Report: AQ will try big anthrax attack by 2013

[woolfe9999]

This new report says there will be a WMD attack from AQ, probably by 2013, suggesting a large scale attack with anthrax as the most probable vehicle:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35072269/ns/us_news-washington_post/

It seems that every year or so there is another new report on terrorism and WMD, and every time I read it I get the jitters.

Is this just alarmism or are we probably fooked?

- wolf

 

[Jeff7]

Do, or do not. There is no "try."

 

[Carmen813]

anic:

 

[CalvinHobbes]

Who's going to be left after 2012 anyway.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Every day the intelligence services receive this sort of thing.

Think about it- Terrorism is ridiculously easy to pull off if one disregards one's personal safety. A few minutes on google will enable one to find out how to create all sorts of mayhem.

Why hasn't it happened? Because there isn't the need. You are spooked, and that's the goal. So is it possible? Sure, however it's not any more or less likely than anything else on any other given day.

I'm not sweating it.

 

[Moonbeam]

The war on terrorism, if terrorist continue and succeed in killing great numbers of people, will have in future, to include the genocide of the supporting populations.

If the intention is to kill so many people that a Caliphate becomes accepted then the folk who don't want this will have to kill all Muslims. If you are going to hide behind your children to kill other people's kids, eventually it is your kids that will have to die.

This should be made clear, very very clear, and it should be explained now rather than later.

 

[hal2kilo]

Must maintain the constant state Fear/control.

 

[woolfe9999]

Every day the intelligence services receive this sort of thing.

Think about it- Terrorism is ridiculously easy to pull off if one disregards one's personal safety. A few minutes on google will enable one to find out how to create all sorts of mayhem.

Why hasn't it happened? Because there isn't the need. You are spooked, and that's the goal. So is it possible? Sure, however it's not any more or less likely than anything else on any other given day.

I'm not sweating it.

I think there is some reason to be concerned that AQ would actually carry this out. The goal would be to destabilize the U.S. economy when it is already depressed, as our military power is based on our economic power. A WMD attack, even if it only claimed a few thousand lives, would send the economy into a tailspin.

There certainly isn't any reason for ordinary people such as ourselves to sweat it, of course, because there isn't anything we can do about it.

- wolf

 

[Munky]

Oh, like the last anthrax mailings attack post 9/11, that actually originated from a US military research base? Nope, not buying the scare tactic anymore. Keeping the public in fear is key to passing monstrous legislation and taking away peoples liberties.

 

[WHAMPOM]

This new report says there will be a WMD attack from AQ, probably by 2013, suggesting a large scale attack with anthrax as the most probable vehicle:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35072269/ns/us_news-washington_post/

It seems that every year or so there is another new report on terrorism and WMD, and every time I read it I get the jitters.

Is this just alarmism or are we probably fooked?

- wolf

They don't know who sent the last ones even with 20-20 hindsight. Now. They. Can. Predict. The. Future? WOW! Job security, what a racket!

edit: last one=the 2002-03 anthrax letters. just in case I confused you.

 

[StageLeft]

It seems that every year or so there is another new report on terrorism and WMD, and every time I read it I get the jitters.

Personally every time I hear this I care less. And now it's been almost a decade and trust me I lose no sleep over terrorism.

Now if I heard that there was a true chance of a nuclear bomb that's one thing but anthrax? Less people would die in any attack from AQ with that than a thousand other causes of death in the country. Simply not scary.

A WMD attack, even if it only claimed a few thousand lives, would send the economy into a tailspin.

Well this is possibly true, it might especially consider how many will overreact. It will be impossible to buy a bag of sugar without an anal search.

I tried reading this article and lost interest. Same sh*t, different smell. It's been more than 8 years I don't know how many different ways they can package this and pretend it's novel. I have never doubted there would be another attack but the pointless conjecture by officials is tiresome.

 

[Moonbeam]

We should threaten AQ with cartoons.

 

[nobodyknows]

We should threaten AQ with cartoons.

I like the way you think.

 

[rudder]

I worry more about the nasties on public toilets.

 

[nobodyknows]

I worry more about the nasties on public toilets.

I don't think it would be very difficult for terrorist to get their hands on some anthrax. Getting weaponized anthrax would be a different story though.

 

[GTaudiophile]

The war on terrorism, if terrorist continue and succeed in killing great numbers of people, will have in future, to include the genocide of the supporting populations.

If the intention is to kill so many people that a Caliphate becomes accepted then the folk who don't want this will have to kill all Muslims. If you are going to hide behind your children to kill other people's kids, eventually it is your kids that will have to die.

This should be made clear, very very clear, and it should be explained now rather than later.

So you mean sort of like a "mutually assured destruction" scenerio?

Like, if Obama went on TV and said, "If more than 1000 Americans are ever killed again on American soil due to a foreign terrorist WMD attack, then the United States, within 24 hours, will launch a nuclear strike on the following cities:[LIST CITIES IN IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA (MECCA), YEMEN, etc.] There will be no questions asked and no debate. These cities will simply be gone. Oh, and when the dust settles, we will give the oil reserves to the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans, just to make sure the world knows we are not after your oil."

Is that what you mean?

 

[Sinsear]

AQ does not exist in the post-Bush world.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

This new report says there will be a WMD attack from AQ, probably by 2013, suggesting a large scale attack with anthrax as the most probable vehicle:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35072269/ns/us_news-washington_post/

It seems that every year or so there is another new report on terrorism and WMD, and every time I read it I get the jitters.

Is this just alarmism or are we probably fooked?

- wolf

No way, Chemical Ali was hung and that is the end of terrorism from that big terrorist nations Iraq... oh wait, they couldn't operate there before the invasion but now they operate in relative peace in all parts of the nation?

Truth is, Islamic terrorism has NEVER been so widespread as it is today and any sane man knows why that is. Give them a reason and they will find the means.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

AQ does not exist in the post-Bush world.

An Iraq that didn't have ONE terrorist attack nor were ANY of the organisations allowed under SH's rule or were in any of the parts that were under Iraqi control has become a terrorist hotbed that both suffers and supplies the largest terrorist attacks.

If you ask me, this is EXACTLY what GW and his crew hoped for and wanted and THAT is why almost all troops along with all air support were pulled out of Afghanistan when we had AQ and the Taliban cornered, if it had ended there there would be no reason to keep the war going anymore, it was one fight for one reason because of one incident and that is all it was.

Then... Iraq!!!! WMD's! We know exactly where they are, terrorist ties! Nigerian yellow cake from a forged MI6 memo.

Maybe you are so fucked up that you don't give a shit about your nation but you probably should.

 

[Moonbeam]

So you mean sort of like a "mutually assured destruction" scenerio?

Like, if Obama went on TV and said, "If more than 1000 Americans are ever killed again on American soil due to a foreign terrorist WMD attack, then the United States, within 24 hours, will launch a nuclear strike on the following cities:[LIST CITIES IN IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA (MECCA), YEMEN, etc.] There will be no questions asked and no debate. These cities will simply be gone. Oh, and when the dust settles, we will give the oil reserves to the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans, just to make sure the world knows we are not after your oil."

Is that what you mean?

I would see it more a unilaterally assured destruction since we would not be destroyed by it. I also see no reason for a number like a thousand so there's no questions about counting the dead. I should think, also, we would want to be more measured. I would focus on places that harbor terrorists in their midst where a determination is possible. I would also allow some time for conversion, where populations, for their own survival purge radical members, but, as I said, when folk mass murder with the expectation your own morals will prevent retaliation, and there is no other way to maintain your own morality, then extinction of the terrorist side becomes the only option, it seems to me. Why should the morally superior succumb to evil. But we have to have an eye open to our own evil, no?

In the mean time, the issue should be a matter of public debate, the issue, of terrorism, that is. There needs to be a world wide understanding that terrorism must end, that you can't support your own terrorists and not face terror yourself.

Accommodation and understanding are better than violence.

 

[Patranus]

We should threaten AQ with cartoons.

 

[Zebo]

Not too worried about it. There was a study by RAND that showed only 2% of victims are westerners, 98% are in fact Muslim or those not quite Muslim enough. They also said you have a greater chance of death by car accident than Mujaheddin. Honestly I worry about hunting accidents way more than terror. I've been shot twice.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I would focus on places that harbor terrorists in their midst where a determination is possible.

That would be post invasion Iraq and Afghanistan, AQ didn't even exist in Iraq and have never been so plentiful in Afghanistan since after the invasions.

I bet there are a lot less of them in Pakistan nowadays though since they were allowed to set up camp all over Afghanistan, regroup, recruit and move to other areas where they can pretty much work in peace (Afghanistan after GW ended the war in '03 and Iraq ever since the powers that actively fought AQ resistance effectively were killed).

 

[StageLeft]

Honestly I worry about hunting accidents way more than terror. I've been shot twice.

Man I hope you're duck hunting or else I think your luck is almost up.

 

[StageLeft]

That would be post invasion Iraq and Afghanistan, AQ didn't even exist in Iraq and have never been so plentiful in Afghanistan since after the invasions.

Yep the war on terror has been an epic clusterfvck of truly resplendent proportions. Like putting out a fire by trying to drown it with gasoline. Terrible mess the US government has really blundered it superbly.