Blast reported at Illinois mall

[Schuyler Colfax]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/28/plaza. ... index.html

WAUKEGAN, Illinois (AP) -- A large explosion has blown the top off a shopping plaza in Waukegan, Illinois. Police say at least six people have been taken to a hospital.

The explosion struck around lunchtime Thursday. It blew the windows out of storefronts and collapsed the ceilings above stores.

Witness Candi Rixie was taking orders at a sandwich shop a block away. She said she felt a rumble, almost like somebody hit the building with a car.

It wasn't immediately clear what caused the blast, but crews from People's Gas were on the scene to investigate.

Fire crews from several towns have come to help in rescue efforts, and are searching to see if people are trapped inside.

More as the story develops.

[[R_H]]

I'm surprised that there's no hint of speculation if it could be terrorists, seeing how a witness described it as feeling as if the building had been hit by a car.

[Broomstick]

A little more detail

There's also links to photos and videos for anyone who's interested. Looks like they're leaning towards "gas explosion".

[Phantasee]

Terrorists! People's Gas? What kind of pinko-terrorist organization is this? Laying down pipelines full of natural gas?

Must have been the Venezualans. I hear that Chavez dude doesn't like us.

[Steven Snyder]

I know we are "fightin' the terrorists over there so we don't fight them here".

But doesn't our typical first reaction of "Was it Terrorism" really make it clear that no one really buy that statement?

It is probably just a gas line, but everytime I hear about one of these my first thought is, "Was this the work of terrorists, will there be more?" Stories like this make me realize that we don't feel safe, we don't feel protected. I am afraid because our administration has failed to defeat terrorism, yet succeeded in making us a much more appealing target. I am afraid because our administration has resorted to using fear, the weapon of terrorists to push their failed agenda.

Forgive my meandering...

[Phantasee]

Shit, I didn't realize there were deaths involved. I'm sorry for the poor taste in my previous post.

[Havok]

I know we are "fightin' the terrorists over there so we don't fight them here".

But doesn't our typical first reaction of "Was it Terrorism" really make it clear that no one really buy that statement?

It is probably just a gas line, but everytime I hear about one of these my first thought is, "Was this the work of terrorists, will there be more?" Stories like this make me realize that we don't feel safe, we don't feel protected. I am afraid because our administration has failed to defeat terrorism, yet succeeded in making us a much more appealing target. I am afraid because our administration has resorted to using fear, the weapon of terrorists to push their failed agenda.

Forgive my meandering...

How many terrorist attacks have we endured since 2001?

[Broomstick]

US or worldwide?

US not so much - but Madrid and London were certainly significant to those that live there

[Invictus ChiKen]

How many terrorist attacks have we endured since 2001?

Well they only have to get lucky once. How often do we hear planned terrorist attack foiled?

[Flagg]

I know we are "fightin' the terrorists over there so we don't fight them here".

But doesn't our typical first reaction of "Was it Terrorism" really make it clear that no one really buy that statement?

It is probably just a gas line, but everytime I hear about one of these my first thought is, "Was this the work of terrorists, will there be more?" Stories like this make me realize that we don't feel safe, we don't feel protected. I am afraid because our administration has failed to defeat terrorism, yet succeeded in making us a much more appealing target. I am afraid because our administration has resorted to using fear, the weapon of terrorists to push their failed agenda.

Forgive my meandering...

How many terrorist attacks have we endured since 2001?

That depends on what you mean by terrorist attacks.

We had the Anthrax mailings, still unsolved. May have been domestic, may not have been.

We had the guy that shot up the terminal at LAX. IIRC he was Middle Eastern or Egyptian, yet an isolated case without terrorist ties.

We have the Beltway Sniper, though that could be considered serial or spree killing.

So between 1 and 3 depending on how optimistic of pessimistic you are. Of course I've left some shit out. Like the Virginia Tech shooting and the one in Illinois, as well as that idiot trying to make a big smiley face on a map by putting pipe bombs in mailboxes, though you could include those.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Injured count up to 9 now.

Doesn't look good.

[Havok]

That depends on what you mean by terrorist attacks.

We had the Anthrax mailings, still unsolved. May have been domestic, may not have been.

We had the guy that shot up the terminal at LAX. IIRC he was Middle Eastern or Egyptian, yet an isolated case without terrorist ties.

We have the Beltway Sniper, though that could be considered serial or spree killing.

So between 1 and 3 depending on how optimistic of pessimistic you are. Of course I've left some shit out. Like the Virginia Tech shooting and the one in Illinois, as well as that idiot trying to make a big smiley face on a map by putting pipe bombs in mailboxes, though you could include those.

Attacks from the terrorists we have been actively "at war" with since 2001. On US soil.

[Darth Wong]

Attacks from the terrorists we have been actively "at war" with since 2001. On US soil.

Thanks to George W. Bush, you are not just "at war" with Al-Quaeda; you are at war with everyone in the world who's a Muslim and doesn't like America. That was a conscious decision made by the US public and US government. Any crackpot Muslim who gets mad at America is the enemy according to this definition of your war. Therefore, any attack by any such individual represents an enemy attack on US soil.

Can you understand that, or do you need it in the form of some kind of Youtube video?

[wjs7744]

US not so much - but Madrid and London were certainly significant to those that live there

Not to the same extent as 9/11. I mean, they were tragic to those who lost family and such, but those were really the only ones affected. 9/11, on the other hand, affected the entire U.S ., not just those who lost people. It could have been because the attacks were smaller, or maybe we're just jaded to terrorism over here, who knows? Still, America has been hit harder by terrorism than we have.

[VT-16]

I would suggest that relative to the entire population, America wasn't hit harder, but it had the biggest reaction to the attacks and inadverdantly created more terrorists in the process.

[Lord Poe]

Thanks to George W. Bush, you are not just "at war" with Al-Quaeda; you are at war with everyone in the world who's a Muslim and doesn't like America.

How is that solely Bush's fault? 9-11 happened before he barely warmed his ass behind the desk of the Oval Office. The USS Cole attack happened when Clinton was in office, and the Beirut military base attack happened when Reagan was in office.

[Darth Wong]

Thanks to George W. Bush, you are not just "at war" with Al-Quaeda; you are at war with everyone in the world who's a Muslim and doesn't like America.

How is that solely Bush's fault? 9-11 happened before he barely warmed his ass behind the desk of the Oval Office. The USS Cole attack happened when Clinton was in office, and the Beirut military base attack happened when Reagan was in office.

Have you been living in a cave for the last 7 years? Bush was the one who decided to deliberately expand their attempt to collar Al-Quaeda into a war against worldwide radical Islam, followed by an idiotic attempt to remake the entire Middle East. How do you think he sold the invasion of Iraq?

The fact that there are longstanding hostilities between the USA and the Middle East does not absolve Bush in any way for his responsibility for what he did afterwards.

[Lord Poe]

Thanks to George W. Bush, you are not just "at war" with Al-Quaeda; you are at war with everyone in the world who's a Muslim and doesn't like America.

How is that solely Bush's fault? 9-11 happened before he barely warmed his ass behind the desk of the Oval Office. The USS Cole attack happened when Clinton was in office, and the Beirut military base attack happened when Reagan was in office.

Have you been living in a cave for the last 7 years? Bush was the one who decided to deliberately expand their attempt to collar Al-Quaeda into a war against worldwide radical Islam, followed by an idiotic attempt to remake the entire Middle East. How do you think he sold the invasion of Iraq?

The fact that there are longstanding hostilities between the USA and the Middle East does not absolve Bush in any way for his responsibility for what he did afterwards.

That wasn't my point at all. I was addressing the fact that you're turning Bush into this magic magnet for Muslim hatred of the U.S. Muslims hated America before Bush, and they'll hate America after Bush. You dismissed my examples that happened well before GW took the White House, and that includes 9-11.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Attacks from the terrorists we have been actively "at war" with since 2001. On US soil.

And how many were there prior to Bush? Geez, not too many. There goes the "Well, how many terrorist attacks on US soil have there been since then?" So far, none. But before that it had also been some time since anything on US soil.

[Havok]

Attacks from the terrorists we have been actively "at war" with since 2001. On US soil.

Thanks to George W. Bush, you are not just "at war" with Al-Quaeda; you are at war with everyone in the world who's a Muslim and doesn't like America. That was a conscious decision made by the US public and US government. Any crackpot Muslim who gets mad at America is the enemy according to this definition of your war. Therefore, any attack by any such individual represents an enemy attack on US soil.

Can you understand that, or do you need it in the form of some kind of Youtube video?

Calm down sparky.

The point I was trying to make was in regards to Steven Snyder's "Every time I hear a loud noise, I think it's the terrorists!!" comment which is just lame, and pretty baseless, since like Napoleon pointed out, there have been no "terrorist" attacks since 9/11, and only a few before. Seriously, it has been almost 7 years and I still hear idiots say shit like that every time a transformer blows up or a car backfires.

Your comment about Bush is pretty retarded though. Sure you can blame him for Iraq, but for declaring war on terrorism? Not really. Regardless of who is, was, or could have been, in the White House, if a terrorist organization attacks our country in the fashion Al Quaeda did, "war" is going to be declared. It may have different wording, but you can bet your ass there will be soldiers kicking down doors and people being bombed back to the fucking stone age.

It was just our bad luck that it happened to be Islamic radicalists, since it gave the Commander In Chimp the opportunity to get revenge on Hussein for trying to kill his daddy, because to him, all middle easterners are the same.

[Havok]

GE: If it had been the IRA, we would be "at war" with every red headed freckled person in the world, who ever said a nice thing about them or donated money to their cause. I do have to admit though, the religious aspect, probably wouldn't come in to play in that situation, but at the same time, not every terrorist group infuses religion into their cause the way that Islamic extremists do, obviously.

[Darth Wong]

How is that solely Bush's fault? 9-11 happened before he barely warmed his ass behind the desk of the Oval Office. The USS Cole attack happened when Clinton was in office, and the Beirut military base attack happened when Reagan was in office.

Have you been living in a cave for the last 7 years? Bush was the one who decided to deliberately expand their attempt to collar Al-Quaeda into a war against worldwide radical Islam, followed by an idiotic attempt to remake the entire Middle East. How do you think he sold the invasion of Iraq?

The fact that there are longstanding hostilities between the USA and the Middle East does not absolve Bush in any way for his responsibility for what he did afterwards.

That wasn't my point at all. I was addressing the fact that you're turning Bush into this magic magnet for Muslim hatred of the U.S. Muslims hated America before Bush, and they'll hate America after Bush. You dismissed my examples that happened well before GW took the White House, and that includes 9-11.

And people wonder why it was so easy for Bush to talk you guys into invading Iraq.

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that Muslim anger toward the US has remained relatively constant during this entire time and is largely insensitive to any actions Bush might have taken. This is the "they hate us anyway, so why shouldn't we" argument that I heard so many times leading up to Iraq. What possible reason could you have for this assumption? The fact is that Bush and those who follow him have greatly exacerbated the situation; there is no point pretending otherwise.

Havokeff believes that "the enemy" has not struck at America since 9-11. I pointed out that thanks to George W. Bush's deliberate decision to lump all Muslim extremists together as "the enemy" rather than trying to play one against the other, any Muslim extremist is now "the enemy" as far as Bush's global politics go, not just Al-Quaeda members. That's how the invasion of Iraq happened.

[Lord Poe]

And people wonder why it was so easy for Bush to talk you guys into invading Iraq.

No, sorry. We've been over that subject before. But don't let that stop you.

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that Muslim anger toward the US has remained relatively constant during this entire time and is largely insensitive to any actions Bush might have taken.

Uh, no. I called you on your false premise which you built the rest of your post on. "Thanks to George Bush..." No. Muslim extremism against America was there before Bush, and before Al-Quaeda.

This is the "they hate us anyway, so why shouldn't we" argument that I heard so many times leading up to Iraq. What possible reason could you have for this assumption? The fact is that Bush and those who follow him have greatly exacerbated the situation; there is no point pretending otherwise.

Again, the Beruit Marine barracks attack, USS Cole attack, the first WTC attack all happened pre-GW. How are things any worse for America terrorist-wise, since Bush invaded Iraq? That was Havokeff's original point.

[Darth Wong]

And people wonder why it was so easy for Bush to talk you guys into invading Iraq.

No, sorry. We've been over that subject before. But don't let that stop you.

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that Muslim anger toward the US has remained relatively constant during this entire time and is largely insensitive to any actions Bush might have taken.

Uh, no. I called you on your false premise which you built the rest of your post on. "Thanks to George Bush..." No. Muslim extremism against America was there before Bush, and before Al-Quaeda.

Looks like you didn't bother reading the post then, because I never made any such claim. In case you didn't notice (and you clearly didn't), I never said that Bush created Muslim hatred out of nothing. I said that Bush stupidly reacted to 9/11 by declaring a "war" on all Muslim extremism everywhere, rather than restricting his war to Al-Quaeda. That is 100% Bush's fault, no matter how many times you try to distort the argument. There is much more hatred of America around the world now than there was on 9/12. Do you honestly not realize this? Are you so comfortably isolated from the rest of the world that you think peoples' opinions toward America are no more negative than they were 8 years ago?

This is the "they hate us anyway, so why shouldn't we" argument that I heard so many times leading up to Iraq. What possible reason could you have for this assumption? The fact is that Bush and those who follow him have greatly exacerbated the situation; there is no point pretending otherwise.

Again, the Beruit Marine barracks attack, USS Cole attack, the first WTC attack all happened pre-GW.

So? How do they refute my argument? Do you understand that the statement "Muslim anger toward America did not begin on 9/11" does not refute the statement "Bush's post-9/11 actions exacerbated Muslim anger toward America"?

How are things any worse for America terrorist-wise, since Bush invaded Iraq? That was Havokeff's original point.

Al-Quaeda is stronger than it was before. Pakistan is more pro-Taliban than it was before. Relations between America and its allies are more strained than they were before. The price tag for this war is going to hit $2 trillion and thousands of lives. What part of this do you not get? You only think it's working because they've found a way to kill Americans without having to come to America.

[Broomstick]

NOT that I agree with the idea but - I've heard a number of people in the US claim that the war in Iraq is "working" because they are killing Americans over there as opposed to over here, the idea being that it's better to have the war on the other side of the world than in your backyard.

I can poke that full of enough holes to look like Swiss cheese... but I suppose some people like Swiss cheese...