Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


View Poll Results: In the grand scheme of things, how dangerous are the "terrorists"?
Extremely Dangerous - If they are not stopped, the civillised world will end. 5 6.67%
Very Dangerous - With mass support around the world they seriously threaten us. 10 13.33%
Dangerous - They may one day instigate a mass revolt against the west. 4 5.33%
Quite Dangerous - They will continue to carry out indiscriminate attacks against westerners. 26 34.67%
Not Very Dangerous - They are a fringe group that will eventually die out on their own. 30 40.00%
Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-11-2005, 09:23 AM   #1 (permalink)
zen_tom
Guest
 
Are "terrorists" a real threat?

Looking at the invective in some of the postings made me suddenly realise that perhaps I have had an entirely different view on the amount of threat these so called "terrorists" actually pose.

So my question to you is, how dangerous are the "terrorists"?

If you're unsure about the question, try answering by thinking about how much you *personally* are threatened by terrorists.

Last edited by zen_tom; 07-11-2005 at 09:37 AM.. Reason: Wanted to clarify the question/
 
Old 07-11-2005, 09:34 AM   #2 (permalink)
zen_tom
Guest
 
Obviously, this is a Western-biased poll - but I think that's reasonable considering the majority of voices I see engaged in this discussion.
 
Old 07-11-2005, 09:40 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Well terrorism isn't as dangerous as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, traffic accidents and the list goes on. We sure have spent a ton of money on terrorism, and for what? Terrorism is on the bottom of my list as far as thing to fear goes.
samcol is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 10:05 AM   #4 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
My life has never been threatened by terrorism. No one I know has ever had their life threatened by terrorism. Not one of my friends friends have ever been threatened by terrorists. I see this as some saw Communism decades ago; 'terrorism' is a word that represents irrational fear.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 10:21 AM   #5 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
interesting point.

I lived in London during the eight f the IRA bombings of the early 1990s, and I whilst I heard abut several events, and saw the aftermath of a few, I never felt in danger, and I never had my life affected by more than delays.

Even in the WTC attacks the chances of actually being injured were minuscule. Of the millions of people in NYC tat day only ~3,000 were killed.

It's unutterably crap, but there are 45,000 US residents killed every year in road accidents - and there's not billions spent in the "war against crap driving".

Terrorists DO want to destroy the Western way of life, but it's highly unlikely that any form of direct action by a minority will ever do more than cause backlashes and knee-jerks.

Organisations that have changed parts of the world tend to have MASS SUPPORT. Gandhi did it by marching with millions.

Mao did it by subverting the army's members.

Terrorists have never done it simply by bombing.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 10:36 AM   #6 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_
interesting point.

I lived in London during the eight f the IRA bombings of the early 1990s, and I whilst I heard abut several events, and saw the aftermath of a few, I never felt in danger, and I never had my life affected by more than delays.

Even in the WTC attacks the chances of actually being injured were minuscule. Of the millions of people in NYC tat day only ~3,000 were killed.

It's unutterably crap, but there are 45,000 US residents killed every year in road accidents - and there's not billions spent in the "war against crap driving".

Terrorists DO want to destroy the Western way of life, but it's highly unlikely that any form of direct action by a minority will ever do more than cause backlashes and knee-jerks.

Organisations that have changed parts of the world tend to have MASS SUPPORT. Gandhi did it by marching with millions.

Mao did it by subverting the army's members.

Terrorists have never done it simply by bombing.
Right, with mass support. Even if most of the mideast people don't agree with their tactics, I have yet to see someone out of the middle east speak out against the terrorists message. With mass support, with out a doubt they threaten us.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 10:45 AM   #7 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Right, with mass support. Even if most of the mideast people don't agree with their tactics, I have yet to see someone out of the middle east speak out against the terrorists message. With mass support, with out a doubt they threaten us.
There is a wide line between silence from fear and support. The lack of outrage in the Middle East you speak of is that of fear. Those found to stand against radicals are putting themselves into serious mortal risk. Because they wish to live in peace, they do what many do; they remain silent objectors. Don't mistake apathy and silence for support. Half of Americans don't speak out against the president, but that does not necessarily mean they support his tactics.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 10:51 AM   #8 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Terrorism, while an issue causes damage not by it's actions but by our reactions. The actions of our govenment and the actions of the oposition to our govenment have cause many, times more damage to this country then any terrorist act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I have yet to see someone out of the middle east speak out against the terrorists message.
Perhaps we don't listen to the right people. Yet generally people of other countries don't give much thought to the misfortunes of others. For example we in America really have no problem with civilian casualties in Iraq. Even when we knew they would happen. "It's the price of freedom" we say. I am sure the rest of the world sees our misfortunes as the price of wealth and capitalism.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:02 AM   #9 (permalink)
Adequate
 
cyrnel's Avatar
 
Location: In my angry-dome.
Should economic health be considered one of the possible dangers, or are we talking purely physical harm to individuals?
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195
cyrnel is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:08 AM   #10 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus

Perhaps we don't listen to the right people. Yet generally people of other countries don't give much thought to the misfortunes of others. For example we in America really have no problem with civilian casualties in Iraq. Even when we knew they would happen. "It's the price of freedom" we say. I am sure the rest of the world sees our misfortunes as the price of wealth and capitalism.
I would say we in America didn't give much thought to the misfortunes of others while they were oppressed under saddam hussein. We DO care, that is why we are there. To give them the opportunity to govern themselves, and correct sins of the past.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:18 AM   #11 (permalink)
zen_tom
Guest
 
cyrnel, I'm talking about either there being a threat to our way of life (like there may have been during WWII in Europe, invasion, a new system of government etc), or a threat to yourself, friends and family. Since either of those things might be linked to economic health, then I'd say yes, you could ask yourself "Do the terrorists pose a dangerous economic threat to me, or my country."
 
Old 07-11-2005, 11:18 AM   #12 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
I'm guessing "quite dangerous" is less dangerous than "dangerous", based on the order of the options? Anyway, I put them slightly above "not very"; I don't think they are going away, but I don't consider them to be a real risk to me.
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:18 AM   #13 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I would say we in America didn't give much thought to the misfortunes of others while they were oppressed under saddam hussein. We DO care, that is why we are there. To give them the opportunity to govern themselves, and correct sins of the past.
That's just begging for a long, probably partison argument. All I will suggest is that it is possible that our reason for beeing in Iraq has nothing to do with careing for or helping those who were and still are oppressed.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:19 AM   #14 (permalink)
zen_tom
Guest
 
Redlemon, yes "quite dangerous" as in, "marginally dangerous", or "partly dangerous".
 
Old 07-11-2005, 11:23 AM   #15 (permalink)
Adequate
 
cyrnel's Avatar
 
Location: In my angry-dome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
That's just begging for a long, probably partison argument. All I will suggest is that it is possible that our reason for beeing in Iraq has nothing to do with careing for or helping those who were and still are oppressed.
Is it not possible supporters of the original action had a variety of pet reasons? I'll also avoid a hijack, but we should all do our best to avoid partisan talking points which get us nowhere but ears deep in sand. (Unintentional, but I'm leaving it. )
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195
cyrnel is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:30 AM   #16 (permalink)
©
 
StanT's Avatar
 
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
Terrorism, while an issue causes damage not by it's actions but by our reactions. The actions of our govenment and the actions of the oposition to our govenment have cause many, times more damage to this country then any terrorist act.
I agree, it isn't the terrorism itself that threatens us, but the reaction to it.

The ongoing military operations in both Iraq & Afganistan and the economic load that accompanies them affects us more than the terrorist acts that were used to justify them.
StanT is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 11:49 AM   #17 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by zen_tom
Redlemon, yes "quite dangerous" as in, "marginally dangerous", or "partly dangerous".
Ah, must be a regional distinction then. USA usage would be closer to "considerably", as in "quite a bit of work to do".
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 12:19 PM   #18 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Do Arabs disagree with the terrorist message?

Which message are we talking about? "Get the fuck out of my country?"

"The west is evil, sex-mad, and generally naughty people?"

"Die, infidel pig?"

"In death, we find paradise! Join us my brothers!"

There are lots of messages. And honestly, for all their evil acts, _some_ of the propoganda has a point, and I'd expect some people to agree with it. Some of it is just insane.

Look at Saudi Arabia: The US was proping up a tin-pot dictator (house of Saud) and occupying the holiest land of their religion.

Can you imagine the US response to a Soviet Russian Peacekeeping Force in Washington DC, supporting a corrupt "President for Life" which ruled over half the USA, while the south contained and full of starving people due to "economic sanctions"?

I'm sure you could get many people from the area to agree with one or another of those positions.

The US in the middle east has spent decades supporting tin-pot dictators and the like in order to fight a cold war against the soviets. This helped guarantee freedom, but not freedom for the people oppressed by the tin-pot dictators. You can understand why some people might dislike the USA.

Would those same people support blowing up a building in the USA? I'd suspect that might have alot to do with if anyone they personally know has been hurt by direct American, or indirectly supported American client-state, action.

As yet, "the terrorists" have shown nothing like the firepower needed to even make the west blink. Even a small number of small nuclear weapons (10 to 20 say) would hurt somewhat, but couldn't make the west bend knee. In order to such a movement to gain power, it needs large amounts of active popular support.

Which makes this war, like the last one the USA just won, a war of ideas. The State department, not the Pentagon, should be calling the shots.

On the other hand, given that the terrorists are not a serious military threat to the USA, and that wartime is a great way to increase the popularity of the party in power & excuse government assults on it's own citizens, how direct does the threat have to be for it to be considered 'the terrorists'?
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 02:48 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Even if most of the mideast people don't agree with their tactics, I have yet to see someone out of the middle east speak out against the terrorists message.
You're kidding, right?

You have yet to see someone from the Middle East speak out against the terrorist message?

What rock have you been living under?



Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 02:52 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakk

Which makes this war, like the last one the USA just won, a war of ideas. The State department, not the Pentagon, should be calling the shots.
Bingo!!

Having said that, I'm a bit uneasy at Rice calling the shots, but the concept is sound; ie, that this is a socio-political problem and that it is on this front, rather than the military one, that the battle will be won.


Mr Mephisto
Mephisto2 is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 06:18 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
personally, "terrorists" aren't a threat to me nor anyone i know/love/care about. though since 9/11, "terrorism" must be and has been exploited as a global danger to provoke support and initiate unjust causes to rid the world of the supposed "danger" to benefit the criminals in power. remove the bombings and suicide missions in iraq, and "terrorism" has not greatly increased, if increased at all, since before 9/11. now we have the media and govt. reminding us of a non-existent threat to persuade the public to back their illegal cause. with constant dwelling of propagandist fear of the "terrorism" people have forced into their pathetic heads, it seems to have become some international epidemic that will cease all existence if not dealt with harshly. no, i'm not in the least bit concerned about "terrorism" as most people look at it, i'm more concerned about the terrorists we have presently running the show, and those who support them. the "terrorism" most see, i see as justice and vengeance.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 07-11-2005, 06:22 PM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
There is a wide line between silence from fear and support. The lack of outrage in the Middle East you speak of is that of fear. Those found to stand against radicals are putting themselves into serious mortal risk. Because they wish to live in peace, they do what many do; they remain silent objectors. Don't mistake apathy and silence for support. Half of Americans don't speak out against the president, but that does not necessarily mean they support his tactics.
I wish we had more of those "silent objectors" in the States.

And the previous election showed that over half of the voters at least did support the president.

I just can't buy the argument that standing by silently is some sort of quiet objection. It is at least passive support. And it's not just the average person, many gov'ts don't seem to condemn terrorist attacks.
alansmithee is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 03:00 AM   #23 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyrnel
Should economic health be considered one of the possible dangers, or are we talking purely physical harm to individuals?

I feel there are a lot of companies/oganizations that are taking advantage of the attacks (read: oil companies). Oil companies have recently been taking advantage of every single thing possible to raise prices of oil, however. I mean, if a worker at an oil processing plant has the sniffles the price of oil jumps $2 a barrel. Its ridiculous, and becoming quite obvious.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 04:59 AM   #24 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I fear the partisan politics have allowed the terrorists to become stronger. That because of the hatred both sides have for each other and the way they refuse to find middle ground has hurt us in ways that we may never truly recover.

In trying to destroy each other we only help the terrorists.

One of these days it will be a nuke, a disease, a tragedy that makes 9/11 look like nothing and it will effectively disintegrate us to a point of no return.

I truly pray and want to believe we'll find a solution before it is too late... however, I don't see it. Both sides are truly unwilling to bend and in the process the terrorists have free reign.
__________________
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?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 05:54 AM   #25 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I fear the partisan politics have allowed the terrorists to become stronger. That because of the hatred both sides have for each other and the way they refuse to find middle ground has hurt us in ways that we may never truly recover.

In trying to destroy each other we only help the terrorists.

One of these days it will be a nuke, a disease, a tragedy that makes 9/11 look like nothing and it will effectively disintegrate us to a point of no return.

I truly pray and want to believe we'll find a solution before it is too late... however, I don't see it. Both sides are truly unwilling to bend and in the process the terrorists have free reign.
If there is a nuke attack of any kind, the only thing that will disintegrate is the lefts argument as people will get sick of 'what makes them hate us' and switch over to 'kill those fuckers, let god sort them out.'.

So while support for your world view will crumble in such an event (and because of this, there will be those who claim it was a set up by the evil neo-cons) the war on terror will be over, brutally and quickly.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 06:42 AM   #26 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
I fear the partisan politics have allowed the terrorists to become stronger. That because of the hatred both sides have for each other and the way they refuse to find middle ground has hurt us in ways that we may never truly recover.
I don't see the terrorists as stronger by any means. I don't know what you measure their strength by, but when they go from kiling thousands at a time, to hundreds, to less than a hundred, well that looks weaker to me, not stronger.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 07:58 AM   #27 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Ustwo, it is possible that in the event of a nuclear attack, the USA will go on a killing rampage, brandishing righteous anger, and slaughtering every possible zealot sympasizer of the islamofascist cause.

Don't get me wrong. USA has the power to do that. You have the power to drop a Nuke on Mecca, the Ships to rain lead down on every hovel within 50 km of the sea, and your Armor can burn the deserts with your vengence.

That is why the terrorists are a political, not a military, threat. Hell, with your boys in a foriegn country, the rebels are reduced to blowing up more locals than the occupiers. You have military superiority over your opponents.

But, in my opinion, that is a worst case scenario. Because the geopolitical consequences would be unpretty.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:17 PM   #28 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I would say we in America didn't give much thought to the misfortunes of others while they were oppressed under saddam hussein. We DO care, that is why we are there. To give them the opportunity to govern themselves, and correct sins of the past.
We are there for many reasons Stevo. My earlier point still stands.

Quote:
If there is a nuke attack of any kind, the only thing that will disintegrate is the lefts argument as people will get sick of 'what makes them hate us' and switch over to 'kill those fuckers, let god sort them out.'.

So while support for your world view will crumble in such an event (and because of this, there will be those who claim it was a set up by the evil neo-cons) the war on terror will be over, brutally and quickly.
The problem is that both views are correct. At our point in time we need to protect ourselves yet investing in a future of peace would be wise as all this defence spending isn't good for us. Anti-terrorism costs us billions of dollars and they don't even have to commit any acts of violence; all they have to do is exist.

I just can't understand this unconcervative thinking by the right. War is the most expencive solution in every way.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 08:43 PM   #29 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mantus
I just can't understand this unconcervative thinking by the right. War is the most expencive solution in every way.
Quote:
# Economic loss to New York in month following the attacks: $105 billion

# Estimated cost of cleanup: $600 million

# Total FEMA money spent on the emergency: $970 million

# Estimated amount donated to 9/11 charities: $1.4 billion

# Estimated amount of insurance paid worldwide related to 9/11: $40.2 billion

# Estimated amount of money needed to overhaul lower-Manhattan subways: $7.5 billion

# Amount of money recently granted by U.S. government to overhaul lower-Manhattan subways: $4.55 billion

# Estimated amount of money raised for funds dedicated to NYPD and FDNY families: $500 million

# Percentage of total charity money raised going to FDNY and NYPD families: 25

# Average benefit already received by each FDNY and NYPD widow: $1 million
This does not include the impact to the national economy or lost wages.

That being said, why we would spend billions on the war on terror is fundamental to the nature of the conservative.

Quote:
Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!
Perhaps ironicly this slogan came from a war in the same region.

There is nothing wrong with righting wrongs and understanding your enemy, but in this case to compromise is to be defeated.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 09:03 PM   #30 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
I guess those who believe the terrorists to be "weaker" or not possess nukes missed this then:

Quote:
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
Al-Qaida nukes already in U.S.
Terrorists, bombs smuggled across Mexico border by MS-13 gangsters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 11, 2005
12:22 p.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin is an online, subscription intelligence news service from the creator of WorldNetDaily.com – a journalist who has been developing sources around the world for almost 30 years. The subscription price for the premium newsletter has been slashed in half and is now available for only $9.95 per month.

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON – As London recovers from the latest deadly al-Qaida attack that killed at least 50, top U.S. government officials are contemplating what they consider to be an inevitable and much bigger assault on America – one likely to kill millions, destroy the economy and fundamentally alter the course of history, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

According to captured al-Qaida leaders and documents, the plan is called the "American Hiroshima" and involves the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons already smuggled into the U.S. over the Mexican border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups.


Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian special forces Spetznaz to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Osama bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from the Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

According to the author, the news sent Bush "through the roof," prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

However, it is worth noting that Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.



Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.

Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.

The Bush administration's unwillingness to secure the U.S.-Mexico border has puzzled and dismayed a growing number of activists and ordinary citizens who see it as the No. 1 security threat to the nation. The Minuteman organization is planning a major mobilization of thousands of Americans this fall designed to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border as it did in April with a 23-mile stretch in Arizona.

According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.

Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.

There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70. The breathtaking news is that an undetermined number of these weapons, including suitcase bombs, mines and crude tactical nuclear weapons, have already been smuggled into the U.S. – at least some across the U.S.-Mexico border.

The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country – including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said an immediate military presence on the borders is now imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified, potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an alarming rate."

"Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything they want across our national line at this time," he said. "As ordinary citizens have warned this government for years, the only surprising part about the new information reported here is that nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are not immune in this country. At this point, the next attempt to attack America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat – yet our government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's margin of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress had better wake up before they have to answer for another devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."

link: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

And I guess wanting partisan politics to end and to have OUR government work to make this place a better and safer country for ALL Americans and not just the Neo-Cons is expecting too much.

I'm sure if one of these suitcase bombs go off, these Neo-Cons would rather blame the Left as they did Thurs. then the terrorists and believe that blaming the Left will make them look better politically, just as it did Thurs. after london's bombings.
__________________
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?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 07-12-2005, 09:44 PM   #31 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Ustwo,

We have to aliminate the threat to us one way or another. Diplomacy and economics ends up being allot cheaper.

Quote:
Perhaps ironicly this slogan came from a war in the same region.

There is nothing wrong with righting wrongs and understanding your enemy, but in this case to compromise is to be defeated.
Tribute who is asking to pay tribute. I am having trouble understand where that came from. I would guess that you are twisting the concept of eliminating the cause of terrorism with helping extreamist cells. Further I don't think that any one but the passifists are asking for a comprimise with extreamists. Once again you are twisting the ideas pressented. The point is to think about aliviating the cause rather then spending all our energy on fighting symptoms. Since this is an idiological war as much as anything I believe that the true war against terrorism beggins with us the citizens. Screaming "kill 'em all, let God sort them out" doesn't really put us in a good light.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 05:54 AM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
You're kidding, right?

You have yet to see someone from the Middle East speak out against the terrorist message?

What rock have you been living under?
Maybe the same one you are?

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recently made this point, which I agree with:

"The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden."
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 07:20 AM   #33 (permalink)
lascivious
 
Mantus's Avatar
 
Powerclown, for starters:

Quote:
“Is it justice to blame a nation on the basis of the opinion of its rivals and enemies, ignoring the greatness of that nation, its roots, rulers, scholars and books?” the mufti asked. “Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It has forbidden hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport and has forbidden all acts that would undermine security,” he told the faithful.

“God says the penalty for those who fight God and His Prophet and spread violence and terror is to be killed, crucified or have their hands and legs chopped off,” he said.
http://www.fatwa-online.com/news/0040201.htm

Thomas Friedman gave his professional opinion. The problem is, I don't have any concreate information with which to judge his claim. Poorly translated speaches by Islamic clerics arnt exactly headline news on CNN. I really have no idea of how the Islamic world responded to 9/11.
Mantus is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 07:59 AM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
I don't see any evidence to contradict him. And I'm not talking about watery, obligatory, non-committal soundbites here and there. I'm talking about a widespread, emphatic, concerted, deliberate campaign of condemnation and invalidation of islamic fundamentalist terrorism, BY MUSLIMS.

I think we'll all be acutely aware of when such a thing happens.

---

Friedman commenting on Ariel Sharon's response to Jewish extremists who are fighting to remain in Gaza. Sharon doesn't mince words.

"Mr. Sharon described the Jewish settler youths who wrote "Muhammad Is a Pig" as "extremist gangs who are trying to terrorize Israeli society and tear it to pieces through violence against Jews and Arabs, and [through] offending Muslims and violating their symbols by thuggery and disobedience."

It's time the Arab-Muslim world talked to its Islamo-fascists, suicide "martyrs" and hate-spewing preachers the same way."
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 09:28 AM   #35 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
you have got to be joking, powerclown:
the established system within islam--and the cleric who represent it---clerics are the primary targets of the newer fundamentalist groups--and they have been from the start.
so of course they have been speaking out against these groups and against their tactics....they have been doing it all along. do you know any muslims? have you actually talked to them about this? i suspect not--if you had, i cannot imagien how you would be able to maintain the illusion that this is not as much a problem for most muslims as it is for you. well, maybe it is more a porblem for these folk--you do not have to face the implications of a bascially racist media coverage of islam that surfaced after 9/11...you were doubtless not afriad to go out for weeks after 9/11/2001 because you were afriad some racist fucktard would beat you up. but that was the reality for many many families that i know.

that the american press chooses to place so little emphasis on divisions within isalm over these groups is mostly a function of the limitations of the press itself--maybe covering this kind of thing would undercut the good old fashioned american racism that underpins at least some of the support for the "war on terror"--i dont know the reason, really.

but all you have to do is look.
do a little research--ANY sociologically oriented analysis of the roots of this "terrorism" thing would give you a huge amount of data on these divisions.
you only do not know because you have not looked.

as for thomas friedman--less said the better. i think the man is a fool.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 09:47 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
you have got to be joking, powerclown:
the established system within islam--and the cleric who represent it---clerics are the primary targets of the newer fundamentalist groups--and they have been from the start.
so of course they have been speaking out against these groups and against their tactics....they have been doing it all along. do you know any muslims? have you actually talked to them about this? i suspect not--if you had, i cannot imagien how you would be able to maintain the illusion that this is not as much a problem for most muslims as it is for you. well, maybe it is more a porblem for these folk--you do not have to face the implications of a bascially racist media coverage of islam that surfaced after 9/11...you were doubtless not afriad to go out for weeks after 9/11/2001 because you were afriad some racist fucktard would beat you up. but that was the reality for many many families that i know.

that the american press chooses to place so little emphasis on divisions within isalm over these groups is mostly a function of the limitations of the press itself--maybe covering this kind of thing would undercut the good old fashioned american racism that underpins at least some of the support for the "war on terror"--i dont know the reason, really.

but all you have to do is look.
do a little research--ANY sociologically oriented analysis of the roots of this "terrorism" thing would give you a huge amount of data on these divisions.
you only do not know because you have not looked.

as for thomas friedman--less said the better. i think the man is a fool.
George Galloway couldn't have said it any better.
Are you aware that the British authorities today attributed the London Attacks on 4 islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers?

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

I have muslim neighbors. Our kids play together. They all blame the CIA for the "image problem".
It's pretty funny acutally. They're quite stubborn about it.
If you'd ask them, the CIA is responsible for the sun rising in the morning.
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-13-2005, 10:53 AM   #37 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
powerclown: i was aware of that--and i was aware that they were british born folk, and that there was an article in the guardian this morning that described this as the security systems "worst scenario"....

on the other points, more later: am in between things.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 07:17 PM   #38 (permalink)
Degenerate
 
Aladdin Sane's Avatar
 
Location: San Marvelous
If you think the Jihadists will go away if we appease, ignore, or bribe them, you simply are not aware of the words they speak or the things they write. If you think we only make them more dangerous by fighting back, then go attend your peace rally and watch their numbers multiply. Time is on their side. If we do not fight them now, it will be more difficult later.

If you think the Jihadists' grievances are based on what we do, think again.
Christopher Hitchens, one clear-thinking lefty, describes their grievances against the West rather clearly:
"The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way."

Yes, we are in a real war. It is no more a "war on terror" than World War II was a war on Blitzkrieg. Just as "lightning warfare" was Hitler's method, Terror is the tool of the Islamist enemy. And make no mistake: The enemy is 14th Century Islam. Plain and simple. It's time to come to terms with our situation. Didn't we all think that the 21st century would be about flying cars and vacations on Mars? No wonder our present predicament is difficult to grasp. Who ever dreamed we would be in a religious war, not of our own making, with people who call themselves "holy warriors" and refer to us as "Crusaders." These people are sick fuks who purposely kill innocent people because they believe it will win them a place in Paradise. With 72 virgins. I mean, what the fuck? They believe that infidels do not have the right to, well, to live. They believe women should not be educated, but veiled. How can you negotiate with that!? It's not surprising that most of us haven't come to grips with the grimness of the situation. Especially not when we were supposed to be hanging out on Mars.

Now, after everything that has happened, from the 1992 WTC bombings, to the embassy bombings in Africa, to the USS Cole attack, to the 9-11 attacks, to the Madrid bombings, to the Bali nightclub slaughter, to the recent massacre in London, all of it is still not sufficient enough to grab and keep our attention.

Unfortunately, I suspect Americans will need to see a mushroom cloud over Cleveland before they will truly engage, before they finally understand that we are in a real war against a determined enemy.
__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Last edited by Aladdin Sane; 07-16-2005 at 06:48 AM..
Aladdin Sane is offline  
Old 07-15-2005, 10:56 PM   #39 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
Unfortunately, I suspect Americans will need to see a mushroom cloud over Cleveland before they will truly engage, before they finally understand that we are in a real war against a determined enemy.
Saddly I have to agree with you, though I almost wonder if even that would cause a paradim shift in a true lefty.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 07-16-2005, 07:15 AM   #40 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
by this point, the question really should be changed away from does the right have anything like a sane view of "terrorism" (--which has been answered conclusively--no they do not--and with abundant evidence, even in this thread--read their posts----)
to:

what are the pleasures and benefits of uncontrolled paranoia for conservatives?

we know the political benefits of generating and maintaining an environment that encourages bouts of uncontrolled collective paranoia for the bush administration.

but the reasons that conservatives seem to so eager to join the paranoia show individually remains a mystery.

what pleasure is there to be had in fantasizing nuclear warfare scenarios involving major american cities?


based on no effort to gather and process data on who the various groups that might undertake attacks on the us are, what drives them, etc--on no historical understanding, on no socilogical understanding, our heroic conservatives nonetheless imagine that they are operating on the basis of a coherent category "terrorist" or "jihadist"--this category has the peculiar characteristic of being endlessly persecuting, something like the types of split superego you see talked about in psychoanalytic writings on schizophrenia. it is like an angry wasp that follows you around and that you fight, wooden sword in hand, by waving the sword around and bellowing slogans about smashing "terror"...

if you are concerned about the emergence of arbitrariness in an otherwise perfectly manicured bourgeois life, why are you not equally freaked out by moving objects in general, automobiles in particular, which are statistically a much more clear and present danger to you personally than the phantom "terrorism"...automobiles envy your organic status, your hair, your curvy lines....

well so it can't really be about fear of death, this undirected, unfocussed and permanent resoluteness....there has to be some positive charge to be had from simply moving into the space of unlimited paranoia....is it about attrtibuting to yourself a sense of importance by being able to imagine that your "way of life" and by extension yourself as an individual (individuals being interchangeable within the context of capitalist markets, all little rational actors doing rational things because cash is at stake o yes) are under threat directly by people far away?

i ask these questions because it is evident that the category "terror" is a priori worthless as a descriptive or analytic tool. no way to get from it to any idea of who might carry out and action or why--or even what might be done. "terror" is empty, does not refer to the world, but refers to the world as (thesedays) conservatives would prefer to see it--a place at once dangerous and hunky dory--the hunky doriness is always a function of market metaphors and its disruption always the result of some Evil Outside Force--so if we were going to try to understand the appeal of the category, and that appeal cannot be analaytic, and cannot be coherence, then it must be political--but we have covered that so many times---and within that, adopting this kind of total panic mode and then routing it through some johnwayne apocalyptic war fantasy must be good clean american fun.

so how and in what way is adopting this fantasy structure "terrorist" fun and exciting?
what is the affective payoff?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 07-16-2005 at 07:21 AM..
roachboy is offline  
 

Tags
real, terrorists, threat

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:05 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360