PDA

View Full Version : Results of New Major Terrorist Attack


Thunder
7th May 2007, 03:00 PM
The 9-11 deniars believe that a false flag attack of some kind is coming. Be it nuclear, dirty-bomb, tidle wave, etc.

But Neo-cons and right-wingers are also arguing that the possibility of another major muslem extremist attack is high in the next few years (which I sorta agree with).

So what would happen in the USA if a nuke blew up in Boston, or a dirty bomb in Chicago, or a string of suicide attacks on the NY Subway?

Would there be martial law? Naa. Young urban Muslems get rounded up en mass? Possibly. National ID card enforced? Possible.

9-11 Truthers get sent to a FEMA camp in Walla Walla?..God I hope so. :D

boloboffin
7th May 2007, 03:11 PM
If there were a major terrorist attack in the United States, anything close to the success of the 9/11 attacks, the war in Iraq would be over, IMHO. An core support of the current administration's rationale for that war would fail utterly - taking the fight to them to keep the fight over there. It would be the asymmetrical equivalent of the Tet Offensive.

And that's why Al-Qaeda will keep the attacks out of America. They want us there.

Actually, it's win-win for them. We stay there and get picked off one by one, they win the recruitment battle. We leave, they win. Al-Zawahiri said it the other day - keep America in Iraq. Another al-Qaeda leaders has called for a third Bush term. America caught in a Sunni-Shiite civil war? The Kurds threatening to destabilize Turkey further? Al-Qaeda couldn't be happier. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Thunder
7th May 2007, 03:17 PM
Good point. A new major attack in the USA would end the Iraq war, unless it could be linked to Hezbollah, which would lead to an attack on Iran. But if Al Qaeda is blaimed...we will really have no one to retaliate against.

Iraq may indeed become Al Qaeda's greatest victory. 3,500 dead American soldiers.

rtalman
7th May 2007, 03:28 PM
If there were a major terrorist attack in the United States, anything close to the success of the 9/11 attacks, the war in Iraq would be over, IMHO. An core support of the current administration's rationale for that war would fail utterly - taking the fight to them to keep the fight over there. It would be the asymmetrical equivalent of the Tet Offensive.

And that's why Al-Qaeda will keep the attacks out of America. They want us there.

Actually, it's win-win for them. We stay there and get picked off one by one, they win the recruitment battle. We leave, they win. Al-Zawahiri said it the other day - keep America in Iraq. Another al-Qaeda leaders has called for a third Bush term. America caught in a Sunni-Shiite civil war? The Kurds threatening to destabilize Turkey further? Al-Qaeda couldn't be happier. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.Al-Qaeda is not the sum total of all Islamic terrorism in the world, nor are Islamic Jihadists the only possible perpetrators. There is also the possibility that some other group could get a notion.

Would there be martial law?
NIMO. Maybe curfews and restrictions on a city by city basis, but not nationwide martial law for a singular large or multiple small terrorist attacks.
Young urban Muslems get rounded up en mass?a) Lincoln was found by SCOTUS to be in the wrong when he suspended Habeas Corpus. No president elected today would dare cross that boundary, IMO.
b) There are still those that remember Japanese internment during WWII, and would riot in the streets to prevent that happening again.
National ID card enforced?I think the ACLU and the immigration lobby would nip that in the bud.

hellaeon
7th May 2007, 04:18 PM
Its typically doomsayer crap. Its easy to shout out something that has a good chance of happening, then say 'I told you! its all a vast evil plan! now do you believe all my lies?'

Where were all these terrorist apologetics...I mean....doomsayers before 9/11?

Hokulele
7th May 2007, 04:19 PM
Where were all these terrorist apologetics...I mean....doomsayers before 9/11?


Nursery school.

Thunder
7th May 2007, 04:29 PM
Possiblt right. London was bombed to hell during WW2 but they didn't initiate martial law in Great Britain.

jhunter1163
7th May 2007, 04:31 PM
If someone detonated a suitcase nuke in the US, someone somewhere would get some megatons dropped on them. American public opinion would demand it. Whoever was President would probably be impeached if they didn't nuke someone back.

Thunder
7th May 2007, 04:47 PM
I somewhat disagree. I think if 9-11 was a nuclear attack, we would have demanded some Muslem city somewhere got nuked. But now that we all know Al Qaeda is a pretty independant player and has no state sponsor, if they did actually nuke an American city, it would be hard to say who if anyone should be nuked in retaliation.

The Great Hairy One
7th May 2007, 06:27 PM
9-11 Truthers get sent to a FEMA camp in Walla Walla?..God I hope so. :D


Walla Walla??? We don't want 'em!

Cheers,
TGHO

boloboffin
7th May 2007, 06:34 PM
Walla Walla??? We don't want 'em!

Cheers,
TGHO

Pipe down and buy stock in patchouli. ;)

WildCat
7th May 2007, 06:40 PM
Possiblt right. London was bombed to hell during WW2 but they didn't initiate martial law in Great Britain.
Why would matial law be declared during a war with an external enemy? That's what you do when there's internal conflict, and IIRC Britain did in fact have full-blown martial law (well "emergency law") in Ireland in the 1920's, and in Northern Ireland in 1973.

WildCat
7th May 2007, 06:42 PM
I somewhat disagree. I think if 9-11 was a nuclear attack, we would have demanded some Muslem city somewhere got nuked. But now that we all know Al Qaeda is a pretty independant player and has no state sponsor, if they did actually nuke an American city, it would be hard to say who if anyone should be nuked in retaliation.
Building a nuke requires the resources and cooperation of a state player, the suspect list is a short one.

Brainache
7th May 2007, 06:45 PM
Walla Walla??? We don't want 'em!

Cheers,
TGHO

He said Walla Walla not Wagga Wagga.

The Great Hairy One
7th May 2007, 06:52 PM
He said Walla Walla not Wagga Wagga.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walla_Walla%2C_New_South_Wales

It's the NWO HQ in Australia mate - it's even got a church of Zion!!!!! ;)

Cheers,
TGHO

Brainache
7th May 2007, 06:55 PM
I somewhat disagree. I think if 9-11 was a nuclear attack, we would have demanded some Muslem city somewhere got nuked. But now that we all know Al Qaeda is a pretty independant player and has no state sponsor, if they did actually nuke an American city, it would be hard to say who if anyone should be nuked in retaliation.

I think you may be over estimating the rationality of the general public. If a terrorist nuke went off anywhere in the states people would be baying for blood. I don't think people would even wait to investigate who was responsible, they would be out in the streets demanding a nuclear strike on those mountains in Afghanistan.

I think there would be a significant minority of cooler heads speaking against it, but I believe they would be shouted down just like the people who warned against going into Iraq.

I hope none of this ever happens, but I just can't see cooler heads prevailing in the current political climate.

Just my opinion, as always.

Brainache
7th May 2007, 07:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walla_Walla%2C_New_South_Wales

It's the NWO HQ in Australia mate - it's even got a church of Zion!!!!! ;)

Cheers,
TGHO

OK. Never heard of it. Population 590. Those NWO blokes sure know how to keep a secret.
I thought he was talking about Walla Walla Washington, one of the places I plan to visit if I ever go to the US, along with Cucamonga and Medicine Hat.

The Great Hairy One
7th May 2007, 07:02 PM
OK. Never heard of it. Population 590. Those NWO blokes sure know how to keep a secret.
I thought he was talking about Walla Walla Washington, one of the places I plan to visit if I ever go to the US, along with Cucamonga and Medicine Hat.


He probably thought he was - the disinfo agents are on the top of their game right now. :p

Cheers,
TGHO

gumboot
7th May 2007, 07:26 PM
It's an interesting question...

Nuke someone?

What if the terrorists came from London? Or Florida? (Al Qaeda seems to be pushing for the "home grown" terrorist thing).

I personally can't see a nuclear strike coming. I'm not sure Al Qaeda are that stupid. It would be the end of terrorism.

Seriously. Think about it.

A nuclear strike in somewhere like NYC would literally kills millions of people. After that, every government in the world would be against terrorism. Remember post-9/11? Remember how easy it was to form a coalition to go into Afghanistan? Remember how easy it was to get UN approval?

Now multiply that by ten thousand.


I thought boloboffin raised a good point:



And that's why Al-Qaeda will keep the attacks out of America. They want us there.

Actually, it's win-win for them. We stay there and get picked off one by one, they win the recruitment battle. We leave, they win. Al-Zawahiri said it the other day - keep America in Iraq. Another al-Qaeda leaders has called for a third Bush term.


The irony here, of course, is it's actually better for the USA to stay in Iraq for precisely the same reason.

US casualties in Iraq are pretty small - in fact the death rate is well below the national mortality rate.

But as bolboffin points out, as long as US troops are in Iraq Al Qaeda won't strike in the USA. And wasn't that the point of sending the army overseas? To prevent attacks on US citizens at home? Isn't that the military's job? To act as a shield for their nation?

Secondly, this war has been the best thing for the US military since Vietnam.

With any skill, you only improve by doing it. The same goes for war.

Countries that don't fight wars lose their edge. The USA hasn't fought a serious war since Vietnam. They had an entire generation of soldiers without real combat experience. Senior officers who served in Vietnam are retiring.

But now, a good chunk of not only the regular force, but the National Guard/Reserve now have experience in the most nasty kind of warfare - urban combat.

Consider Chechnya. One reason it went on so long was the Russians used it as a training ground. They could have sent in their best units at any point, and crushed the resistance. They didn't. Instead they'd send in their freshest newly trained troops. The result? Valuable lessons, and an entire army with combat experience.

This is important for the USA.

Superpowers do not stay that way forever. Some day someone will challenge the USA's supremacy. If the USA wants to maintain what it has, it will have to fight for it. And it will need every edge it can get. Stealth bombers and guided missiles won't be enough. They'll need experienced and skilled grunts. Iraq gives them that, in spades.

-Gumboot

MG1962
7th May 2007, 07:33 PM
OK. Never heard of it. Population 590. Those NWO blokes sure know how to keep a secret.
I thought he was talking about Walla Walla Washington, one of the places I plan to visit if I ever go to the US, along with Cucamonga and Medicine Hat.

Off course what you cant see in that photo is the 37 million cubic yards of rock excavated under that church the NWO company car park

rtalman
8th May 2007, 08:07 AM
OK. Never heard of it. Population 590. Those NWO blokes sure know how to keep a secret.
I thought he was talking about Walla Walla Washington, one of the places I plan to visit if I ever go to the US, along with Cucamonga and Medicine Hat.While you are in Washington, take the time to drive out to Humptulips. Self-described as being in the "heart of Washington's Banana Belt" it is noted for being the rainiest city in Washington State.:plankton: