• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Al Qaeda: Attacks on Western nations in works

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
891
153
106
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/....targets.ap/index.html

Responding to a question of whether the terror group had plans to attack Western countries that participated in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and subsequent war, al-Zawahiri said, "My answer is, yes. We think that any country that joined aggression on Muslims must be deterred."

This just makes me wonder. If a major terrorist attack were to happen very soon, on American soil, how would this affect the outcome of the elections. Would the majority be so angered that they'd turn to the Republicans and demand revenge. Would this mean that Bush has failed to protect us causing people to reject the Republicans even more? My guess is that something like this would benefit the Republicans.

From the same article:

Al-Zawahiri also denied a conspiracy theory that Israel carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., and he blamed Iran and Shiite Hezbollah for spreading the idea to discredit the Sunni al Qaeda's achievement.

Al-Zawahiri accused Hezbollah's al-Manar television of starting the rumor.

"The purpose of this lie is clear -- (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.


I guess this can put the conspiracy theorists to rest. Al Qaeda pretty much says stop trying to steal our thunder.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
I think that would help out McCain quite a bit, because he is super-tough and was a POW.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
It would be fatal for the GOP. Their 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here' droning over Iraq goes right out the window.

All the rubber-stamp policies the GOP White House/Congress implemented over the last 7 years to make us 'safer' at home will have failed spectacularly.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Originally posted by: RY62


This just makes me wonder. If a major terrorist attack were to happen very soon, on American soil, how would this affect the outcome of the elections. Would the majority be so angered that they'd turn to the Republicans and demand revenge. Would this mean that Bush has failed to protect us causing people to reject the Republicans even more? My guess is that something like this would benefit the Republicans.

If a new attack were to occur, I'd place it in the October/November time frame and the effect would be so devastating that Bush would have no option but to declare a state of emergency. Read into that what you will. ;)

 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
891
153
106
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It would be fatal for the GOP. Their 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here' droning over Iraq goes right out the window.

All the rubber-stamp policies the GOP White House/Congress implemented over the last 7 years to make us 'safer' at home will have failed spectacularly.

I'm pretty sure I could predict how each person on this board would react but, is this how you believe the general masses would react?

I think the timing would be critical as to the effect. I believe there would be a huge wave of outrage initially and it would take a while for people to start thinking with any kind of logic.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
Originally posted by: RY62

I think the timing would be critical as to the effect. I believe there would be a huge wave of outrage initially and it would take a while for people to start thinking with any kind of logic.

It's been over six years since 9/11, when do people start thinking with logic?

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,799
10,094
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It would be fatal for the GOP. Their 'fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here' droning over Iraq goes right out the window.

All the rubber-stamp policies the GOP White House/Congress implemented over the last 7 years to make us 'safer' at home will have failed spectacularly.

They have already failed because there has been zero policy on combating religious supremacism here at home.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Would help out McCain most of all, HRC less so.

HRC? The impact on her won't matter in a few more weeks... :D

That said, let's take this one step further. What will the response be if/when we get attacked AFTER the Democrats have had control for several years, and most of our troops are home from Iraq?

Will "the masses" blame the Democratic Admin in power at the time, or will they reach back in time and blame Bill Clinton or GWB?

interesting game of devil's advocate, but I'm not sure there is any decent way to predict just exactly how "the masses" will end up playing The Blame Game...
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Obama is weak on HLS. It might help Hillary, but I think it would definitely boost McCain. Quite honestly when it comes to HLS, I don't trust Obama or Hillary.

Then again, I don't trust Hillary period. She lies, and has been caught more than once. End of story.
 

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,374
741
126
Bushes policies is just delaying the inevitable shit storm thats coming back full force to American citizens. But have no fear, our bushie will be retired comfortably on his ranch in Texas when this all happens.:roll:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Linux23
Bushes policies is just delaying the inevitable shit storm thats coming back full force to American citizens. But have no fear, our bushie will be retired comfortably on his ranch in Texas when this all happens.:roll:
Could be. Clinton was comfortably retired when his policies brought us a full force shitstorm. Maybe that will be the cycle?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: irishScott
Obama is weak on HLS. It might help Hillary, but I think it would definitely boost McCain. Quite honestly when it comes to HLS, I don't trust Obama or Hillary.

Because homeland security is selling off the country's wealth to China and Saudi Arabia in order to fight a war in Iraq? :confused:

No. Wars are always about economics and resources. No country ever won a war without those. Bush has been squandering ours. McCain intends to do the same. That's not strong on defense, that's leaving the homeland wide-open while killing us economically with a thousand cuts.

OTOH, bringing our forces home and concentrating on reviving our country's economic strength, is anything BUT "weak" on defense.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: irishScott
Obama is weak on HLS. It might help Hillary, but I think it would definitely boost McCain. Quite honestly when it comes to HLS, I don't trust Obama or Hillary.

Because homeland security is selling off the country's wealth to China and Saudi Arabia in order to fight a war in Iraq? :confused:

No. Wars are always about economics and resources. No country ever won a war without those. Bush has been squandering ours. McCain intends to do the same. That's not strong on defense, that's leaving the homeland wide-open while killing us economically with a thousand cuts.

OTOH, bringing our forces home and concentrating on reviving our country's economic strength, is anything BUT "weak" on defense.

True, and if Obama came up with anything of substance I'd vote for him.

ie: Exactly how is going to magically withdraw all of our troops from Iraq? And what happens when we leave and the situation becomes worse than Darfur? Will we go back in for "Humanitarian Reasons"?

Edit: Also, this is bullshit:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Yeah, let's "talk" to the fanatic who wants to blow Israel off the map and says there are no homosexuals in Iran. That's REALLY gonna help. :roll: All that will happen is that Iran will turn into another North Korea. They'll stall the shit out of us with "talks" and then a couple years later WOW HOLY SHIT THEY HAVE NUKES? HTF DID THAT HAPPEN? :roll:

Bill Clinton talked with NK for how long?

Obama is a pussy on foreign policy. I like most of his other ideas, but it's always a tradeoff I guess.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Linux23
Bushes policies is just delaying the inevitable shit storm thats coming back full force to American citizens. But have no fear, our bushie will be retired comfortably on his ranch in Texas when this all happens.:roll:
Could be. Clinton was comfortably retired when his policies brought us a full force shitstorm. Maybe that will be the cycle?

The shitstorm we've been experiencing over the last seven years is a culmination of almost 40 years of fvcked up foreign policy, misdirected hostility, and cowardice. Each and every Administration, up to and including GWB, played a role in laying the groundwork for the 9/11 attacks.

But you're 100% correct in placing most of the blame, for OBL and AQ specifically, squarely on Bill Clinton's shoulders.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
It would help McCain. Which would of course mean that our troops would remain in the Middle East for a longer period of time than if Obama were to win the Presidency. HRC doesn't count at this point.

The troops staying in the ME is exactly the opposite of what the radical Muslim groups want so I doubt they do anything before the elections.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: irishScott
Obama is weak on HLS. It might help Hillary, but I think it would definitely boost McCain. Quite honestly when it comes to HLS, I don't trust Obama or Hillary.

Because homeland security is selling off the country's wealth to China and Saudi Arabia in order to fight a war in Iraq? :confused:

No. Wars are always about economics and resources. No country ever won a war without those. Bush has been squandering ours. McCain intends to do the same. That's not strong on defense, that's leaving the homeland wide-open while killing us economically with a thousand cuts.

OTOH, bringing our forces home and concentrating on reviving our country's economic strength, is anything BUT "weak" on defense.

True, and if Obama came up with anything of substance I'd vote for him.

ie: Exactly how is going to magically withdraw all of our troops from Iraq? And what happens when we leave and the situation becomes worse than Darfur? Will we go back in for "Humanitarian Reasons"?

Edit: Also, this is bullshit:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Yeah, let's "talk" to the fanatic who wants to blow Israel off the map and says there are no homosexuals in Iran. That's REALLY gonna help. :roll: All that will happen is that Iran will turn into another North Korea. They'll stall the shit out us with "talks" and then a couple years later WOW HOLY SHIT THEY HAVE NUKES? HTF DID THAT HAPPEN? :roll:

Bill Clinton talked with NK for how long?

Obama is a pussy on foreign policy. I like most of his other ideas, but it's always a tradeoff I guess.

Uhh.... I considered discussing this issue with you until your edit revealed your whacked-out beliefs. It might help if you actually knew anything about foreign policy and affairs. Like, you realize that Ahmedinajab is just a bureaucrat figurehead for the religious authority and has very little power in Iran, right? And that NK still doesn't have nukes, being the first country in history to try and FAIL at making them? And that even that is just another in a long line of ploys to keep the foreign aid money rolling in?
So like... wow... come back when you actually know what's going on...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: shinerburke
It would help McCain. Which would of course mean that our troops would remain in the Middle East for a longer period of time than if Obama were to win the Presidency. HRC doesn't count at this point.

The troops staying in the ME is exactly the opposite of what the radical Muslim groups want so I doubt they do anything before the elections.

This is wrong. They're nothing over there without our presence. Once we leave, the people will realize that the conditions in their countries are the fault of the violence and chaos caused by the radical groups, and not the "Great Satan." Why do you think they attacked the towers in the first place except to bait us into going over there? What? You think they didn't know that's what would happen?


 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: irishScott
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: irishScott
Obama is weak on HLS. It might help Hillary, but I think it would definitely boost McCain. Quite honestly when it comes to HLS, I don't trust Obama or Hillary.

Because homeland security is selling off the country's wealth to China and Saudi Arabia in order to fight a war in Iraq? :confused:

No. Wars are always about economics and resources. No country ever won a war without those. Bush has been squandering ours. McCain intends to do the same. That's not strong on defense, that's leaving the homeland wide-open while killing us economically with a thousand cuts.

OTOH, bringing our forces home and concentrating on reviving our country's economic strength, is anything BUT "weak" on defense.

True, and if Obama came up with anything of substance I'd vote for him.

ie: Exactly how is going to magically withdraw all of our troops from Iraq? And what happens when we leave and the situation becomes worse than Darfur? Will we go back in for "Humanitarian Reasons"?

Edit: Also, this is bullshit:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Yeah, let's "talk" to the fanatic who wants to blow Israel off the map and says there are no homosexuals in Iran. That's REALLY gonna help. :roll: All that will happen is that Iran will turn into another North Korea. They'll stall the shit out us with "talks" and then a couple years later WOW HOLY SHIT THEY HAVE NUKES? HTF DID THAT HAPPEN? :roll:

Bill Clinton talked with NK for how long?

Obama is a pussy on foreign policy. I like most of his other ideas, but it's always a tradeoff I guess.

Uhh.... I considered discussing this issue until your edit revealed your whacked-out beliefs. It might help if you actually knew anything about foreign policy and affairs. Like, you realize that Ahmedinajab has very little power in Iran, right? And that NK still doesn't have nukes, being the first country in history to try and FAIL at making them? So like... wow... come back when you actually know what's going on...

Whacked out? I'm sorry that I don't believe in negotiating with genocidal dictators. And yes, I know Ahmedinajab's power is limited, but keep in mind that there are a lot of Muslim fanatics who agree that Israel should be wiped off the map, and I'm pretty sure that there are a decent amount in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, among other places. Just because they don't actively support it doesn't mean they don't agree. It's a recipe for disaster.

You can't negotiate with fanatics who are inherently unwilling to negotiate. If Obama thinks that economic sanctions and such will stop Iran's nuclear development, they might slow it, but stop it, I doubt it.

As for North Korea, I think you might want to read up a little more:
http://www.reuters.com/article...estCrisis/idUSSEO65929
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...3/AR2008012303282.html
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-17-voa18.cfm

North Korea is stalling, and more than likely lying. Big time. They may not have an ICBM, but I would be surprised if they didn't have a finalized design for a warhead, if not a prototype. Even a simple atomic bomb would be devastating in the wrong hands. I haven't read anything that confirms that they have "failed" at anything". A failed missile launch means the missile was fucked, not the potential payload.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shinerburke
It would help McCain. Which would of course mean that our troops would remain in the Middle East for a longer period of time than if Obama were to win the Presidency. HRC doesn't count at this point.

The troops staying in the ME is exactly the opposite of what the radical Muslim groups want so I doubt they do anything before the elections.

This is wrong. They're nothing over there without our presence. Once we leave, the people will realize that the conditions in their countries are the fault of the violence and chaos caused by the radical groups, and not the "Great Satan." Why do you think they attacked the towers in the first place except to bait us into going over there? What? You think they didn't know that's what would happen?

So without our troops over there the people of the various nations would rise up and overthrow their governments and have a big Democracy cake walk?

Hmmm...wonder why that never happened before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq? I guess if we had just waited a little longer than the 2000 years that had already passed Democracy would have broken out all over the ME on its own.