Next terrorist attack within Ninety days

[lozina]

Originally posted by: yllus

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.

You misrepresented my position. I took a position of where blame for such an attack would lead us to, and instead of addressing that position you instead tried to represent me as someone who does not care for probable casualties. Someone else could come along and say that since I did not mention how such terrorist should be punished that I am therefore pro-terrorist. Do you see now why misrepresenting someone's position based on omission is stupid? Of course not, you have no shame.

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.

Nice try at trying to argue semantics. The point is you made me out to seem like one of "those people" who immediately blamed Bush for somehow causing Katrina, trying to discredit me. It does not matter that you presented it as an "inquiry". What you were doing is implying.

quote:
"Were you one of the folks who immediately went after President Bush during Hurricane Katrina as well? That was just as classy a move."


But again, I certainly did not expect you to admit it. You're like the criminal caught red handed who continues to bleat on about his innocence. But, at least you have been exposed for everyone else here.

 

[palehorse]

lozina >> I'm still waiting for your response to my last post... where is that link I asked for?

 

[Lemon law]

The real question we have to address is whats in it for the terrorists and do they have any teeth. After all its them rotten terrorists who are the alleged perps and GEB&co. are the self styled hero's whose eternal vigilance keeps us all from being murdered in our beds. But the last sentence contains the myth GWB is trying to sell us. And the first sentence asks do the terrorists have those crucial two ingredients needed. Namely motive and opportunity with opportunity perhaps being better defined as operational capacity.

And I do submit, from the terrorists point of view, the most effective way to deflate the GWB&co. myth of invulnerability would exactly be to play cowboys and arabs. Putting all operational eggs in one basket and then pulling off ONE bloody and spectacular attack could have three downside risks for Al-Quida. (a) It would tend to really anger and frighten the USA. Plus generate sympathy abroad. (b) Large and complex operations are hard to put together and implement. And hence its hard to multiple large operations. (c) The net effect will be to encourage the election of a strong on terror GWB clone in 08.

And if the primary Al-Quida goal is to deflate GWB the smartest way would be small multiple attacks in multiple cities. And it might be wise to keep the losses in human life small to keep the anger low. Such attacks are easy to organize, would become highly visible, and positively demolish the myth that GWB is effective in the war on terror.

I for one maintain that Al-Quida could have maintained the operational capacity to do exactly as outlined despite the GWB crackdown. And instead decided that GWB&co. was running the country off a cliff anyways so why do anything to alter the GWB suicidal policy. So what has been lacking all along was motive and not opportunity.

But Al-Quida has been suffering operational reverses lately. Sunni tribal leaders are deciding they can run an insurgency without Al-Quida help and worse yet Iranian Shias
are stealing the Al-Quida thunder for being effective.

And that may change Al-Quida motives. And they may decide to resume attacks on US soil. And the way to maximum effectiveness would be to make a complete monkey out of GWB&co. An absurdly easy task easily done with cowboys and arabs as an operational template.

 

[Fern]

Well, since the CIA reads AT P&N, I'm sure that they are now aware of it. 😉

Fern

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
lozina >> I'm still waiting for your response to my last post... where is that link I asked for?

oh sorry, too busy playing "whack-a-mole" with yllus over here...

well, here's a link that mentions it: http://www.israelforum.org/blog_article.php?aid=859700.
but let's be honest, do we need Mr. Aviv to tell us that the next attack will probably lead to war with Iran ? I mean, what other country are we going to blame, Saudi Arabia? No, we're busy selling arms to them. There's only so many countries left on our Axis of Evil.

And did you really just say before that Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11?! :Q

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

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...

Name one honorable reason why Iraq was invaded and don't mention ANYTHING that was not a part of the pre invasion stated reasons.

While you and me might know why Iraq was invaded in the first place the general public was never told about it and would have never supported it if they had known.

But the real reason is hardly honorable.

 

[bsobel]

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.

Seems like an interesting point that perhaps you should have included in your OP...

 

[Nebor]

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?

Submachine guns are illegal. No way terrorists could get them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74
lozina >> I'm still waiting for your response to my last post... where is that link I asked for?

oh sorry, too busy playing "whack-a-mole" with yllus over here...

well, here's a link that mentions it: http://www.israelforum.org/blog_article.php?aid=859700.
but let's be honest, do we need Mr. Aviv to tell us that the next attack will probably lead to war with Iran ? I mean, what other country are we going to blame, Saudi Arabia? No, we're busy selling arms to them. There's only so many countries left on our Axis of Evil.

IF we get hit by another attack, then the blame will fall on those responsible. If it is AQ, then we will re-double our efforts to hunt them down and destroy them. If there is any definitive proof that any nation-state is behind the plot, then we will decimate them as well. I highly doubt that Syria or Iran will sponsor an AQ terrorist attack - and get caught. So, that said, I highly doubt an AQ attack would lead to a response against either country.

Second, I did a search on the link you provided. The author of the blog entry guesses that Bush might react that way (the comment is in parenthesis) Aviv himself did not make that statement.

In other words, you're making sh*t up.

And did you really just say before that Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11?! :Q

yes, that is exactly what I said. Do you have a problem with that statement?

 

[Lemon law]

I agree that bsobel has made an excellent point. And two things are almost undeniably true.

1. Israeli intelligence regarding all things in the mid-east is very very good. In fact Israel intel is almost certainly the best around at this time.

2. That some in Israel and some in the US are willing to manipulate intel to get the other side to do their heavy lifting in regards to an attack on Iran. Or to put it another way,
some in the US want Israel to attack Iran so Israel takes the heat for the attack. And some in Israel want the US to attack Iran so they get the benefit and the US gets the world condemnation.

And given those two undeniably true things plus the fact that the source authority being cited is an Israeli intel agent should leave us wondering which of the above two points is
the one to pay attention to? Because its either greatly exaggerated for manipulation purposes or its true on face value. And by and large its one or the other but not both. So we then should ask the other question---How do we ask or test which is true in this case.

But two things are worth mentioning in this advocated truth quest. (a) We seem to have the report of one and only one Israeli source. And a minimum sniff truth test should be multisource conformation totally MIA. (b) The report seem based on what amounts to cited chatter between various people Israeli intel is monitoring. And the disquieting things cited as the alarm in this thread is that all this chatter seems to indicate something big is in the works. But the big is vague and specific details are totally missing. Need I point out that the period prior to 911 was marked by a low point in just such chatter.

 

[Socio]

If is does happen it will be all Bush needs to go into Pakistan after Al Qaeda.

If that happens the Pakistanis are hotheads and will likely retaliate and that retaliation would probably be in the form of nukes shot in to areas of Afghanistan occupied by US forces. Most any other form of immediate retaliation would prove not only futile but be met with much stronger force in return.

If they do launch a nuclear attack then the reciprocation may put a real fast end to the Middle East conflicts.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

And did you really just say before that Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11?! :Q

yes, that is exactly what I said. Do you have a problem with that statement?

So how did you manage to avoid all the references the Bush Administration made between Iraq and Al Qaeda ? Did you employ ear plugs?

 

[Jaskalas]

Our border is open, our people keep telling us to keep our mouths shut, keep telling us there is no war against us from Islamists, are we to be surprised when our complete and utter inaction leads to another successful strike against us just as it did before?

One can only invite the wolves for dinner so many times, before you find yourself their meal.

 

[Lemon law]

One thing will be almost 200% true. Namely if Al-Quida is behind the attack predicted in this thread, there is a 0% chance Iran has anything to do with it. But too far high of a probability that if Al-Quida is behind such an attack, that GWB will seek to blame Iran. And worse yet, Al-Quida could seek to frame Iran just as it sought to implicate Saudi Arabia in 911.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: palehorse74

And did you really just say before that Iraq invasion had nothing to do with 9/11?! :Q

yes, that is exactly what I said. Do you have a problem with that statement?

So how did you manage to avoid all the references the Bush Administration made between Iraq and Al Qaeda ? Did you employ ear plugs?

Perhaps I can jump in to remind people that 9/11 was in 2001. We invaded in Iraq in 2003 (IIRC).

So, peeps suggesting that will invade Iran or Syria immediately after these forcasted attacked even if no evidence linking them directly can prolly relax.

If we wait a similar time period GWB will be out of office.

Along with some previous posters, I also do not understand how one can confidently conclude that these forcast attacks, if they do inded occur, will lead to our attacking either Iran or Syria.

I do understand the possibility of a pretext for an Iran bombing due to precieved weaponized nuclear capability. But I seem to remember a post here recently where AQ was "declaring war" on Iran (as well as Pakistan IIRC). Unless the terorist attacks are carried by the KUDs (or whatever their name is), I don't see much oportunity to bomb Iran.

I would expect any attacks to be carried by an AQ cell, and only the Lord knows where they may come from - home grown? Asia? I see no reason (or anything in this article) to be certain that they will be Arabic.

The only new thing I see here is the prediction that there will be multiple simultaneous targets, and they will be in rural areas. Seems to me that many have been saying that AQ likes the Summer time and that this is "our year" for such an event.

If this does occur, it will certainly change the landscape of the current Presidential race, IMO. The debate will likely shift dramatically, such issues as the firing of a few lawyers by the AG's office may fall off the scene big time, and the FISA debate may change directions as well.

Fern

 

[Zebo]

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.

I'm not sure we know how to fight wars anymore. To much "winning hearts and minds" and not enough killing and unconditional surrenders. Hell I bet the mortgage, Bush and all the powers that be will blame a "tiny minority of extremists" the next attack no matter how big and perpetual instead of anything to do with global jihad and Islamic supremacism within Islamic theology and tradition on a world wide scale. I am glad these PC pussies wernt around in WWII treating each German offensive in Europe as a separate "crime," not as part of any larger purpose, and offered outreach programs to Germans and "the german people" in the face of each "crime." No instead they instead they called a spade a spade and treated Nazism as an evil ideology and combated it head on killing so many Germans till they collectively came groveling before USA. I doubt this will happen again. Better pack some knee pads.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Zebo

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.

I'm not sure we know how to fight wars anymore. To much "winning hearts and minds" and not enough killing and unconditional surrenders. Hell I bet the mortgage, Bush and all the powers that be will blame a "tiny minority of extremists" the next attack no matter how big and perpetual instead of anything to do with global jihad and Islamic supremacism within Islamic theology and tradition on a world wide scale. I am glad these PC pussies wernt around in WWII treating each German offensive in Europe as a separate "crime," not as part of any larger purpose, and offered outreach programs to Germans and "the german people" in the face of each "crime." No instead they instead they called a spade a spade and treated Nazism as an evil ideology and combated it head on. I doubt this will happen again. Better pack some knee pads.

This is nothing like WW2. For starters we don't have a Declaration of War.

But Shiner's right. If they attacked something out in my area it would end up being a game of "Cowboys and Arabs" out here.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Zebo

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.

I'm not sure we know how to fight wars anymore. To much "winning hearts and minds" and not enough killing and unconditional surrenders. Hell I bet the mortgage, Bush and all the powers that be will blame a "tiny minority of extremists" the next attack no matter how big and perpetual instead of anything to do with global jihad and Islamic supremacism within Islamic theology and tradition on a world wide scale. I am glad these PC pussies wernt around in WWII treating each German offensive in Europe as a separate "crime," not as part of any larger purpose, and offered outreach programs to Germans and "the german people" in the face of each "crime." No instead they instead they called a spade a spade and treated Nazism as an evil ideology and combated it head on. I doubt this will happen again. Better pack some knee pads.

This is nothing like WW2. For starters we don't have a Declaration of War.

But Shiner's right. If they attacked something out in my area it would end up being a game of "Cowboys and Arabs" out here.

It's exactly like WW2. Almost identical ideology we are fighting.
http://www.newenglishreview.or...m?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

As far as your Rambo scenario.. probably will happen in Europe after Muslims achieve majority population and control of the armories ...there will be blood flowing in the streets from the few patriots they have left. Unfortunately you fools don't understand there are ARAB Christians, look alike Assyrians Armenians who moved here to escape the Islamic world you will be targeting and killing by in large. i.e. good guys.

 

[StageLeft]

I doubt it.

 

[Rainsford]

Random numbnuts talks to Fox News, wildly guessing about future attacks. Strong, manly "patriots" wet pants.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people? Are you all a bunch of complete morons? You know the best way to fight terrorism, stop being so God damn terrified of your own shadow...this is really fvcking pathetic.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Our border is open, our people keep telling us to keep our mouths shut, keep telling us there is no war against us from Islamists, are we to be surprised when our complete and utter inaction leads to another successful strike against us just as it did before?

One can only invite the wolves for dinner so many times, before you find yourself their meal.

Vague pontificating is great and all, but what should we have been doing that we weren't doing? Randomly killing Muslims in the street? Torturing more people for no real reason? Seriously, you seem to like bitching about this, but I rarely if ever see a concrete list of things we should be doing but aren't. So come on, your such an expert at national security, impress me. :roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 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?

Where does the bolded info come from? Did not see it in the story.

 

[IGBT]

..well according to pelosi and all the other psycotic progressive liberals all we have to do is bear our souls to Al Qaeda..mabe hold hands in a hot tub and all will be well.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..well according to pelosi and all the other psycotic progressive liberals all we have to do is bear our souls to Al Qaeda..mabe hold hands in a hot tub and all will be well.

Kindly provide a quote from Pelosi suggesting such an absurdity, or crawl back under your bridge.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Zebo

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.

I'm not sure we know how to fight wars anymore. To much "winning hearts and minds" and not enough killing and unconditional surrenders. Hell I bet the mortgage, Bush and all the powers that be will blame a "tiny minority of extremists" the next attack no matter how big and perpetual instead of anything to do with global jihad and Islamic supremacism within Islamic theology and tradition on a world wide scale. I am glad these PC pussies wernt around in WWII treating each German offensive in Europe as a separate "crime," not as part of any larger purpose, and offered outreach programs to Germans and "the german people" in the face of each "crime." No instead they instead they called a spade a spade and treated Nazism as an evil ideology and combated it head on. I doubt this will happen again. Better pack some knee pads.

This is nothing like WW2. For starters we don't have a Declaration of War.

But Shiner's right. If they attacked something out in my area it would end up being a game of "Cowboys and Arabs" out here.

It's exactly like WW2. Almost identical ideology we are fighting.
http://www.newenglishreview.or...m?frm=3766&sec_id=3766

As far as your Rambo scenario.. probably will happen in Europe after Muslims achieve majority population and control of the armories ...there will be blood flowing in the streets from the few patriots they have left. Unfortunately you fools don't understand there are ARAB Christians, look alike Assyrians Armenians who moved here to escape the Islamic world you will be targeting and killing by in large. i.e. good guys.

Other then the fascism angle I don't think this war has much similarity to WW2? If it did, then it would have been over when Bush declared "MIssion Accomplished".

As far as us "fools" not understanding there are "Arab Christians" I guess you missed the memo where we South Dakotans elected the first Arab-American to the US senate.... and yes, he's a Christian.