-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Next Attack Imminent: Muslims ordered to leave the United States
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
International Machine Consortium
Golden Member
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
Lifer
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
DealMonkey
Lifer
Since when do give two craps what terrorist propoganda is claiming? I mean, remember who you're listening to.
ProfJohn
Lifer
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.
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
Lifer
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
Lifer
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
Lifer
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.
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
Lifer
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
Lifer
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
For example, ProfJohn is always looking deep within the recess between his gluteal cheeks for the sh8 he spews.
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
Golden Member
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
