Next terrorist attack within Ninety days

[lozina]

http://www.familysecuritymatte...omeland.php?id=1193902

Counterterrorism expert Juval Aviv met recently with reporters at Fox News and revealed information, which he believes is accurate, concerning an imminent Al Qaeda attack on five to seven American cities simultaneously.

"I predict, based primarily on information that is floating in Europe and the Middle East, that an event is imminent and around the corner here in the United States. It could happen as soon as tomorrow, or it could happen in the next few months. Ninety days at the most,? said Mr. Aviv.

This man, Juval Aviv is no ordinary guy with a prediction, he was right on the London subway bombing within a week and on 9/11 within a month, and that they would use planes as bombs on high profile structures.

So assuming Mr. Aviv is right again, who's going to take the blame for this new terrorist attack- Iran/Syria?

So in other words, does this mean now that war with Iran is on for by the end of this year?

 

[yllus]

It's nice to see that you're really worried about the people who could die in an attack. It's good to see that some people in P&N aren't all callously about scoring political points.

 

[LegendKiller]

If an attack did happen (and I hope it doesn't) it will be interesting to see the reaction. I figure it could go one of two ways.

1. President Bush has sucked, the GWOF has been a failure, we have wasted a lot of money and lives for very little return, and he should be removed for his incompetence.

2. Nobody is perfect but now we need a strong President to lead us, not changing one and clamping down more to protect our people. Thus, we should keep Bush who has shown that he can lead in a crisis and redouble our efforts to kill terrorists.

Sadly, I think the majority of Americans will pick #2, even though all people who have supported him have said for the past 7 years is that no attacks = proof of success.

 

[shiner]

"Had these people had wet towels to cover their mouths and noses, they would have had a much better chance of survival."

Always know where your towel is.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus
It's nice to see that you're really worried about the people who could die in an attack. It's good to see that some people in P&N aren't all callously about scoring political points.

Straw man argument FTW

Nice to see you aren't worried about the people who would die from the bombing of Iran or Syria or whoever we would wind up putting the blame of such an possible attack on.

 

[shiner]

Attacking rural America is about the worst thing they could do.

I mean sure if they really want to start playing Cowboys n Arabs, but otherwise it is a dumb dumb idea. All they have to do is find a Native American and ask them how that turned out.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
It's nice to see that you're really worried about the people who could die in an attack. It's good to see that some people in P&N aren't all callously about scoring political points.

Straw man argument FTW

Nice to see you aren't worried about the people who would die from the bombing of Iran or Syria or whoever we would wind up putting the blame of such an possible attack on.

Straw man argument against what exactly? Your out of the blue claim that a terrorist attack would mean a war with Iran or Syria is imminent? I wouldn't need a straw man to knock down that pathetic an argument.

I just think it's really nice that you took the news of a possible attack and that your first instinct was to spin it for your political agenda. Were you one of the folks who immediately went after President Bush during Hurricane Katrina as well? That was just as classy a move.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
It's nice to see that you're really worried about the people who could die in an attack. It's good to see that some people in P&N aren't all callously about scoring political points.

Straw man argument FTW

Nice to see you aren't worried about the people who would die from the bombing of Iran or Syria or whoever we would wind up putting the blame of such an possible attack on.

Straw man argument against what exactly? Your out of the blue claim that a terrorist attack would mean a war with Iran or Syria is imminent? I wouldn't need a straw man to knock down that pathetic an argument.

I just think it's really nice that you took the news of a possible attack and that your first instinct was to spin it for your political agenda. Were you one of the folks who immediately went after President Bush during Hurricane Katrina as well? That was just as classy a move.

LoL, Straw man #2.

straw man isn't a technique to "knock down an argument"

your second one is a much more classic example. you ignore what I say, come up with some preposterous irrelevant point about Katrina and somehow attribute it to me, and then knock that down thinking you knocked something I said down.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Attacking rural America is about the worst thing they could do.

I mean sure if they really want to start playing Cowboys n Arabs, but otherwise it is a dumb dumb idea. All they have to do is find a Native American and ask them how that turned out.

Heh, that's a good point

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
It's nice to see that you're really worried about the people who could die in an attack. It's good to see that some people in P&N aren't all callously about scoring political points.

Straw man argument FTW

Nice to see you aren't worried about the people who would die from the bombing of Iran or Syria or whoever we would wind up putting the blame of such an possible attack on.

Straw man argument against what exactly? Your out of the blue claim that a terrorist attack would mean a war with Iran or Syria is imminent? I wouldn't need a straw man to knock down that pathetic an argument.

I just think it's really nice that you took the news of a possible attack and that your first instinct was to spin it for your political agenda. Were you one of the folks who immediately went after President Bush during Hurricane Katrina as well? That was just as classy a move.

LoL, Straw man #2.

straw man isn't a technique to "knock down an argument"

your second one is a much more classic example. you ignore what I say, come up with some preposterous irrelevant point about Katrina and somehow attribute it to me, and then knock that down thinking you knocked something I said down.

Actually I was hoping you'd have the wit to deduce the irony of your reply - are you saying that Afghanistan did not warrant attack after the 9/11 bombings? Did they "take the blame" unnecessarily?

Again, you don't seem to realize what a straw man argument is, so I suggest you look it up. Your first instinct on this was clearly, "Ooh, a report that people may die soon! I can use this bash the Bush administration on P&N!" Now thinking rather poorly of you but wanting to leave the door open to you having some shred of class and humanity left, I inquired as to whether you acted equally as classy during the Hurricane Katrina episode. I suppose I could just do a search, but around here that rarely is very efficient.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
If an attack did happen (and I hope it doesn't) it will be interesting to see the reaction. I figure it could go one of two ways.

1. President Bush has sucked, the GWOF has been a failure, we have wasted a lot of money and lives for very little return, and he should be removed for his incompetence.

2. Nobody is perfect but now we need a strong President to lead us, not changing one and clamping down more to protect our people. Thus, we should keep Bush who has shown that he can lead in a crisis and redouble our efforts to kill terrorists.

Sadly, I think the majority of Americans will pick #2, even though all people who have supported him have said for the past 7 years is that no attacks = proof of success.

You forgot it's all Clinton's fault.

 

[GoPackGo]

What are they going to hit in Montana? Some cows?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
It's nice to see that you're really worried about the people who could die in an attack. It's good to see that some people in P&N aren't all callously about scoring political points.

Straw man argument FTW

Nice to see you aren't worried about the people who would die from the bombing of Iran or Syria or whoever we would wind up putting the blame of such an possible attack on.

Straw man argument against what exactly? Your out of the blue claim that a terrorist attack would mean a war with Iran or Syria is imminent? I wouldn't need a straw man to knock down that pathetic an argument.

I just think it's really nice that you took the news of a possible attack and that your first instinct was to spin it for your political agenda. Were you one of the folks who immediately went after President Bush during Hurricane Katrina as well? That was just as classy a move.

LoL, Straw man #2.

straw man isn't a technique to "knock down an argument"

your second one is a much more classic example. you ignore what I say, come up with some preposterous irrelevant point about Katrina and somehow attribute it to me, and then knock that down thinking you knocked something I said down.

Actually I was hoping you'd have the wit to deduce the irony of your reply - are you saying that Afghanistan did not warrant attack after the 9/11 bombings? Did they "take the blame" unnecessarily?

Again, you don't seem to realize what a straw man argument is, so I suggest you look it up. Your first instinct on this was clearly, "Ooh, a report that people may die soon! I can use this bash the Bush administration on P&N!" Now thinking rather poorly of you but wanting to leave the door open to you having some shred of class and humanity left, I inquired as to whether you acted equally as classy during the Hurricane Katrina episode. I suppose I could just do a search, but around here that rarely is very efficient.

Man, you really have no shame. Just waltz in, throw a bunch of straw man arguments- not addressing a single thing in the article or anything I typed. It's like you came up with some imaginary person who says imaginary things that you can argue irrelevent rpelies against. You really are thread crapping.

 

[palehorse]

What the hell does this have to do with Iran and Syria? Neither nation was mentioned in the article, on TV, or in Aviv's predictions themselves...?!?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What are they going to hit in Montana? Some cows?

Well, they could sabotage our food supply by going in and flattening all our corn crop- oh wait- the crop circle hoaxers already do that...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
Actually I was hoping you'd have the wit to deduce the irony of your reply - are you saying that Afghanistan did not warrant attack after the 9/11 bombings? Did they "take the blame" unnecessarily?

Again, you don't seem to realize what a straw man argument is, so I suggest you look it up. Your first instinct on this was clearly, "Ooh, a report that people may die soon! I can use this bash the Bush administration on P&N!" Now thinking rather poorly of you but wanting to leave the door open to you having some shred of class and humanity left, I inquired as to whether you acted equally as classy during the Hurricane Katrina episode. I suppose I could just do a search, but around here that rarely is very efficient.

Man, you really have no shame. Just waltz in, throw a bunch of straw man arguments- not addressing a single thing in the article or anything I typed. It's like you came up with some imaginary person who says imaginary things that you can argue irrelevent rpelies against. You really are thread crapping.

For the third time, look up what a straw man argument is and try to apply it effectively. You haven't done that here. If you feel otherwise, feel more than free to paste where I made up an argument on your behalf. And here I thought I merely asked a question or two.

I absolutely addressed the tripe you posted. I denounced your twisting of news of possible attacks into a partisan game and implicitly stated the idea that Iran or Syria would "take the blame" like Afghanistan apparently did was moronic. Which it is.

I have no shame...now that's a laugh riot. I'm sure that I could only wish to be as compassionate as you.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What the hell does this have to do with Iran and Syria? Neither nation was mentioned in the article, on TV, or in Aviv's predictions themselves...?!?

Because when I was googling this guy's name I found some references that he allegedly says Bush would use the next terrorist attack to start a war on Iran. And besides, it's not too far fetched when you recall how we invaded Iraq base don the 9/11 attack.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What are they going to hit in Montana? Some cows?

Well, they could sabotage our food supply by going in and flattening all our corn crop- oh wait- the crop circle hoaxers already do that...

There's a lot of things they could do in a rural setting. State/county fairs, more local malls, downtown America, water tower poisonings. I could sit here thinking of dozens of ways they could hit rural america and really strike the fear into people. Just think about the idea that in many rural towns people don't even lock their front doors. Sure, people would pick NYC as a natural target and those "big city people" are taking the risk. However, to strike at the "normal people" in America by targeting somewhere where they never expected, making people think they aren't safe anywhere, that's truly terror.


Taking down a building in NYC is flashy, making everybody afraid of even their own neighbor is terrifying.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What are they going to hit in Montana? Some cows?

Well, they could sabotage our food supply by going in and flattening all our corn crop- oh wait- the crop circle hoaxers already do that...

There's a lot of things they could do in a rural setting. State/county fairs, more local malls, downtown America, water tower poisonings. I could sit here thinking of dozens of ways they could hit rural america and really strike the fear into people. Just think about the idea that in many rural towns people don't even lock their front doors. Sure, people would pick NYC as a natural target and those "big city people" are taking the risk. However, to strike at the "normal people" in America by targeting somewhere where they never expected, making people think they aren't safe anywhere, that's truly terror.


Taking down a building in NYC is flashy, making everybody afraid of even their own neighbor is terrifying.

I actually wonder when someone is going to get around to reading one of Tom Clancy's worse novels, Teeth of the Tiger. In that book, terrorists use submachine guns to shoot up suburban malls all across America. Medium sized cities, nothing special about them. Now that's truly terrifying - while you can to some extent tell yourself that you'll be fine just as long as you stay out of NYC or the other really big cities, what do you do when it's not safe to even go to your neighbourhood mall?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: yllus
Actually I was hoping you'd have the wit to deduce the irony of your reply - are you saying that Afghanistan did not warrant attack after the 9/11 bombings? Did they "take the blame" unnecessarily?

Again, you don't seem to realize what a straw man argument is, so I suggest you look it up. Your first instinct on this was clearly, "Ooh, a report that people may die soon! I can use this bash the Bush administration on P&N!" Now thinking rather poorly of you but wanting to leave the door open to you having some shred of class and humanity left, I inquired as to whether you acted equally as classy during the Hurricane Katrina episode. I suppose I could just do a search, but around here that rarely is very efficient.

Man, you really have no shame. Just waltz in, throw a bunch of straw man arguments- not addressing a single thing in the article or anything I typed. It's like you came up with some imaginary person who says imaginary things that you can argue irrelevent rpelies against. You really are thread crapping.

For the third time, look up what a straw man argument is and try to apply it effectively. You haven't done that here. If you feel otherwise, feel more than free to paste where I made up an argument on your behalf. And here I thought I merely asked a question or two.

I absolutely addressed the tripe you posted. I denounced your twisting of news of possible attacks into a partisan game and implicitly stated the idea that Iran or Syria would "take the blame" like Afghanistan apparently did was moronic. Which it is.

I have no shame...now that's a laugh riot. I'm sure that I could only wish to be as compassionate as you.

Wow, you must be seriously oblivious

Straw man argument:

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

Now, review your first two replies to me.

In the first one, you come up with some totally irrelevant point about people dying from the predicted terrorist attack. Why? Did I mention anything about casualties? Then you go and denounce me for "not caring" about these people who were are not even talking about.

Hey look, I did not mention anything about how I am worried about the animals and property damage that might happen if such an attack happened, therefore, I must be uncaring! :roll:

So that ones falls under the 1st definition of straw man provided above.

Then your second post was even worse. You come out of left field with something about Katrina and blaming Bush, two subjects which were not mentioned at all, and then somehow tie me into a group of people who blamed Bush for Katrina. WTF ? That's using the 4th definition of straw man provided above.

Now please dont dig your hole any deeper

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
What are they going to hit in Montana? Some cows?

Well, they could sabotage our food supply by going in and flattening all our corn crop- oh wait- the crop circle hoaxers already do that...

There's a lot of things they could do in a rural setting. State/county fairs, more local malls, downtown America, water tower poisonings. I could sit here thinking of dozens of ways they could hit rural america and really strike the fear into people. Just think about the idea that in many rural towns people don't even lock their front doors. Sure, people would pick NYC as a natural target and those "big city people" are taking the risk. However, to strike at the "normal people" in America by targeting somewhere where they never expected, making people think they aren't safe anywhere, that's truly terror.


Taking down a building in NYC is flashy, making everybody afraid of even their own neighbor is terrifying.

I actually wonder when someone is going to get around to reading one of Tom Clancy's worse novels, Teeth of the Tiger. In that book, terrorists use submachine guns to shoot up suburban malls all across America. Medium sized cities, nothing special about them. Now that's truly terrifying - while you can to some extent tell yourself that you'll be fine just as long as you stay out of NYC or the other really big cities, what do you do when it's not safe to even go to your neighbourhood mall?

Pretty much what I was saying. I grew up in a small town, ~2,500 pop, with a few other ones like it in the same area. My graduating class was 170. I can go around thinking about what I did as a child/teenager and imagine a few dozen targets that would produce very frightening results. I grew up near the Twin Cities in MN. Sure, a target like the different big buildings in Minneapolis might be flashy, but attacking a large mall in the same area would produce much worse results. I would hate to see something like this happen.

I am sure they have thought about it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
What the hell does this have to do with Iran and Syria? Neither nation was mentioned in the article, on TV, or in Aviv's predictions themselves...?!?

Because when I was googling this guy's name I found some references that he allegedly says Bush would use the next terrorist attack to start a war on Iran. And besides, it's not too far fetched when you recall how we invaded Iraq base don the 9/11 attack.

1) We did not invade Iraq "based on the 9/11 attack." We invaded Afghanistan for that reason. We entered Iraq for other reasons - some false, some flawed, and some honorable.

2) Please provide a link wherein Aviv predicts that the next attack will lead Bush to attack Iran or Syria. Since you found one already, it shouldn't be a problem for you to provide the link...

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: lozina
Wow, you must be seriously oblivious

Straw man argument:

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy).
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

Now, review your first two replies to me.

In the first one, you come up with some totally irrelevant point about people dying from the predicted terrorist attack. Why? Did I mention anything about casualties? Then you go and denounce me for "not caring" about these people who were are not even talking about.

Hey look, I did not mention anything about how I am worried about the animals and property damage that might happen if such an attack happened, therefore, I must be uncaring! :roll:

So that ones falls under the 1st definition of straw man provided above.

Then your second post was even worse. You come out of left field with something about Katrina and blaming Bush, two subjects which were not mentioned at all, and then somehow tie me into a group of people who blamed Bush for Katrina. WTF ? That's using the 4th definition of straw man provided above.

Now please dont dig your hole any deeper

Okay, let's use your basis of the meaning of a straw man argument.

1. I did no such thing, as your position was "who will take the blame". I remarked that it was nice to see that was the angle which you cared to comment upon, instead of how to stop the attack, how many may be injured or killed, how this in any way has to do with Iran or Syria, et cetera. It's remarkable to me that what you felt was most worthy of comment was where the "blame" is going to fall. How does that misrepresent your position at all? It's a direct comment on that which you chose to highlight in your commentary on the article.

2. Didn't misquote anything.

3. Obviously didn't occur.

4. This didn't either, as much as you vainly try to fit it. I made no some assumption about your thoughts on the Katrina matter. I inquired as to whether you acted in a similarly callous way during that disaster to see if a pattern of callousness existed. Assumption vs. inquiry, see any difference there at all? One is used to create a straw man argument, and the other isn't. Unless all questions are now out of bounds.

5. No analogies were written.

As I said, you don't know how a straw man argument works. While you're at it, you may wish to examine the reasons why your mind immediately leaps to the things it apparently does.

 

[GoPackGo]

The primary result from somekind of major civilian attack like shooting up a mall would be monstrous negative impact on the muslim population.

Which is probably what the "terrorists" really want.

Then they will get the muslim populous to rally their cause.

or is there a "deeper" conspiracy?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

2. Nobody is perfect but now we need a strong GOVERNMENT to PROTECT us, not changing one and clamping down more to protect our people. Thus, we should keep those who have shown that they can lead in a crisis and redouble our efforts to kill terrorists.

Sadly, I think the majority of Americans will pick #2, even though all people who have supported him have said for the past 7 years is that no attacks = proof of success.

I changed a few of the words to better present it. Before the 9/11 bombing trust in government to protect and serve use was in the low 30s. After 9/11 it shot up to near 75%

the very same government that failed was suddenly seen as our saviour. Why? Press, Government leader, and "so called intellectual elites" spun it that way. Back in the 60s the "intellectual elites" started pushing the idea that distrust of government is a mental defect. This is still the belief in many circles. You see, when we don't trust them its because we aren't capable of understanding, hence they "do" things for us because "they" know better.


Whatever, if anything... as long as they don't specifically target children they will be able to do as they please, target kids or a school in America and the gloves come off. I don't want to see that world where America is truly angry