Next Attack Imminent: Muslims ordered to leave the United States

[Lemon law]

The unfortunate and inescapable conclusion of the past five years is that GWB---in all his efforts to exploit terrorism for political gain---and all his efforts to fight terrorism---has had
THE NET EFFECT OF SPREADING TERRORISM.

THAT IS THE ONLY BOTTOM LINE THAT MATTERS.

 

[Polish3d]

You ******-ing partisans can't even make it 5 posts in any thread without your mental masturbation exercises of pleasuring yourselves in your little hate circlejerks

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Apparently Presidents control the space/time continuum too.

That might explain why the article in the OP's link is a month old.

 

[Polish3d]

If Usama does release a tape soon, I will be very genuinely worried, although I am anyway. I was already worried about this happening soon before reading the article. I didn't realize they would step up to WMDs so fast though, but it does make sense in some ways.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

It's good to worry. That's what Cheney and Wolfowitz want you to do. Worry. Wring your hands for good measure. Also, go out and buy a case of duct tape and some bottled water...and a new car, and some clothes, and all sorts of other cool crap!

 

[trenchfoot]

I have to conclude that our homeland security is nothing but a open joke.

agreed, in the sense that our dept. of homeland security can do much much more to secure our borders as much as practically possible. however, no matter who is running this country, we can't possibly keep every dedicated terrorist out of our country, let alone the ones that are home-grown.

even in police-state nations such as north korea, there still are people infiltrating and exfiltrating the country on a daily basis.

that being said, i agree that apparently, our present adiminstration seems to be rather nonchalant about tightening up control over our borders, and that the dept. of homeland security reflects that attitude. it's as though they believe it to be futile to try to physically filter out the terrorist elements from the seemingly overwhelming traffic moving in and out of our country.

concurrently, in a curiously contradictory manner, bush and co. is absolutely obsessed with wanting to abrogate the rights of its own citizens in the area of sigint, even when given such perfectly legal and broad discretionary latitude within the auspices of the FISA courts.

It is still within the relm of possibility that they have already smuggled in some nukes of the loose nuke catagory---and sleeper cells just await word to set them off in one or more US cities.

remember the numerous nuclear "suitcase bombs" the russians had "supposedly" secretly hiddden all over the US during the cold war? i wonder what happened to them and, more significantly, i wonder what lessons our intelligence services have learned from that experience that's applicable to the problem we have now with this never-ending "war on terror"?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
It's good to worry. That's what Cheney and Wolfowitz want you to do. Worry. Wring your hands for good measure. Also, go out and buy a case of duct tape and some bottled water...and a new car, and some clothes, and all sorts of other cool crap!

Shut up. Your post is not clever, not funny, and not useful in any way.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
It's good to worry. That's what Cheney and Wolfowitz want you to do. Worry. Wring your hands for good measure. Also, go out and buy a case of duct tape and some bottled water...and a new car, and some clothes, and all sorts of other cool crap!

Shut up. Your post is not clever, not funny, and not useful in any way.

Actually it is, funny I mean. Mostly because you guys have NO business getting upset about people treating the threat of terrorism as a political bat to hit the other guys with. It's true, Dems aren't innocent when it comes to politicizing the war on terror, but Republicans pioneered and perfected the technique. You want us to put aside partisan issues and really concentrate on banding together to deal with the threat of terrorism? Sorry, we tried that, and instead of "unity" we got you guys acting like a bunch of jackasses. You want to rant and rave about people turning this into a partisan issue? Start with the President and move on down, he effectively ruined any chance we have of actually banding together and facing the threat as a united country.

 

[Rainsford]

Am I the only person who thinks this is either an empty threat or fake? It just has the flavor of something that's a little too "neat" to be worth taking too seriously. This "Abu Dawood" gives a LOT of operational details, are we supposed to believe that some grand-pubah terrorist is so stupid that he'd give up operational details just to threaten us? They don't really make the threat more effective, what they do is add detail to the story...the kind of detail that shows up in the "imminent threat of terrorist attack" stories that crop up periodically. Secondly, I find the source rather suspect, as the phrase contained in the story "homicide bombing" is not typically a phrase used by serious media, it's more of a phrase you hear listening to biased right-wing commentators. The third thing that makes this rather difficult to take seriously is that, as far as I can remember, Al-Qaeda does not broadcast "imminent attack" messages before they actually attack. Not only is terrorism a lot more effective when it's a total surprise, but as I said before, telling your enemy you're going to do something (and including a surprising number of details about what exactly you're doing) is a serious operational security problem.

My opinion is that this is fake, with the chance that it's just an empty threat being a distant second. It's not a kind of thing a serious terrorist would release, it's very much the kind of thing a hack journalist would write to make some waves.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
It's good to worry. That's what Cheney and Wolfowitz want you to do. Worry. Wring your hands for good measure. Also, go out and buy a case of duct tape and some bottled water...and a new car, and some clothes, and all sorts of other cool crap!

Shut up. Your post is not clever, not funny, and not useful in any way.

Actually it is, funny I mean. Mostly because you guys have NO business getting upset about people treating the threat of terrorism as a political bat to hit the other guys with. It's true, Dems aren't innocent when it comes to politicizing the war on terror, but Republicans pioneered and perfected the technique. You want us to put aside partisan issues and really concentrate on banding together to deal with the threat of terrorism? Sorry, we tried that, and instead of "unity" we got you guys acting like a bunch of jackasses. You want to rant and rave about people turning this into a partisan issue? Start with the President and move on down, he effectively ruined any chance we have of actually banding together and facing the threat as a united country.

Who are you talking about, what are you talking about, and who are "you guys" - The fact that you can't even move beyond reducing people into "us" or "you guys" is beyond me

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Am I the only person who thinks this is either an empty threat or fake? It just has the flavor of something that's a little too "neat" to be worth taking too seriously. This "Abu Dawood" gives a LOT of operational details, are we supposed to believe that some grand-pubah terrorist is so stupid that he'd give up operational details just to threaten us? They don't really make the threat more effective, what they do is add detail to the story...the kind of detail that shows up in the "imminent threat of terrorist attack" stories that crop up periodically. Secondly, I find the source rather suspect, as the phrase contained in the story "homicide bombing" is not typically a phrase used by serious media, it's more of a phrase you hear listening to biased right-wing commentators. The third thing that makes this rather difficult to take seriously is that, as far as I can remember, Al-Qaeda does not broadcast "imminent attack" messages before they actually attack. Not only is terrorism a lot more effective when it's a total surprise, but as I said before, telling your enemy you're going to do something (and including a surprising number of details about what exactly you're doing) is a serious operational security problem.

My opinion is that this is fake, with the chance that it's just an empty threat being a distant second. It's not a kind of thing a serious terrorist would release, it's very much the kind of thing a hack journalist would write to make some waves.

Yeah it could be, but there were interviews with members of Al-Qaeda just before 9/11 who were saying things like "the US is going to have an increase in the coffin business" and Usama himself said "the US is going to have a big surprise" right before as well.

They actually DO speak about what they are going to do, and part of Usama Bin Laden's strategy to be a successful inspirational hero of jihad against the west is to be a man of his word, which he largely has been.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But still this is nothing but a gut feeling---but I seriously doubt AL-Quida will give any warning past extremely vague. And will probably wait until after elections to gage their impact.

That depends on the results of said election.

I think we both know who AQ prefers.

The one that fills their recruiting offices?

No, the one who wants to with draw all our troops from Iraq there by giving terrorists free reign to set up a new base of operation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
It's good to worry. That's what Cheney and Wolfowitz want you to do. Worry. Wring your hands for good measure. Also, go out and buy a case of duct tape and some bottled water...and a new car, and some clothes, and all sorts of other cool crap!

Shut up. Your post is not clever, not funny, and not useful in any way.

Actually it is, funny I mean. Mostly because you guys have NO business getting upset about people treating the threat of terrorism as a political bat to hit the other guys with. It's true, Dems aren't innocent when it comes to politicizing the war on terror, but Republicans pioneered and perfected the technique. You want us to put aside partisan issues and really concentrate on banding together to deal with the threat of terrorism? Sorry, we tried that, and instead of "unity" we got you guys acting like a bunch of jackasses. You want to rant and rave about people turning this into a partisan issue? Start with the President and move on down, he effectively ruined any chance we have of actually banding together and facing the threat as a united country.

Well said.

 

[DealMonkey]

Since when do give two craps what terrorist propoganda is claiming? I mean, remember who you're listening to.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But still this is nothing but a gut feeling---but I seriously doubt AL-Quida will give any warning past extremely vague. And will probably wait until after elections to gage their impact.

That depends on the results of said election.

I think we both know who AQ prefers.

The one that fills their recruiting offices?

No, the one who wants to with draw all our troops from Iraq there by giving terrorists free reign to set up a new base of operation.

No, the one who is doing more to hurt America than al Qaida could ever hope to. Iraq is a distraction from the real "War on Terror". They already have free reign to operate in other countries, including many of our so-called "allies" like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don?t think we need to worry about a nuke or another mass destruction type of WMD being used, yet.

Most likely another attack would be similar to 9-11. Either attempts to hijack planes. Or maybe stealing crop dusters and trying to use poison to kill massive amounts of people.
More likely though would be setting off bombs at various places with in the country ala the London and Madrid bombing.

Also imagine this. Some guys willing to kill themselves get some ak-47?s or other assault weapons and then at the same time all across the country go on shooting sprees in busy or important places. Shopping Malls, train stations etc etc. If this was done over a period of several days it could bring the economy to a stand still almost. Cops in front of Wal-Mart and walking within malls with guns and stuff.

Or another attack that would have a huge psychological effect would be to do something on election day. Set off a bomb or two a some polling places. They might not do much other than piss everyone off, but it would be a HUGE attack when it comes to the psychology of the country.

As far as placing blame for any attack, I think the more sophisticated the attack the more likely Bush and co is going to take the blame. Think of it along the lines of how we could miss all the signs of an attack pre 9-11. However, if it is a simple attack along the lines of guns or small backpack bombs then Bush will escape blame and could actually use that in his favor to push the wire tap and other laws and methods.

No matter what happens though, all any type of attack will do is unite us once again and strengthen our resolve to win this. I don?t think there is anything the terrorists can do that would sap us of our will to win.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
No matter what happens though, all any type of attack will do is unite us once again and strengthen our resolve to win this. I don?t think there is anything the terrorists can do that would sap us of our will to win.

We already have the resolve to "win" this, at least to the extent that it can be won. What divides us is the approach to winning it. There is overwhelming evidence the Bush administration's so-called plan has been an abject failure, leaving gaping holes in our security and greatly increasing the risk of terrorism attacks against US interests at home and abroad. That's why so many of us want his regime gone, so we can can get more competent people at the helm who might actually do something substantive to protect America.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don?t think we need to worry about a nuke or another mass destruction type of WMD being used, yet.

Most likely another attack would be similar to 9-11. Either attempts to hijack planes. Or maybe stealing crop dusters and trying to use poison to kill massive amounts of people.
More likely though would be setting off bombs at various places with in the country ala the London and Madrid bombing.

Also imagine this. Some guys willing to kill themselves get some ak-47?s or other assault weapons and then at the same time all across the country go on shooting sprees in busy or important places. Shopping Malls, train stations etc etc. If this was done over a period of several days it could bring the economy to a stand still almost. Cops in front of Wal-Mart and walking within malls with guns and stuff.

Or another attack that would have a huge psychological effect would be to do something on election day. Set off a bomb or two a some polling places. They might not do much other than piss everyone off, but it would be a HUGE attack when it comes to the psychology of the country.

As far as placing blame for any attack, I think the more sophisticated the attack the more likely Bush and co is going to take the blame. Think of it along the lines of how we could miss all the signs of an attack pre 9-11. However, if it is a simple attack along the lines of guns or small backpack bombs then Bush will escape blame and could actually use that in his favor to push the wire tap and other laws and methods.

No matter what happens though, all any type of attack will do is unite us once again and strengthen our resolve to win this. I don?t think there is anything the terrorists can do that would sap us of our will to win.

You pretty much descruibed the plot of Tom Clancy's Teeth of the Tiger

Outside the handful of lefty states on the east coast and people's republic of kuhlifornia, shooting up shopping malls wouldn't be all that successfull, I'd imagine on any given day there are at least 10 CWP holders present

 

[Lemon law]

Well, even if Al-Quida gets Iraq as a new base to set up operations in Iraq---it will again be a measure of the sucess of our bumbler and chief--there were no AL-Quida in Iraq with Saddam. Now there are a bunch along with many home grown Insurgent types---we may have Afganistan maybe--but Al-Quida now has Somalia 100% for compensation.

Get a clue---GWB blows everything he touches. While I may agree that we can't just cut and run from Iraq---its clearly time to change strategy---that won't happen under GWB.
So the solution is clear---get rid of GWB and Rummy---and then we may be able to make some progress.---and not until.

Incompetents like GWB make incompetent decisions---and make problems worse not better----end of story. Sorry to put it so bluntly---but no other conclusion is possible
GWB is not only the root of the root of the problem---GWB is most implacable barrier to the solution of a problem GWB&co. caused---he has had four years of almost defacto national unity and his progress is measured in only negative units.

JUST ANOTHER WAY TO STATE THE SAME BOTTOM LINE.

 

[Lemon law]

I somewhat question if numerous Al-Quida attacks not causing tremendous damage within the United States would benenfit GWB---after all, GWB&co. have been promising us their tough on terrorism stance would buy us safety---and all that would show is that GWB&co, lied to us AGAIN.---and that they could not Patrol a Wal-mart parking lot competently as some other poster put it.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well, even if Al-Quida gets Iraq as a new base to set up operations in Iraq---it will again be a measure of the sucess of our bumbler and chief--there were no AL-Quida in Iraq with Saddam. Now there are a bunch along with many home grown Insurgent types---we may have Afganistan maybe--but Al-Quida now has Somalia 100% for compensation.

Get a clue---GWB blows everything he touches. While I may agree that we can't just cut and run from Iraq---its clearly time to change strategy---that won't happen under GWB.
So the solution is clear---get rid of GWB and Rummy---and then we may be able to make some progress.---and not until.

Incompetents like GWB make incompetent decisions---and make problems worse not better----end of story. Sorry to put it so bluntly---but no other conclusion is possible
GWB is not only the root of the root of the problem---GWB is most implacable barrier to the solution of a problem GWB&co. caused---he has had four years of almost defacto national unity and his progress is measured in only negative units.

JUST ANOTHER WAY TO STATE THE SAME BOTTOM LINE.

There is a lot of evidence of Iraq and al-Qeada connections, you just have to look.

Check out this thread where I am posting some of them
Saddam's link to terror

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There is a lot of evidence of Iraq and al-Qeada connections, you just have to look.

For example, ProfJohn is always looking deep within the recess between his gluteal cheeks for the sh8 he spews.

Check out this thread where I am posting some of them
Saddam's link to terror

Yes, do read ProfJohn's post. Don't miss the fact that all the replies point out that his "information" is over two year old, thoroughly discredited BS. But that's not new for him, either. :laugh:

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
First off, Presidents cannot stop or start economic cycles. They form themselves. Otherwise Bush will be getting the blame for the Housing bubble.

What's wrong with the USSR breaking apart under his tenure?

Clinton benefited from the good-times during the Internet bubble, while Bush got into office just in time to see it burst. Also, it was afer the bubble burst -- and people were no longer throwing their money at dog-food companies -- that Enron, Worldcomm and the likes failed.

As for the USSR breaking apart, that affected the military budget, there was no longer need to blow huge sums of money on some super-weapons. You'll notice in these graphs that spending was going down during Clinton presidency, thus releasing funds for other uses.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Am I the only person who thinks this is either an empty threat or fake? It just has the flavor of something that's a little too "neat" to be worth taking too seriously. This "Abu Dawood" gives a LOT of operational details, are we supposed to believe that some grand-pubah terrorist is so stupid that he'd give up operational details just to threaten us? They don't really make the threat more effective, what they do is add detail to the story...the kind of detail that shows up in the "imminent threat of terrorist attack" stories that crop up periodically. Secondly, I find the source rather suspect, as the phrase contained in the story "homicide bombing" is not typically a phrase used by serious media, it's more of a phrase you hear listening to biased right-wing commentators. The third thing that makes this rather difficult to take seriously is that, as far as I can remember, Al-Qaeda does not broadcast "imminent attack" messages before they actually attack. Not only is terrorism a lot more effective when it's a total surprise, but as I said before, telling your enemy you're going to do something (and including a surprising number of details about what exactly you're doing) is a serious operational security problem.

My opinion is that this is fake, with the chance that it's just an empty threat being a distant second. It's not a kind of thing a serious terrorist would release, it's very much the kind of thing a hack journalist would write to make some waves.

"Abu Dawood" is probably a fictional character, but I wouldn't put it past the Shrub administration to pull another 9/11 like stunt.

 

[kingtas]

Exactly.