PDA

View Full Version : Another 9/11..... tomorrow ?


tramper
7th July 2004, 05:17 AM
Another 9/11..... tomorrow ?



what would be the reaction if another event on the scale of 9/11 happend tomorrow in

( a ) the US
( B) the UK
( C) somewhere else

in the case of the US and UK, with their military, financial, and political eggs almost all in one basket and no proof of the perpetrators identity in this new atrocity, what would be the consequences for these countries and their administrations and their allies would it break or strengthen the coalition or effect the forthcoming elections in either country.

aerocontrols
7th July 2004, 05:40 AM
*insert speculations and predictions that confirm my existing political biases here*


Do you really think you're going to get anything else?



MattJ

Kodiak
7th July 2004, 05:41 AM
IMO, It would definitely strengthen the coalition. It would help Bush if the attack couldn't be partially blamed on government ineptitude or incompetence, and it would help Kerry if even part of the blame could be put at Bush's feet.

tramper
7th July 2004, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by aerocontrols
*insert speculations and predictions that confirm my existing political biases here*


Do you really think you're going to get anything else?



MattJ

you never know, if you don't ask you don't get;)

Do you have a speculation, prediction, political opinion or bias to share ?

Cleon
7th July 2004, 06:44 AM
Bush would invade Iran.

AtheistArchon
7th July 2004, 06:47 AM
- It's hard to even speculate because there are just so many hidden variables that we, as the public, aren't privy to.

- Is al Qaeda still a strong underground threat in the U.S. now that Afghanistan has been "liberated"? Opinions vary. Certainly there are sympathetic people here, but what are their capabilities? Nobody can say, but it does only take a couple of people to make a real mess.

- Are there any other terrorist orgs out there besides the al Qaeda branches we attacked already who might want to do us harm? Absolutely, but again, their capabilities in CONUS are suspect.

- Additionally, the whole war in Iraq thing did at least have one effect on the international community: under the Bush administration, we don't give a crap who we invade and decimate. This would at very least lead me to try and hide my terrorist connections if I were a nation sympathetic to them (except Saudi Arabia of course, they're completely exempt so far, don't get me started).

- How advanced are terrorists? Evidence suggests 'not very'. How effective are our intelligence agencies? Evidence suggests 'not very'. But then again, we don't get to see all the evidence on either count.

- It's just impossible to guess from our point of view. You'd have to be a high level spook to know anything substantial.

richardm
7th July 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by tramper
effect the forthcoming elections in either country.

The UK isn't having proper elections for another year or so, so anything happening tomorrow wouldn't affect that directly.

Indirectly - depends on how the public would jump. If they all stood behind the PM as a show of solidarity, then nothing would change.

If the public (and by which I mean the press, really) pilloried Blair on the grounds that the war in Iraq - alreaday very unpopular - was supposed to make us safer and evidently had failed to do that, then he might well find himself down the dole office in short order. But the Labour government would still remain in control. So nothing would change in the short term.

If it happened in America, you'd probably get the same response from the UK that they got last time round - broadly supportive, but with a good chunk of people nodding in what they consider a sage manner and saying "Well, they were asking for it, really".

tramper
7th July 2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- It's hard to even speculate because there are just so many hidden variables that we, as the public, aren't privy to.

- How advanced are terrorists? Evidence suggests 'not very'. How effective are our intelligence agencies? Evidence suggests 'not very'. But then again, we don't get to see all the evidence on either count.

- It's just impossible to guess from our point of view. You'd have to be a high level spook to know anything substantial.


As you say it is hard to even speculate but if the worst happened at home would all the negative scenarios that have been speculated upon come to pass, ie conscription, economic meltdown even nuclear retaliation if lack of manpower or the strength of enemy negated regime change or invasion. ( if the enemy could be identified )

Would expensive Draconian security measures have to be implemented as a matter of course, with the possibility of civil disorder if people believed their respective governments had been ineffective or could not protect them. Without proof could a government react at all ? Would not the political fallout alone be a nation changing event.

could one more straw break the camels back ?

Jocko
7th July 2004, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by tramper




could one more straw break the camels back ?

One more straw like 9/11 and I sure wouldn't want to be a muslim Arab-American, I can tell you that much.

richardm
7th July 2004, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by tramper
could one more straw break the camels back ?

That depends on how the administration handled it. If they chose to go down the draconian route, perhaps it would. OTOH many countries around the world have had to deal with serial terrorist attacks (UK and Spain spring to mind), and didn't fall apart as a consequence.

Chaos
7th July 2004, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by richardm


That depends on how the administration handled it. If they chose to go down the draconian route, perhaps it would. OTOH many countries around the world have had to deal with serial terrorist attacks (UK and Spain spring to mind), and didn't fall apart as a consequence.

OTOH Spain and UK did not pass Patriot Acts, invade countries that had nothing to do with these attacks, or imprison thousands without charge or access to lawyers, or...

...well, you get my point.

richardm
7th July 2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by Chaos


OTOH Spain and UK did not pass Patriot Acts, invade countries that had nothing to do with these attacks, or imprison thousands without charge or access to lawyers, or...

...well, you get my point.

Ah... you mean the US has already gone down the draconian route? Hmm... Don't suppose there's a chance that they'd say something like "Well, that hasn't worked - free ice-cream for everyone, instead!" ?

tramper
7th July 2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by richardm


That depends on how the administration handled it. If they chose to go down the draconian route, perhaps it would. OTOH many countries around the world have had to deal with serial terrorist attacks (UK and Spain spring to mind), and didn't fall apart as a consequence.

point taken, but they did not commit themselves heart and soul politically to the outcome of their actions, and the problem was a domestic one, they had room to maneuver, right or wrong the US can only loose face or up the anti, it all rests on how they manage the situation, a global guerrilla war is a new phenomenon
if the focus and tactics are wrong they could die the death of a thousand cuts, ...... I am not talking as a nation here they are far too powerfull but a way of life and a way of thinking could change forever.

Jocko
7th July 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by richardm

Hmm... Don't suppose there's a chance that they'd say something like "Well, that hasn't worked - free ice-cream for everyone, instead!" ?

Who do you think we are, France or something? :D

tramper
7th July 2004, 09:25 AM
I thought the Itailians did the ice-cream :D

Jocko
7th July 2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by tramper
I thought the Itailians did the ice-cream :D

No, that's gelati. Much more masculine. Compare to sorbet and you'll see what I mean. :)

Chaos
7th July 2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by richardm


Ah... you mean the US has already gone down the draconian route? Hmm... Don't suppose there's a chance that they'd say something like "Well, that hasn't worked - free ice-cream for everyone, instead!" ?

Well, I cannot see how Guantanamo Bay and Iraq are not draconian...

Mike B.
7th July 2004, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by richardm


If it happened in America, you'd probably get the same response from the UK that they got last time round - broadly supportive, but with a good chunk of people nodding in what they consider a sage manner and saying "Well, they were asking for it, really".

I think you are right...


Two days after 9/11 as the bodies were still being pulled out of the rubble, the Manchester Guardian ran an editorial about how the US essentially deserved to be attacked.

Something has always bothered me about this though.

Since 9/11 Al Queda has attacked numerous countries many of them have went against American policy. If you recall both Turkey and Morocco and the Phillipiens have been attacked by people with the same Islamicist agenda.

After these attacks did these same people said in their sage manner that those countries "were asking for it?"

My guess is no...

Why not?

Jocko
7th July 2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Chaos


Well, I cannot see how Guantanamo Bay and Iraq are not draconian...

Oh, you'll know. That's the final straw we were talking about up there.

Nasarius
7th July 2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Mike B.
After these attacks did these same people said in their sage manner that those countries "were asking for it?"

My guess is no...

Why not?

Because these other countries don't have an aggressive foreign policy like the US?

Believe me, I don't agree with anyone who says "we were asking for it", but the US's foreign policy with respect to Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East does incite terrorism. When we support dictators and oppressive governments, it generally doesn't make people happy.

tramper
8th July 2004, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by Cleon
Bush would invade Iran.

As this scenario is happening on his watch could he / the US actualy do that, tactically, finacialy, politicaly.

would there be a state of emergency with the cancellation of the forthcoming election ? Who would run things,

would he willingly or not have to step down or radically change policy as the price of a new coalition or UN support ?

Would not Iran be prepared for this attack as Iraq never was and noted the tactics which were used against her neighbor, maybe opening a second front invading Iraq before US reinforcements could be put in place, leaving the US having to take Baghdad again, destroying Iraq's and possibly Saud's capacity to produce and export oil with preemptive missile strikes and bombing raids and carrying out terrorist attacks in the rest of the world.

It would take months to put an invasion force together, what would happen to the stock market and oil prices in that time,
would not Al Queda , the Taliban and every other would be terriorist group not jump on the bandwaggon.

would Bush................. invade Iran ?

Mike B.
8th July 2004, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Nasarius


Because these other countries don't have an aggressive foreign policy like the US?

Believe me, I don't agree with anyone who says "we were asking for it", but the US's foreign policy with respect to Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East does incite terrorism. When we support dictators and oppressive governments, it generally doesn't make people happy.

This is begging the question.

IF it is the US policy that is inciting these people to terrorism that does not explain why they target all these other countries?

To me this is highly selective decontructionism...

BTW, there is all kinds of terrorism all over the world for all kinds of causes (i.e. Tamil seperatists in Sri Lanka). Again where is the "sage" advice saying that Sri Lanka brought this on themselves.

richardm
8th July 2004, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Mike B.

BTW, there is all kinds of terrorism all over the world for all kinds of causes (i.e. Tamil seperatists in Sri Lanka). Again where is the "sage" advice saying that Sri Lanka brought this on themselves.

The Tamil Tigers are actually Sri Lankans themselves... similarly, the IRA are British (well, some of 'em still are), and the Basque Separatists are Spanish.

The difference is that in the case of the USA the terrorists came from their countries to attack another one, which is not a common state of affairs for terrorists (or is it?) and implies a failure of foreign policy.

In the other cases I cited, of course, it's a failure of domestic policy :p