 08:17pm

If there's an attack before November, it will mean that America is in great danger so you must vote for Bush. If there's no attack before November, it will mean that America is safer so you must vote for Bush.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-09 08:23pm

Joe wrote:It's a conditional probability. He's not saying there will be a terrorist attack if Kerry is elected; he's saying if there is a terrorist attack and Kerry is elected, X will happen. That's how I read it, that's how I interpreted it when I first saw it, and I'm not going to spend anymore time pissing and moaning over this shit with you. I just don't care anymore.

He's not saying that. He's saying that if John Kerry gets elected, then the big danger is that we'll get attacked again in a devestating manner and Kerry will fuck it up.

Oh well, if you aren't going to argue it, I'm not. Interpret it how you want.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-09 08:59pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Could one make the argument that Bush is a great thing for this holy war that OBL and others are advocating?

Shrub's foreign policy alienates the Muslim part of the world, and can galvanise them against him & the west.
The Iraq War has certainly been very beneficial for Al-Quaeda.

Not positive about this, but I thought the numbers on the killings of leaders of AL-Quaeda was over 80%. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not positive.

And do you think Iraq was beneficial to Al-Quaeda because we were concentration on Iraq instead of them? I guess that's what I assume your getting at.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-09 09:01pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Could one make the argument that Bush is a great thing for this holy war that OBL and others are advocating?

Shrub's foreign policy alienates the Muslim part of the world, and can galvanise them against him & the west.
The Iraq War has certainly been very beneficial for Al-Quaeda.
Not positive about this, but I thought the numbers on the killings of leaders of AL-Quaeda was over 80%. Perhaps I'm wrong, I'm not positive.

And do you think Iraq was beneficial to Al-Quaeda because we were concentration on Iraq instead of them? I guess that's what I assume your getting at.

Or because it makes the US look evil to many of the onlooking ME citizens.

Predator · Post by **Predator** » 2004-09-09 09:08pm

It benefits Al Qaeda by probiding them a training and recruitment ground. The fact that the US went into Iraq at all sends a message to the Arab world - america is a rabid dog that cannot be reasoned with. Iraq is now ripe for recruiting angry new members seeking revenge for loss of national pride, brutality, loss of family members - you name it.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-10 09:47am

To me, the question is this:

IF there is an attack, how can we be sure that it wasn't because Bush *needed* an attack to occur?

*suspiciousbastardmode engaged*

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-09-10 03:19pm

Same way as 9/11: Look at the evidence. Plus, Bush may be a bastard but I don't think he would stage an attack on the US just to win the election.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-09-10 04:01pm

Mitth`raw`nuruodo wrote:
Lonestar, why?

Gut feeling. It's also a "good time" for the terrorists to act for a variety of obvious and more obscure reasopns.

However over, I also think we would stand a high likelyhood of thwarting an attack.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-09-10 04:01pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Joe wrote:It's a conditional probability. He's not saying there will be a terrorist attack if Kerry is elected; he's saying if there is a terrorist attack and Kerry is elected, X will happen. That's how I read it, that's how I interpreted it when I first saw it, and I'm not going to spend anymore time pissing and moaning over this shit with you. I just don't care anymore.
He's not saying that. He's saying that if John Kerry gets elected, then the big danger is that we'll get attacked again in a devestating manner and Kerry will fuck it up.

Oh well, if you aren't going to argue it, I'm not. Interpret it how you want.

Well, Cheney has now clarified his earlier statements:

Terror

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-09-10 04:10pm

Everything is hit or miss really. But no matter what, but the fact is that on the security side of things we basically need to be literally better then perfect at all times to be safe and the terrorists just need to be lucky some of the time ensures that more attacks will happen and they hurt. The only real hope is that Al-Quaeda will continue to strike at only high value targets in the US, ones which we can also concentrate security and passive protection on. If they follow their Palestinian, Iraqi and IRA comrades, and simply start blowing up bombs all over the place then the US will be in a world of hurt. Personally I don't think Al-Qaeda will do something like that, it means stopping down to the level of all the other terrorists. Another organization might go that route though.

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Same way as 9/11: Look at the evidence. Plus, Bush may be a bastard but I don't think he would stage an attack on the US just to win the election.

Even if he wanted to, does anyone on earth who isn't a fucking idiot actually think he could do it and get away clean? Even just allowing a preexisting terrorist attack to happen without preemption would require a vast conspiracy, and the US goverment can't even keep nuclear weapon designs hidden.