Poll: Do you think the Homeland will be attacked before the elections? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

blue_man_1234 · 08-06-2004, 02:43 PM

Did a search and it did not look like this has been posted before. With all the information we have been getting from the news and the governments warnings of late, I am just wondering what people in general are thinking?
If so, what do see as our biggest weakness? Who can fix it, Bush or Kerry?

nanofever · 08-06-2004, 03:20 PM

No, I doubt an attack would come regardless of what the color scale shows or what Ridge says in a press conference. America's biggest weakness is its intelligence agencies having pissing contests with each other. If an attack does come, it won't be a major building but something along the lines of really scaring Middle America. I would put my money on something like bombing several small, mid-western daycare buildings. That attack would be an excellent way of striking terror into families which rely on daycare. Attacking major infrastructure points like the fedex shipping centers in newark and okland would also be a really good idea to cripple business. Those would be my worries if an attack were to happen on American soil, not a building on the East coast with a swat team at every entrance.

Also, I refuse to refer to America as the "homeland" since it reeks of jingoism.

blue_man_1234 · 08-06-2004, 03:45 PM

Homeland was only used to mock the gov't choice of naming conventions....should have said "Homeland".

hannukah harry · 08-06-2004, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
No, I doubt an attack would come regardless of what the color scale shows or what Ridge says in a press conference. America's biggest weakness is its intelligence agencies having pissing contests with each other. If an attack does come, it won't be a major building but something along the lines of really scaring Middle America. I would put my money on something like bombing several small, mid-western daycare buildings. That attack would be an excellent way of striking terror into families which rely on daycare. Attacking major infrastructure points like the fedex shipping centers in newark and okland would also be a really good idea to cripple business. Those would be my worries if an attack were to happen on American soil, not a building on the East coast with a swat team at every entrance.

Also, I refuse to refer to America as the "homeland" since it reeks of jingoism.

i voted no because i doubt a major attack before the election. technically, someone placing a suicide bomb would count as an attack, but something like that couldn't really be prevented anyways. so no major attack, i think.

and yeah, calling it the "homeland" just reminds me of calling nazi germany the "fatherland" and communist russia the "motherland."

sailor · 08-06-2004, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hannukah harry
and yeah, calling it the "homeland" just reminds me of calling nazi germany the "fatherland" and communist russia the "motherland."

Me too, its always the first thing I think of when I hear "Homeland Security".

MSD · 08-06-2004, 09:26 PM

Bush knows that his biggest campaign issue is keeping us safe after 9/11. He will continue to prove this by doing everything in his power to prevent anything to interfere with the election, even if it means deploying federal agents or the national guard to keep our pollling places safe. In addition to keeping us safe for the sake of dioing the right thing, he knows that an attack could cost him the election.

Tophat665 · 08-07-2004, 06:16 AM

<garb hat="tinfoil">I think that there will be an attack in October if Karl Rove himself has to strap the dynamite to his body. (Of course, he'd find some Idaho militia wingnut to do it for him, but you get the point.)</garb>

Honestly, though, I think if al-Quaeda doesn't attack in October, Bush is in real trouble, so there will be at the very least a red terror alert, and possibly the appearance (true or not) of a terrorist attack, most likely foiled.

Failing that bin-Laden will be produced in October.

FoolThemAll · 08-07-2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nanofever
Also, I refuse to refer to America as the "homeland" since it reeks of jingoism.

ahahahahahahahaha

Um, oh yeah, I don't really think an attack will happen before the election. That isn't a strong feeling, though.

roachboy · 08-07-2004, 06:48 AM

can i just say how much i dislike the word "homeland"--heimat--too close...

08-08-2004, 09:39 AM

Possibly-
from the recent headlines and articles I've read (including today's MSN...) The govt. doesn't sound so confident and sure. They feel that they may strike before Nov. 2 and that the terrorists may already BE in the US! WTF- I thought we were more secure and safe and now this shit....aren't we to feel more confident about homeland security now that it's "tightened"? Sure seems like they try to keep us on our toes and confused......

highthief · 08-08-2004, 09:48 AM

Where are all the people who voted yes???

ARTelevision · 08-08-2004, 09:52 AM

I am very comfortable with the term "homeland" as it refers to a nation that has been my good home and which I have a great deal of affection for.

That being said, I am convinced many potential attacks have already been stopped by excellent investigative work by excellent individuals, teams, and organizations. As the aphorism goes: the terrorists only have to get it "right" once.

What do I think the possibility is of one of their nightmarish plots succeeding here? I don't gamble and odds are meaningless to me. When I don't know something - I don't know it. I act in accord with my knowledge, nothing else.

matteo101 · 08-08-2004, 11:02 AM

I highly doubt that terrorists will strike, so i voted no. But there is always a chance, just like with everything.

Kadath · 08-09-2004, 05:04 AM

I'm glad I am far from the only one who cringed at the (admittedly sarcastic) use of "Homeland."

onetime2 · 08-09-2004, 05:45 AM

I voted no for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the terrorists aren't stupid. A failed attack actually gives people a boost in their feelings of safety. Number one priority in any attack is to successfully carry it off. The likelihood of success, as we near the election, gets smaller as security is stepped up.

Second, when people are expecting an attack you need to carry it out on a massive level to instill a significant level of terror. If people shrug it off with a "I knew they would" you're only helping people to become accustomed to the act(s) and future attacks will need to be even more massive to garner the same attention.

Third, the attack will have to be clearly a terrorist action or the government and press will play it off as an accident or a case of a single lunatic. For terror to blossom it needs attention. Attention from the media, attention from the public, and attention from the government(s) it's trying to influence.

hannukah harry · 08-09-2004, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Second, when people are expecting an attack you need to carry it out on a massive level to instill a significant level of terror. If people shrug it off with a "I knew they would" you're only helping people to become accustomed to the act(s) and future attacks will need to be even more massive to garner the same attention.

heh, i guess they kinda screwed themselves by starting with 9/11. taht should have been more of a finale then the opening shot. it's kinda hard to top that without getting their hands on nukes.

balderdash111 · 08-09-2004, 08:34 AM

I voted yes, but I think it would be a strategic mistake for them to do it.

I vote yes b/c notwithstanding all the security theater we can see in our daily lives, the reality is this:

we are still very unsecure.

Look around you: private aircraft, shipping, trucking, large crowds of people, unrestricted access to trains and subways... there are dozens of easy ways to attack this country, especially - and this is important - if you don't care about giving your life to take others, and especially if you can recruit people with clean records to carry out the operation.

The reality is this: unless we dramatically restructure the way our society works, attacks will always be fairly easy.

I think it would be a strategic mistake for anyone to carry out an attack for the reasons implictly expressed above: I think an attack would strenghten Bush's reelection campaign, not weaken it.

prosequence · 08-09-2004, 09:15 AM

Yes, if Bush plans to actually win an election, he needs to have another terrotist attack happen. You know... "To strengthen the resolve of the American people and our fight against ...blah blah blah".
How close to the vote date will be a strategic decision.

As far as "Homeland", I think the term would be more suiting for a country that oppresses a country or people with military power and then justifies it by saying it will be good for the nation and all races in general. Not America.

Stompy · 08-09-2004, 09:31 AM

I personally don't know of one single person who is honestly "afraid" of these terror attacks.

I think the media hypes it and makes it more of a big deal than it really is.

Sure, 9/11 sucked, but it wasn't really scary. If it happened more frequently, then maybe I could see people getting scared, but right now chances of a terrorist attack aren't that great.

First off, they won't be using planes again, so I find it very comical that we're focusing all of our attention to airports and airport security. I mean, it needs to be there, but while we're all gawking in that direction, there's another avenue completely unsecure and open for the taking.

And I agree with hannukah harry. If their next "attack" is some kind of small suicide bomb, then that's gonna look pretty silly and minisucule compared to 9/11. Short of using a nuke or coordinating an attack in MANY major cities at once, their follow up threats won't scare many.

Now that I think about it, people freak the fuck out whenever the media hypes up these "terrorists might attack" notices, so they probably would get scared even though there's absolutely no reason to.

I dunno, but in any case, these terrorists are a lot of talk and not enough follow through. They use 9/11 as a crutch simply because they happened to get lucky enough to pull it off, so they constantly babble off about "Our next attack is coming soon!" and always fail to produce results... much like 3D Realms and Duke Nukem Forever. It's all part of their game. Personally, whenever I hear another tape of them talking about how their next attack will make 9/11 look like nothing, I kinda yawn and utter a "yeah yeah.. we've heard THAT before.."

Also, people give terrorists too much credit. If they aren't stupid, then why did they attack the WTC and kill 3000 people as opposed to slamming into a nuclear power plant and contaminating land near millions more? Considering we were blindsided and the public had no concept of "terrorist atttacks" before hand, they could've gotten away with a LOT more. They're very sloppy and were EXTREMELY lucky that they even got 9/11 to happen. (At least, that's my take on them from what I've seen in the media)

onetime2 · 08-09-2004, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy

Sure, 9/11 sucked, but it wasn't really scary. If it happened more frequently, then maybe I could see people getting scared, but right now chances of a terrorist attack aren't that great.

Coming from an area that lost hundreds of people in the WTC, knowing what happened in the aftermath, having relatives in and around ground zero both at the times of the attacks and in the clean up that followed, and flying out of Newark on 12/10 and flying back into Laguardia on the following Saturday when the planes were just getting back in service I will tell you that it was scary for a shitload of people.

I was at a sales gathering of nearly a thousand employees with many relatives in and around ground zero or travelling at the time of the attack. The phone lines were useless. No one on our end or on our relatives' ends knew if we were on those flights. Many just knew that we were travelling that week and didn't really know the exact itineraries. The phone lines in the Northeast were packed with calls and it took days and weeks before people were fully accounted for.

While I'm glad you weren't rattled by the attacks, millions were.

Stompy · 08-09-2004, 10:53 AM

Well, yeah, if you were RIGHT THERE at the time it happened, I'm sure it would've been scary because you simply don't know wtf is going on, but likewise with a car bomb, which is on such a smaller level.

In the grand scheme of things, a car bomb isn't jack, but had one exploded right near you, I'm sure you'd be a bit shaken. I would too.

I'm talking about long term fear and lasting effects of a terrorist attack. I see 9/11 as more of an extremely unfortunate accident on our part (lack of security) than a foreshadowing of events to come in the near future. To be running around thinking "omg, Terrorists are gonna get me" is a bit overkill.

[edit]
Personally, I'd be VERY surprised if we were attacked again in the next 5 years. I just think the media and other politicians use the subject of terrorists to further their own interests, that's all.

The govt never took the subject seriously before, but they sure as hell are now especially that the public saw first hand that we're not immune to such evens, which, in my opinion, only makes it that much more harder for such an attack to be carried out again.

Think of it this way: if someone stood up on a plane and tried to hijack it, their ass would hit the floor with a rush from shitload of angry/pissed off passengers unlike before 9/11 where people would just sit idle.

Almost any and all "suspicious activity" is accounted for more than ever (which is a double edged sword).

Charlatan · 08-09-2004, 11:42 AM

No, there will not be any attacks but yes there will be a lot of Orange Alerts... with remarkably suspicious timing.

Kadath · 08-09-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
...flying out of Newark on 12/10 and flying back into Laguardia on the following Saturday when the planes were just getting back in service I will tell you that it was scary for a shitload of people....

December tenth?

OFKU0 · 08-09-2004, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charlatan
No, there will not be any attacks but yes there will be a lot of Orange Alerts... with remarkably suspicious timing.

I think you are right about that. There are many who believe America is winning the war against terrorism and they could very well be correct in such thinking. I don't know because I'm not privy to that info.

I don't think the terrorists strictly attack just because of one man,..ie George Bush, because their jihad is against western ideology and not him per se, but I would bet they would rather have him in office other than anyone else since like many others, including Americans, they may think he is a bumbling fool. So I would say no to a pre-election attack.

Stompy · 08-09-2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
December tenth?

Heh, at that point I would've been more concerned due to the Airbus that crashed into a neighborhood not even a month prior because the tail f'n fell off... that's more of a real threat than terrorists, IMO.

santafe5000 · 08-09-2004, 07:55 PM

I said "No", but i think there will be an atttempt on NY around the Rep. convention that will be foiled before it can come to fruition. You know, like they will find the truck filled with EXP, but no people.

onetime2 · 08-10-2004, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
December tenth?

Hmmm, yeah a little typo there. Maybe I'm looking forward to Xmas too much I don't know. Should have been 9/10.

onetime2 · 08-10-2004, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
Heh, at that point I would've been more concerned due to the Airbus that crashed into a neighborhood not even a month prior because the tail f'n fell off... that's more of a real threat than terrorists, IMO.

Now that you mention that, it brings up another point.

A coworker, whose brother in law was in the second tower on 9/11, lost her sister and her niece in that crash. After their family went through the scare of not knowing whether he made it out for almost twelve hours after the attacks they decided to change their lives. They planned to move back to the Dominican Republic to be with the rest of their family. Her sister and niece were on their way there to finalize the details of the move.

Now, what do you think those people in that neighborhood were thinking as the jet came down? Do you not think there was terror beyond just the thought of a plane crash? If not, then there's little else to discuss.

I guess I'm not too surprised that people don't recognize the impact that 9/11 really had on millions of people. That fear doesn't just go away because it was a few years ago.

Stompy · 08-10-2004, 07:09 AM

It definitely changes the way most people think because they were so closed minded to the world around them. I bet you most people had NO IDEA that terrorists wanted to attack the US until 9/11. Most people just don't care.

It won't be surprising that whenever a plane crashes in the next few years that people will immediately think of terrorists. I guess it just comes w/ the territory.

I understand that there are people out there who are scared, but there's no reason to be. Like I said above, if you were actually there, then I could see being more shaken up than those who were nowhere near the site. However, to carry the fear with you months after the fact... c'mon. Understand it's there, yes, but personally, I'd be more concerned about losing my job or being a victim of crime.

Even if I had lost a loved one during the attacks, that wouldn't mold my fear of terrorists themselves. It's very unfortunate that people did lose loved ones, but I think that's pretty irrelevant when discussing the fear of terrorism.

I guess my point is... people give the terrorists more credit than they really deserve. It's my opinion that they were EXTREMELY lucky to have even gotten away with what they did on 9/11, and more people need to realize this. If they were as brilliant as everyone makes them out to be, then there would've been more frequent and grand attacks in this country.

All I'm saying is you can't go about living your live being afraid of this. Crime is more abundant and real in our communities, yet no one is afraid of that. Why not? You're way more likely to be carjacked or robbed at gunpoint than to be caught up in another terrorist attack.

It's just what they want you to think, and there's really no reason for it.

hannukah harry · 08-10-2004, 10:49 AM

but stompy, you're forgetting one thign.... (since you're mentioning odds of crime v. terrorism)...

"there's a better chance of getting killed by terrorists then a woman has of getting married after 35."

/sleepless in seattle

Bentley Little · 08-10-2004, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by blue_man_1234
Did a search and it did not look like this has been posted before. With all the information we have been getting from the news and the governments warnings of late, I am just wondering what people in general are thinking?
If so, what do see as our biggest weakness? Who can fix it, Bush or Kerry?

A think a lot of it is just a bunch of politican hooplah to get the voters to swing one way or the other and the politicians use it to their advantage.

Our biggest weakness is Bush and Kerry, especially Kerry. God, I hope he doesn't win. But at this point I think it is too close to call. Wait until we have to recount the hanginf chads.

fatdaddy411 · 08-15-2004, 11:06 PM

Is it just me, or does the name "Department of Homeland Security" smack of fascism? I could see Goebbels heading an organization with a name like that.

kurty[B] · 08-15-2004, 11:22 PM

I believe no matter what restrictions you place in the name of security someone will put the time and effort into finding a way around that system of restrictions if they really want to. Do I believe there will be an attack before voting. I think it's possible, likely, don't know.

The other problem I see, the more restrictions you place on a people in the name of safety, the more and more people will try to figure out workarounds (be it simply for the sake of saving themselves "time", or for the sake of chaos).

I do think the Bush Administration will play with the Alert system, and "possible terrorist" attacks to benefit their campaign. I'm sure they're pushing with all their resources to capture Bin Ladin, because sadly, that would be something that would easily tilt the election in Bush's favor "Look, I was successful in capturing Bin Ladin, now lets invade Iran!!!"

damianjames · 08-25-2004, 05:31 PM

I do think we will be attacked again, if nothing else but for all the chatter intelligence has uncovered lately.

Quote:

I do think the Bush Administration will play with the Alert system, and "possible terrorist" attacks to benefit their campaign. I'm sure they're pushing with all their resources to capture Bin Ladin, because sadly, that would be something that would easily tilt the election in Bush's favor "Look, I was successful in capturing Bin Ladin, now lets invade Iran!!!"

Being a staunch Republican it pains me to agree with this. I think kurty hit it on the head though. As Bill O'Reilly said, if Bin Laden is captured before the election, Bush probably has the win.

pan6467 · 08-25-2004, 07:31 PM

Call me what you will (naive, nuts...) but I don't think that an October surprise of Bin Laden would help Bush more than it would help him. People are expecting it and if it happens too many IMO would believe Bush had rigged the capture and see it as an election ploy, thus creating a backlash and allowing Kerry the win.

I do think 2 things are possible and more realistic.

1) An attack or rise in "Terror Alert" to focus on a martial law and "delay" of the elections. I've said this before and people have jumped on me saying it was unconstitutional and that we'd revolt and yada yada yada. BUT, with the GOP controlling congress it would not be unconstitutional, because the US Constitution does not name a specific date for elections. it just says, that Congress shall appoint a day on which electors shall give their votes (Article 2 Section 1).

2. A country such as Iran or Syria gets involved in Iraq and attacks our military, thus creating a much bigger war and at the time Bush looks to be taking good measures and keeping it under "control using diplomacy", showing he is "a far better wartime and diplomatic man than Kerry".

Zeld2.0 · 08-25-2004, 10:52 PM

Eh I personally doubt that Bin Laden will magically appear out of no where come October. As Pan6467 said, it would seem too 'obvious' or too 'planned' to occur.

And honestly, the one thing I find true among all Americans is that they hate to be lied to. Be it Watergate, Clinton, whatever - people want your head after something like that surfaces.

If it is clean capture, of course, nothing should go wrong - if it was planned of course, and something surfaces, then your head will be on a pike.

Anyways as to being attacked?

I voted no, but I wouldn't be surprised at either outcome. In my head though the odds are stacked for a no.

Reasons are mainly that the effect would have to be big to warrant a huge attention (these days it seems like its always "just" a bombing), it would have to actually instill fear (oh no a car bomb.. might be kids, might be terrorists, might be people angry at the IRS) and be identified clearly with a group.

View Poll Results: Do you think the Homeland will be attacked before the elections?
Yes	33	36.26%
No	58	63.74%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

08-06-2004, 02:43 PM	#1 (permalink)
blue_man_1234 Upright	Poll: Do you think the "Homeland" will be attacked before the elections? Did a search and it did not look like this has been posted before. With all the information we have been getting from the news and the governments warnings of late, I am just wondering what people in general are thinking? If so, what do see as our biggest weakness? Who can fix it, Bush or Kerry? Last edited by blue_man_1234; 08-06-2004 at 03:46 PM..

08-06-2004, 03:20 PM	#2 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	No, I doubt an attack would come regardless of what the color scale shows or what Ridge says in a press conference. America's biggest weakness is its intelligence agencies having pissing contests with each other. If an attack does come, it won't be a major building but something along the lines of really scaring Middle America. I would put my money on something like bombing several small, mid-western daycare buildings. That attack would be an excellent way of striking terror into families which rely on daycare. Attacking major infrastructure points like the fedex shipping centers in newark and okland would also be a really good idea to cripple business. Those would be my worries if an attack were to happen on American soil, not a building on the East coast with a swat team at every entrance. Also, I refuse to refer to America as the "homeland" since it reeks of jingoism. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

08-06-2004, 03:45 PM	#3 (permalink)
blue_man_1234 Upright	Homeland was only used to mock the gov't choice of naming conventions....should have said "Homeland". Last edited by blue_man_1234; 08-06-2004 at 03:47 PM..

08-07-2004, 06:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	<garb hat="tinfoil">I think that there will be an attack in October if Karl Rove himself has to strap the dynamite to his body. (Of course, he'd find some Idaho militia wingnut to do it for him, but you get the point.)</garb> Honestly, though, I think if al-Quaeda doesn't attack in October, Bush is in real trouble, so there will be at the very least a red terror alert, and possibly the appearance (true or not) of a terrorist attack, most likely foiled. Failing that bin-Laden will be produced in October. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

08-06-2004, 09:26 PM	#6 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Bush knows that his biggest campaign issue is keeping us safe after 9/11. He will continue to prove this by doing everything in his power to prevent anything to interfere with the election, even if it means deploying federal agents or the national guard to keep our pollling places safe. In addition to keeping us safe for the sake of dioing the right thing, he knows that an attack could cost him the election.

08-07-2004, 06:48 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	can i just say how much i dislike the word "homeland"--heimat--too close... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2004, 09:39 AM	#10 (permalink)
:::OshnSoul::: Guest	Possibly- from the recent headlines and articles I've read (including today's MSN...) The govt. doesn't sound so confident and sure. They feel that they may strike before Nov. 2 and that the terrorists may already BE in the US! WTF- I thought we were more secure and safe and now this shit....aren't we to feel more confident about homeland security now that it's "tightened"? Sure seems like they try to keep us on our toes and confused......

08-08-2004, 09:48 AM	#11 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Where are all the people who voted yes??? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-08-2004, 09:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I am very comfortable with the term "homeland" as it refers to a nation that has been my good home and which I have a great deal of affection for. That being said, I am convinced many potential attacks have already been stopped by excellent investigative work by excellent individuals, teams, and organizations. As the aphorism goes: the terrorists only have to get it "right" once. What do I think the possibility is of one of their nightmarish plots succeeding here? I don't gamble and odds are meaningless to me. When I don't know something - I don't know it. I act in accord with my knowledge, nothing else. __________________ create evolution

08-08-2004, 11:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
matteo101 In transition Location: north, no south abit, over to the right, getting warmer...there!	I highly doubt that terrorists will strike, so i voted no. But there is always a chance, just like with everything.

08-09-2004, 05:04 AM	#14 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I'm glad I am far from the only one who cringed at the (admittedly sarcastic) use of "Homeland." __________________ it's quiet in here

08-09-2004, 05:45 AM	#15 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I voted no for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, the terrorists aren't stupid. A failed attack actually gives people a boost in their feelings of safety. Number one priority in any attack is to successfully carry it off. The likelihood of success, as we near the election, gets smaller as security is stepped up. Second, when people are expecting an attack you need to carry it out on a massive level to instill a significant level of terror. If people shrug it off with a "I knew they would" you're only helping people to become accustomed to the act(s) and future attacks will need to be even more massive to garner the same attention. Third, the attack will have to be clearly a terrorist action or the government and press will play it off as an accident or a case of a single lunatic. For terror to blossom it needs attention. Attention from the media, attention from the public, and attention from the government(s) it's trying to influence. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

08-09-2004, 08:34 AM	#17 (permalink)
balderdash111 Psycho	I voted yes, but I think it would be a strategic mistake for them to do it. I vote yes b/c notwithstanding all the security theater we can see in our daily lives, the reality is this: we are still very unsecure. Look around you: private aircraft, shipping, trucking, large crowds of people, unrestricted access to trains and subways... there are dozens of easy ways to attack this country, especially - and this is important - if you don't care about giving your life to take others, and especially if you can recruit people with clean records to carry out the operation. The reality is this: unless we dramatically restructure the way our society works, attacks will always be fairly easy. I think it would be a strategic mistake for anyone to carry out an attack for the reasons implictly expressed above: I think an attack would strenghten Bush's reelection campaign, not weaken it.

08-09-2004, 09:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Yes, if Bush plans to actually win an election, he needs to have another terrotist attack happen. You know... "To strengthen the resolve of the American people and our fight against ...blah blah blah". How close to the vote date will be a strategic decision. As far as "Homeland", I think the term would be more suiting for a country that oppresses a country or people with military power and then justifies it by saying it will be good for the nation and all races in general. Not America. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

08-09-2004, 09:31 AM	#19 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I personally don't know of one single person who is honestly "afraid" of these terror attacks. I think the media hypes it and makes it more of a big deal than it really is. Sure, 9/11 sucked, but it wasn't really scary. If it happened more frequently, then maybe I could see people getting scared, but right now chances of a terrorist attack aren't that great. First off, they won't be using planes again, so I find it very comical that we're focusing all of our attention to airports and airport security. I mean, it needs to be there, but while we're all gawking in that direction, there's another avenue completely unsecure and open for the taking. And I agree with hannukah harry. If their next "attack" is some kind of small suicide bomb, then that's gonna look pretty silly and minisucule compared to 9/11. Short of using a nuke or coordinating an attack in MANY major cities at once, their follow up threats won't scare many. Now that I think about it, people freak the fuck out whenever the media hypes up these "terrorists might attack" notices, so they probably would get scared even though there's absolutely no reason to. I dunno, but in any case, these terrorists are a lot of talk and not enough follow through. They use 9/11 as a crutch simply because they happened to get lucky enough to pull it off, so they constantly babble off about "Our next attack is coming soon!" and always fail to produce results... much like 3D Realms and Duke Nukem Forever. It's all part of their game. Personally, whenever I hear another tape of them talking about how their next attack will make 9/11 look like nothing, I kinda yawn and utter a "yeah yeah.. we've heard THAT before.." Also, people give terrorists too much credit. If they aren't stupid, then why did they attack the WTC and kill 3000 people as opposed to slamming into a nuclear power plant and contaminating land near millions more? Considering we were blindsided and the public had no concept of "terrorist atttacks" before hand, they could've gotten away with a LOT more. They're very sloppy and were EXTREMELY lucky that they even got 9/11 to happen. (At least, that's my take on them from what I've seen in the media) __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 08-09-2004 at 09:45 AM..

08-09-2004, 10:53 AM	#21 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Well, yeah, if you were RIGHT THERE at the time it happened, I'm sure it would've been scary because you simply don't know wtf is going on, but likewise with a car bomb, which is on such a smaller level. In the grand scheme of things, a car bomb isn't jack, but had one exploded right near you, I'm sure you'd be a bit shaken. I would too. I'm talking about long term fear and lasting effects of a terrorist attack. I see 9/11 as more of an extremely unfortunate accident on our part (lack of security) than a foreshadowing of events to come in the near future. To be running around thinking "omg, Terrorists are gonna get me" is a bit overkill. [edit] Personally, I'd be VERY surprised if we were attacked again in the next 5 years. I just think the media and other politicians use the subject of terrorists to further their own interests, that's all. The govt never took the subject seriously before, but they sure as hell are now especially that the public saw first hand that we're not immune to such evens, which, in my opinion, only makes it that much more harder for such an attack to be carried out again. Think of it this way: if someone stood up on a plane and tried to hijack it, their ass would hit the floor with a rush from shitload of angry/pissed off passengers unlike before 9/11 where people would just sit idle. Almost any and all "suspicious activity" is accounted for more than ever (which is a double edged sword). __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 08-09-2004 at 11:06 AM..

08-09-2004, 11:42 AM	#22 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	No, there will not be any attacks but yes there will be a lot of Orange Alerts... with remarkably suspicious timing. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-09-2004, 07:55 PM	#26 (permalink)
santafe5000 EVIL! Location: Southwest of nowhere	I said "No", but i think there will be an atttempt on NY around the Rep. convention that will be foiled before it can come to fruition. You know, like they will find the truck filled with EXP, but no people. __________________ When all else fails, QUIT.

08-10-2004, 07:09 AM	#29 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	It definitely changes the way most people think because they were so closed minded to the world around them. I bet you most people had NO IDEA that terrorists wanted to attack the US until 9/11. Most people just don't care. It won't be surprising that whenever a plane crashes in the next few years that people will immediately think of terrorists. I guess it just comes w/ the territory. I understand that there are people out there who are scared, but there's no reason to be. Like I said above, if you were actually there, then I could see being more shaken up than those who were nowhere near the site. However, to carry the fear with you months after the fact... c'mon. Understand it's there, yes, but personally, I'd be more concerned about losing my job or being a victim of crime. Even if I had lost a loved one during the attacks, that wouldn't mold my fear of terrorists themselves. It's very unfortunate that people did lose loved ones, but I think that's pretty irrelevant when discussing the fear of terrorism. I guess my point is... people give the terrorists more credit than they really deserve. It's my opinion that they were EXTREMELY lucky to have even gotten away with what they did on 9/11, and more people need to realize this. If they were as brilliant as everyone makes them out to be, then there would've been more frequent and grand attacks in this country. All I'm saying is you can't go about living your live being afraid of this. Crime is more abundant and real in our communities, yet no one is afraid of that. Why not? You're way more likely to be carjacked or robbed at gunpoint than to be caught up in another terrorist attack. It's just what they want you to think, and there's really no reason for it. __________________ I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 08-10-2004 at 07:12 AM..

08-10-2004, 10:49 AM	#30 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	but stompy, you're forgetting one thign.... (since you're mentioning odds of crime v. terrorism)... "there's a better chance of getting killed by terrorists then a woman has of getting married after 35." /sleepless in seattle __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

08-15-2004, 11:06 PM	#32 (permalink)
fatdaddy411 Banned	Is it just me, or does the name "Department of Homeland Security" smack of fascism? I could see Goebbels heading an organization with a name like that.

08-15-2004, 11:22 PM	#33 (permalink)
kurty[B] Sauce Puppet	I believe no matter what restrictions you place in the name of security someone will put the time and effort into finding a way around that system of restrictions if they really want to. Do I believe there will be an attack before voting. I think it's possible, likely, don't know. The other problem I see, the more restrictions you place on a people in the name of safety, the more and more people will try to figure out workarounds (be it simply for the sake of saving themselves "time", or for the sake of chaos). I do think the Bush Administration will play with the Alert system, and "possible terrorist" attacks to benefit their campaign. I'm sure they're pushing with all their resources to capture Bin Ladin, because sadly, that would be something that would easily tilt the election in Bush's favor "Look, I was successful in capturing Bin Ladin, now lets invade Iran!!!"

08-25-2004, 07:31 PM	#35 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Call me what you will (naive, nuts...) but I don't think that an October surprise of Bin Laden would help Bush more than it would help him. People are expecting it and if it happens too many IMO would believe Bush had rigged the capture and see it as an election ploy, thus creating a backlash and allowing Kerry the win. I do think 2 things are possible and more realistic. 1) An attack or rise in "Terror Alert" to focus on a martial law and "delay" of the elections. I've said this before and people have jumped on me saying it was unconstitutional and that we'd revolt and yada yada yada. BUT, with the GOP controlling congress it would not be unconstitutional, because the US Constitution does not name a specific date for elections. it just says, that Congress shall appoint a day on which electors shall give their votes (Article 2 Section 1). 2. A country such as Iran or Syria gets involved in Iraq and attacks our military, thus creating a much bigger war and at the time Bush looks to be taking good measures and keeping it under "control using diplomacy", showing he is "a far better wartime and diplomatic man than Kerry". __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

08-25-2004, 10:52 PM	#36 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Eh I personally doubt that Bin Laden will magically appear out of no where come October. As Pan6467 said, it would seem too 'obvious' or too 'planned' to occur. And honestly, the one thing I find true among all Americans is that they hate to be lied to. Be it Watergate, Clinton, whatever - people want your head after something like that surfaces. If it is clean capture, of course, nothing should go wrong - if it was planned of course, and something surfaces, then your head will be on a pike. Anyways as to being attacked? I voted no, but I wouldn't be surprised at either outcome. In my head though the odds are stacked for a no. Reasons are mainly that the effect would have to be big to warrant a huge attention (these days it seems like its always "just" a bombing), it would have to actually instill fear (oh no a car bomb.. might be kids, might be terrorists, might be people angry at the IRS) and be identified clearly with a group.