The New 9/11

[margrace]

George Bush?

Ha Ha thanks for my laugh for the day

[Guest American Woman]

They've had almost seven years, what's keeping them?

Same thing that kept them between the first WTC bombing and the 9-11 attack, perhaps. But I still think the magnitude of the attack on 9-11 wasn't 'planned.' How many people watching on TV thought the towers were going to collapse? I sure didn't, and likely those who planned it and carried it out didn't think so either.

Having said that, I find the original question in poor taste and I don't foresee anyone asking 'So how long do you think it will be before another transit bomb terrorist attack against the United Kingdom? It's not like they've stopped the Al-Qaeda or won the war in Iraq or Afghanistan. WHat do you think the response will be if and when it happens again?'

Any western nation could be hit by a terrorist attack since the western world has been threatened by al Qaeda, and as has already been pointed out, other nations have also been hit.

[eyeball]

WHat do you think the response will be if and when it happens again?

In addition to responding badly to an attack the west will also continue to incite more of the same. It can't seem to help itself.

Going home or not interfering in the affairs of others really is the best option. Nobody's attacked countries like Iceland, or New Zealand, ever wonder why?

[Wilber]

BTW, the Madrid bombing was in March 2004 and the London bombings were in july 2005. That's three years, not seven.

The OP specified the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not funny when they have already experienced an earthquake in Indianapolis and 100 people are dead this year for tornadoes in the US.

That's just business as usual.....based on your post vis-a-vis "god", to ignore what happened in China and Burma just demonstrates the degree to which some wish to just hang a rap on the United States.

Edited May 25, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

...Any western nation could be hit by a terrorist attack since the western world has been threatened by al Qaeda, and as has already been pointed out, other nations have also been hit.

True....but some people really want the US "hit" again, and in a big way for political reasons (i.e. to demonstrate that current policy is folly...better to give Al Qaeda or the Taliban a big hug per Jack Layton).

[margrace]

True....but some people really want the US "hit" again, and in a big way for political reasons (i.e. to demonstrate that current policy is folly...better to give Al Qaeda or the Taliban a big hug per Jack Layton).

No one that I know wants to relive the horror of 9/11 thats just a lot of BS

[margrace]

That's just business as usual.....based on your post vis-a-vis "god", to ignore what happened in China and Burma just demonstrates the degree to which some wish to just hang a rap on the United States.

What a crass and nasty remark, we must all remember that our time is coming and probably much worse than Katrina, why would we get off scot free.

[bush_cheney2004]

What a crass and nasty remark, we must all remember that our time is coming and probably much worse than Katrina, why would we get off scot free.

The entire OP is a crass and nasty remark....but perfectly acceptable as long as 'Merkins are getting "what they deserve". About 1500 people died from Katrina....the US has suffered far worse in the past.

[Moonlight Graham]

The recent Burma and China disasters kinda puts 9/11 into perspective, doesn't it? All sad and tragic, but it could have been much worse. But i guess 1 tragic death is tragic enough.

[Remiel]

The OP asked what the response to the next 9/11 would be. I think a better topic for debate would be what the response to the next 9/11 should be.

Of course, that kind of presupposes that there will be another 9/11 level attack in the next few decades, but as an academic excercise I think we can overlook getting into a meta discussion on presupposition.

[Guest American Woman]

The OP asked what the response to the next 9/11 would be. I think a better topic for debate would be what the response to the next 9/11 should be.

The same debate could have been presented as 'what should have been the response to 9-11?' The opening post clearly states that, in the poster's opinion, the response to 9-11 isn't working, so 'what should it have been' would have been a logical question-- not a guessing game as to 'how long we think it will be until the next one.' :angry: That is crass and nasty and changes the tone of the thread entirely.

Of course, that kind of presupposes that there will be another 9/11 level attack in the next few decades, but as an academic excercise I think we can overlook getting into a meta discussion on presupposition.

The opening post in this thread hardly comes across as "an academic exercise."

Edited May 26, 2008 by American Woman

[Remiel]

Crass and nasty? Please do not take me as meaning that another large scale terrorist attack (or attack of any kind, really) is something to look forward to, but when you look at questions in the view of the long run, it almost becomes inevitable that something bad will happen some day. It always does. Whether it is next year, next decade or next century, I am merely guessing that it will not be never.

In any case, I will get back to you on what my opinion is on what should of happened the first time, but I do not have the luxury of the time for a thoughtful response at the moment.

[Guest American Woman]

Crass and nasty? Please do not take me as meaning that another large scale terrorist attack (or attack of any kind, really) is something to look forward to, but when you look at questions in the view of the long run, it almost becomes inevitable that something bad will happen some day. It always does. Whether it is next year, next decade or next century, I am merely guessing that it will not be never.

I wasn't referring to your response, but to the original post in this thread; however, I do appreciate your response/clarification. But regarding my point, what would the response have been if I had started a thread similarly asking people to guess when Canada will be attacked:

So how long do you think it will be before there's a deadly terrorist attack against Canada? It's not like Canada is winning in Afghanistan or doing anything to prevent terrorism. What do you think the response will be when and if it happens?

Do you think that would have been perceived as an "academic exercise?" Or do you think Canadians would have seen it otherwise?

In any case, I will get back to you on what my opinion is on what should of happened the first time, but I do not have the luxury of the time for a thoughtful response at the moment.

Note that the original post doesn't state any opinions as to what should be done either. Seems to me if one is going to legitimately raise the question, one should also offer their own opinion. As it stands, I see it nothing more than 'creating conflict without contributing anything useful.'

Edited May 26, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

Let me reciprocate with a spelling tip for you: "eradicate" does not have to Rs, "error" does, as in "America made an error in electing George W. Bush".

Here's another spelling tip

to

too

two

[GostHacked]

True....but some people really want the US "hit" again, and in a big way for political reasons (i.e. to demonstrate that current policy is folly...better to give Al Qaeda or the Taliban a big hug per Jack Layton).

It does not matter if there will be another terror attack on the US homeland soil. It will get spinned either way.

If it does not happen : SEE?? our policies are working

If it does happen : SEE?? We need to step up our policies.

Either way it will be spun. Either way it will provide the next administration with anything they need to continue the falacy that is the War on Terror.

[bush_cheney2004]

Either way it will be spun. Either way it will provide the next administration with anything they need to continue the falacy that is the War on Terror.

But they don't need a fallacy to continue....did you think that the WoT was going to stop on inauguration day if a new "event" is not forthcoming?

[GostHacked]

But they don't need a fallacy to continue....did you think that the WoT was going to stop on inauguration day if a new "event" is not forthcoming?

No they don't, but without it, it becomes harder for the powers that be to go forth with the plan. Without 9/11, Iraq/Afghanistan would have been the toughest sell ever. There will have to be a new 9/11 for the next stage of their plan to be executed. And considering the War on Terror is an absolute fallacy to begin with. Yes, fallacy will continue.

[bush_cheney2004]

No they don't, but without it, it becomes harder for the powers that be to go forth with the plan. Without 9/11, Iraq/Afghanistan would have been the toughest sell ever. There will have to be a new 9/11 for the next stage of their plan to be executed. And considering the War on Terror is an absolute fallacy to begin with. Yes, fallacy will continue.

No it doesn't...the only real constraint is cost. Iran's nuclear aspirations are not a fallacy, but I guess they will just have to do. The "truth" is so boring!

Edited May 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

No they don't, but without it, it becomes harder for the powers that be to go forth with the plan. Without 9/11, Iraq/Afghanistan would have been the toughest sell ever. There will have to be a new 9/11 for the next stage of their plan to be executed. And considering the War on Terror is an absolute fallacy to begin with. Yes, fallacy will continue.

I agree, and sometime into the near future we may find out the whole truth about 9/11 and what part Cheney/Bush played in it plus other Americans. Just look at the politicans and former politicans who have made money off this"war on terror" scheme!

[Remiel]

But regarding my point, what would the response have been if I had started a thread similarly asking people to guess when Canada will be attacked:

So how long do you think it will be before there's a deadly terrorist attack against Canada? It's not like Canada is winning in Afghanistan or doing anything to prevent terrorism. What do you think the response will be when and if it happens?

Do you think that would have been perceived as an "academic exercise?" Or do you think Canadians would have seen it otherwise?

Perhaps you are right that it may not have been perceived as an academic exercise.

But, to show at least that I am sporting in discussing the possibilities, I will say that I think that while there is a distinctly lower chance that Canada will be attacked at any given point of time, I would not be terribly surprised if we were. At least as long as we are making ourselves known in the Middle East, there is always the possibility that some nationalistic or fundamentalist organization will decide to attack, like chopping off the CN Tower or some other large, well populated symbol. If it does happen, I do not believe that the optimal response will be one involving the invasion of another country, unless it could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were directly responsible and that neutralizing them would not create more favourable conditions for terrorist recruiters.

I suppose that it is probable that I feel differently in the heat of the moment, but I would hope that there is someone there to remind me that I too believe that cooler heads should prevail, and that I have said as much in the past.

[Topaz]

I listened to a video about 2-3 months ago which was made by the leader of the Taliban and he said that this spring they will step up their attacks on the Canadians until they leave. He said they harbor no hatred to Canadians except for the fact that Canadians are in their country fighting. The Americans military was different matter and opinion. I think Harper has make a big mistake by keeping Canadians troops there and one he may pay for in the next election.

[bush_cheney2004]

I listened to a video about 2-3 months ago which was made by the leader of the Taliban and he said that this spring they will step up their attacks on the Canadians until they leave. He said they harbor no hatred to Canadians except for the fact that Canadians are in their country fighting. The Americans military was different matter and opinion. I think Harper has make a big mistake by keeping Canadians troops there and one he may pay for in the next election.

Hmmm...funny, but I watched a video several years ago and this leading Taliban dude said he was really mad at Canadians more than the Americans because Canada was not attacked yet they joined the Yankee infidel dogs. Still, I think PM Harper will be just fine in the next election....he is not a member of the party that sent them there to begin with.

From 2006....

OTTAWA -- An elusive, one-legged Taliban commander has threatened to "wreak vengeance" upon Canadian troops in Afghanistan if they don't withdraw, according to a new translation of a recent interview with the commander by an Arab satellite network.

Ottawa - The al-Qaeda network has threatened Canada with terrorist attacks if Ottawa fails to withdraw its troops deployed in Afghanistan, the National Post reported on Saturday.

The threat was issued by a member of the al-Qaeda information and strategy committee, Hossam Abdul Raouf, in a document written in July, the Toronto newspaper paper said.

Edited May 26, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

I listened to a video about 2-3 months ago which was made by the leader of the Taliban and he said that this spring they will step up their attacks on the Canadians until they leave. He said they harbor no hatred to Canadians except for the fact that Canadians are in their country fighting. The Americans military was different matter and opinion. I think Harper has make a big mistake by keeping Canadians troops there and one he may pay for in the next election.

I'd love a link to that video! Do you honestly believe that the Taliban has no hatred towards Canada; that it's just a little inconsequential thing in the minds of the Taliban that "Canadians are in their country fighting?"

This is from June of last year:

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

"These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places," Dadullah says on the tape. "Why shouldn't we go after them?"

And do you recall what the wife of one of the suspected terrorists arrested in Canada had to say? "We hate Canada." And she lives in Canada. According to the National Post, the suspected "homegrown" Canadian extremists arrested by the RCMP in Toronto on June 2 [2006] were allegedly motivated partly by their anger over Afghanistan.

Regarding the threat made in 2006 b_c04 referred to: "Despite the strong, increasing opposition to spread its forces in the fire of South Afghanistan, it seems that they [Canada] will not learn the lesson easily," Hossam Abdul Raouf writes.

"They will either be forced to withdraw their forces or face an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah." No hatred there, eh? Even "the hatred the Canadian people harbour towards the Americans" (link) doesn't seem to be sparing Canada from threats.

Edited May 27, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

I'd love a link to that video! Do you honestly believe that the Taliban has no hatred towards Canada; that it's just a little inconsequential thing in the minds of the Taliban that "Canadians are in their country fighting?"

This is from June of last year:

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

The tape shows Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, whose brother was killed by the U.S. last month, introducing and congratulating each team as they stood.

"These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places," Dadullah says on the tape. "Why shouldn't we go after them?"

And do you recall what the wife of one of the suspected terrorists arrested in Canada had to say? "We hate Canada." And she lives in Canada. According to the National Post, the suspected "homegrown" Canadian extremists arrested by the RCMP in Toronto on June 2 [2006] were allegedly motivated partly by their anger over Afghanistan.

Regarding the threat made in 2006 b_c04 referred to: "Despite the strong, increasing opposition to spread its forces in the fire of South Afghanistan, it seems that they [Canada] will not learn the lesson easily," Hossam Abdul Raouf writes.

"They will either be forced to withdraw their forces or face an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah." No hatred there, eh? Even "the hatred the Canadian people harbour towards the Americans" (link) doesn't seem to be sparing Canada from threats.

Firstly we had better fire the judges that release people like that Muslim fanatic immigrant guest that attempted to disembowel an innocent young woman standing at a bus stop in Toronto a couple of weeks ago...I would say that this Muslim nut is a terrorist..and so is the flake judge that only gave him a couple of years last time he did a random gut stabbing of one of our women...Yes - our women...not politically correct...so what - they come into our nation and stick a big knife into the guts of a female that could be your mother - daughter or sister or wife...better take care of our own terror problems domestically before we go off chasing ghosts like that dummie Chaney and his buddy Bush did.