Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Your Speculation On Why The U.S. Hasn't Been Hit  
User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

again...

I think it's one of three things.

Increased awareness/security/intelligence.

Lack of means by the perpetrators.

Not in the 18 month~2 year cycle.

What do you think???


22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMls515 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3076 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2616 times:



I would like to think that they don't have the means or that increased security, etc. has eliminated the threat.

I kind of think that more attacks are being planned and will be carried out on a strategic schedule. The truth is though that there are thousands of ways to commit horrible terrorist attacks and there is really nothing that can be done to prevent them. There's not much there to prevent suicide bombings in malls or anything like that

I figure that if there are more serious terrorist attacks, the constitution will go out the window and there will be mass deportation or WWII-style internment. And 99.9 percent of the victims of this will be innocent. That would pretty much be what it would take to stop it.


User currently offlineSAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

As well as overseas terrorists, the US has plenty of home-grown terrorist groups in its borders - and there are numerous acts by them on an ongoing basis. Generally, unless it's a spectacular like Oklahoma City, the media will help keep the lid on things and of course there the high rate of gun crime in America helps. A shooting in the UK would be fairly high profile news; whereas in the States it wouldn't even get a mention unless a VIP was slotted.

As the IRA, ETA, Red Army Faction, Red Brigades etc have shown in Europe it's extremely easy to operate terrorist cells, even in countries with effective security services - which is something the US is not.


User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

At the moment I would say it is more luck than anything else. I hope that we don't see any more attacks, but I am pretty sure that you will

Jeremy


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I hope there are no more attacks, but it's inevitable another attack will happen, maybe not as big as sep 11th but it probably will occur as sad as it sounds. Osama bin laden has become too quiet for my liking, he could be up to something big time. I suspect another attack could be planned on the 1st anniversary of the sep 11th attacks, that's september 11th 2002.

I hope the current security measure are enough to stop an attack.

Arsena@LHR




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineQuerosene From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2533 times:

The real cause for the "success" of September 11th was for the surprise element.

For September 11, 2002 another attack to happen I think is too obvious.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

As well as overseas terrorists, the US has plenty of home-grown terrorist groups in its borders - and there are numerous acts by them on an ongoing basis.

Really? Show me these "numerous acts" that are in an "ongoing basis", SAS23? There are terrorists cells here, but show me some examples?

Generally, unless it's a spectacular like Oklahoma City, the media will help keep the lid on things and of course there the high rate of gun crime in America helps.

Aaaah, I get it now. These "numerous attacks" on "an ongoing basis" is not known to the American people because the media isn't letting us know about them, but you, the all-knowing, all-seeing SAS23 knows all about them!!

And the high rate of gun crime signals one thing-a high rate of gun crime not "numerous attacks" on "an ongoing basis".

Jesus, but you think you're so much smarter than everyone else.


User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2521 times:

Let me just say that SAS23's argument is invalid.

Gun crimes and terrorism are two different things. You cannot lump the two together.

Now to the subject:

I think the United States hasn't been attacked again because they are afraid of seeing the same retaliation that was brought upon Al Qaida. You know, the whole "live again to fight another day" thing and all of that.



Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8142 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

An attack doesn't necessarily need to come from a large group. One motivated individual could cause all manner of destruction. Something else: there has been speculation about suicide attacks in US shopping malls etc. I think this is missing the point. In Israel the security situation makes it hard to leave a big bomb somewhere, which means a suicide mission is the best guarantee of a result (the perpetrator doesn't by definition want to die). The US isn't the same at all, the same person could set off multiple bombs / whatever, they don't need to give their life to ensure a successful attack.

And finally, I think another attack is going to happen soon. Zionist supporters and Israeli spokespeople can justify what's happening in the ME to their hearts' content but it doesn't mean the Arab world will be brought around to that point of view. Why America is willing to surrender it's freedoms (and the lives of some it's civilians) because one little country halfway round the world wants to do some ethnic cleansing is completely beyond me.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

I don't want to ruin anyones day, but the BBC made a chilling fictional documentry style programme about a smallpox attack starting in the US.
'Smallpox 2002' was set in April-June 2002, and featured real experts as well as actors.
It starts with people going down with a flu-like illness in New York, soon crossing the Atlantic.
By the time smallpox is determined as the cause, the genie is out of the bottle.
Western societies creak under the strain, but the 3rd world gets hit the hardest.
At the end, 60 million dead worldwide, 2 million of them in the USA.
The source is traced to one man, who infected himself then walked around NY.
His body provides no clue to his organisation, if any, he's never identified and only a piece underlined in a nearby bible as a suicide note.
This type of programme has been made before, but after transmission in January, President Bush apparently asked for a tape.

Just one, out of many possibilities, the only comfort can be drawn from the fact that no nation is going to knowningly house major terrorist groups again, after Afghanistan.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

With all respect, the BBC is in the business to make money. They don't do that forecasting mundane predictions , they do it being alarmist. The credibility of British media is highly suspect following the Jenin fiasco, so please...pull out a few grains of salt when you listen to them.

Let's not forget aggressive strains of smallpox roamed freely as little as 25 years ago. Granted more of the population was innoculated, but any smallpox outbreak in terrorist form could likely be dealt with with medicines on hand. There would be deaths, of course, but 60 million?

If the first targeted terrorist bioweapons attack on the US was meant to cause widespread death, it was an unmitigated failure. The medicines worked better than anyone imagined, the authorities actually functioned competently(for the most part) and the dispersion pattern of what I read experts were amazed was probably the highest quality weaponized anthrax possible just didn't operate as predicted.

But had it never happened, what would the BBC have to say if their scenario was weapons grade anthrax attacks in the heart of New York and Washington? How many millions would die?


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

Well, firstly, Heavymetal, the BBC is not in the business of making money at all, it is not a private company, and you cannot compare it on those grounds with CNN, ANC, CBS or any other US broadcaster. In itself, that doesn't negate your argument of course.

Secondly, your argument that:

"If the first targeted terrorist bioweapons attack on the US was meant to cause widespread death, it was an unmitigated failure. The medicines worked better than anyone imagined, the authorities actually functioned competently(for the most part) and the dispersion pattern of what I read experts were amazed was probably the highest quality weaponized anthrax possible just didn't operate as predicted."

is true if indeed that was the case, and let's be honest no-one really knows. But the anthrax episode and any smallpox attack are very, very different scenarios.

Thirdly, the reason why smallpox would cause widespread death is because it is easily transmissable and practically no-one has immunity to it, because it was eradicated around the world as a disease. Therefore vaccines are at a premium. Now, both the British and American governments have recently been stockpiling it, which would limit the deaths in those countries, but it certainly wouldn't around the world, there is nothing like enough of it. Nor would the presence of vaccines prevent many from dying even in the US and UK.

As for the credibility of the British media being suspect, I'm not sure how you can argue that any more with Britain than anywhere else. The problem with smallpox being used as a weapon is one which the west is more than aware of, and this particular programme wasn't portrayed as news item anyway, it was a drama.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

Well Banco pointed out most of what I was going to say, but in the programme the 3rd world takes most of the 60 million dead due to poorer medical facilities, overcrowded cities and the effect on the AIDS ravaged African population, also preventing vaccination.
The terrorist got hold of some of the 'India One' military strain made in tons by the USSR in the 1980's, a defector who worked at the huge facility it was produced at contributed to the programme.
I just used this example as a possible future terrorist attack, something that the NMD pork barrel project is useless against.
I'll take the BBC over most others. CNN, or worse Fox? Do me a favour!


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

The problem with trying to spread a communicable disease, is that richer countries are FAR more likely to be able to fight it than poorer countries. In this instance, it would seem that releasing smallpox or whatever would be counterproductive to the terrorists' goals, as it would kill far more people in third world countries, than it would in places like the US and UK. You can't CONTROL the spread of things like this. Of course, terrorists have never really been known to think of the ultimate consequences of their actions (witness Al Qaeda).

User currently offlineNeednewairport From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 235 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2457 times:

Lets get back to the topic....

yes, there will be another attack.

no, our "security" measures are basically a joke we are NOT any safer than we were 8 months ago.

I highly doubt they will do the plane thing again it is almost "been there, done that" plus no American would ever sit and allow themselves to be highjacked....that will never happen again.

I doubt it will be biological, the point of biological warfare is to leave the society's infrastructure intact so it can be used by the "invading party".

My personal opinion is that it will be nuclear. It will be used in a highly populated area (NY, Chicago, LA, etc). If they were smart they would use it in LA and let the prevailing westernly winds carry the poison across the country......

Our biggest defense is going to be the great scout motto "be prepared." I imagine for the first day or so, those directly effected will be on their own. Although government response seemed coordinated on Sept 11, I sort of think the government would not know how to react to a nuclear weapon detonated in LA, NY, etc. Also, NO ONE is immune to radiological illnesses.

IMHO



User currently offlineTWAL1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Well, Small Pox is my biggest concern. Yeah, we might be able to fight it, but I would suspect that millions would die.

Anyone who would purposely infect themself has to know that there is a good chance that it will affect his own family and people.

Not to complain, but how does this topic merit a one star rating? I'm curious about that.


User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

A nuclear attack is definately 'when' not 'if'....if we don't clearly spell out the consequences of such an attack.

If Muslim extremists are the most likely candidates for perpetrating such a crime on the US, then the Muslim world has to know that an equal and opposite attack will visit them. Cities need to be 'paired' like they were in the Cold War. New York or Washington goes? Mecca is the tradeoff and will be vaporized. Any number of our top 20 cities? Medina, Baghdad, Tehran...all plausible targets.

Crazy? Of course. Using one to begin with is crazy. Tens, hundreds of thousands of innocents will die. But, coldly and historically speaking, that's war.

The point of Mutual Assured Destruction is to let the moderates of any one side, who tend to be the majority, know they are responsible for their extremists. They can't did what they did after 9/11 and say "It's terrible but don't look at us.." ...knowing places beloved to them as well as the extremists are targeted for destruction ...and the only thing that will cause that destruction is if their extremists act first....will cause them to realize that every American Osama or al Qaeda or whomever kills means a dead Muslim. That an insane Muslim is as much a danger to them as he is to us.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

The state of the ex-USSR is in a worrying,if slightly over-dramatised,state.There has been much talk about Al Qaeda trying to get their hands on nuclear matter- I wonder how much is true.Also a possible attack into a nuclear power plant must be on the list.

User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2377 times:

Oh chirst....the day the first bus is blown up in New York, LA, Miami, or Chicago is going to scare the shit out of me.

It's gonna happen unless we continue our war on terrorism.


User currently offlineSEVEN_FIFTY7 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 957 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

>>The point of Mutual Assured Destruction is to let the moderates of any one side, who tend to be the majority, know they are responsible for their extremists. They can't did what they did after 9/11 and say "It's terrible but don't look at us.." ...knowing places beloved to them as well as the extremists are targeted for destruction ...and the only thing that will cause that destruction is if their extremists act first....will cause them to realize that every American Osama or al Qaeda or whomever kills means a dead Muslim. That an insane Muslim is as much a danger to them as he is to us.<<


Welll.....Just keep in mind that those Muslims have been (and are still being) indoctrinated to not fear death. As a matter of fact, their own death in exchange for our destruction is a wonderful thing in their eyes. They even look forward to it.

That's what's so scary. The fact that these Muslim extremists are willing to sacrifice themselves, as well as the entire world, if need be.

It's funny how one's own death USED TO BE an impediment from commiting some type of malevolent behavior. Take away that impediment and you now have heinous actions and intentions that are truly without limits.

These folks are willing to sacrificially blow up the world and/or disease the earth like we've never seen it, all in the name of Allah.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

I would like to think that somebody is getting the idea that we are willing to hit back.

Schoolyard rules here people.

Osama had some preceptions about the weekness of Americans for a fight from his experiences against US forces in Somalia. As in Blackhawk Down.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

I think the terrorists are waiting for complacency to kick in again here in the US, as it inevitably will. Somehow, our government seems to believe that increased security will make a difference. I believe it won't, because the perpetrators for future terrorist acts are already here, and have been living in our country for quite some time, much like the hijackers on September 11th. Whatever is going to happen has been planned for awhile, and will be carried out in a very cold, calculated manner, as were the hijackings and subsequent attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.

As to what will happen, it's anyone's guess. You'd think that if the public is aware enough to examine the possibility of a dirty nuke being detonated in a major US city, or the deliberate spread of a deadly disease throughout the country, the government would have either taken measures to prevent such an act by now, or at least be prepared with a coordinated response. I hope that when something DOES happen, the public is surprised by the speed of the government's actions, as well as its preparedness. Maybe I sound pessimistic, but I don't think that will be the case.


User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 22, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

Welll.....Just keep in mind that those Muslims have been (and are still being) indoctrinated to not fear death. As a matter of fact, their own death in exchange for our destruction is a wonderful thing in their eyes. They even look forward to it.

That's what's so scary. The fact that these Muslim extremists are willing to sacrifice themselves, as well as the entire world, if need be.

It's funny how one's own death USED TO BE an impediment from commiting some type of malevolent behavior. Take away that impediment and you now have heinous actions and intentions that are truly without limits.

These folks are willing to sacrificially blow up the world and/or disease the earth like we've never seen it, all in the name of Allah.



I could not agree with this statement more. Thank you 757.

So how do we deal with something like this when death is no longer a deterrent?

I'm afraid it may have to come down to "them or us" scenario. If and when it comes down to that, we may be left with no alternative but WWII style tactics vis-a-vis Internment Camps and such.

I mean what other options would we have if these people are WILLING to die in order to see US die?

Clearly our Intelligence (military, not IQ) leaves a lot to be desired. And it would take decades to try and weed out and cherry pick the "nuts" from the general population. And that doesn't even factor in the "sleepers" and the "little kids" that are cute today, but 20 years from, as a result of their indoctrination, will be the next generation of terrorists.

So in the meantime while attempting to find a dozen "known" terrorists, the other thousands that we never even knew about just wiped out half of our population.

There are some very ugly situations on the horizon involving the Muslims. And frankly, given their mentality, I don't see any way out of it coming to a head and resulting in a bloodbath.

All I can do is hope and pray that it's theirs and not mine.






Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Has The US Been Hit By Manu Chao Yet? posted Mon Dec 24 2001 12:29:16 by NUAir
Your Thoughts On "The Raven"... posted Sun Mar 18 2001 22:30:06 by Jderden777
Why You Shouldn't Post Your Picture On The Web posted Mon Dec 6 2004 05:12:35 by Jet-a gasguy
Why You Should Never Put Your Picture On The Net posted Sun May 16 2004 05:27:06 by L-188
Hirsi Ali On Why Muslims Deny The Holocaust posted Tue Dec 19 2006 19:01:51 by RJpieces
Your Opinions On The Beatles? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 07:09:42 by San747
Why The Stigma And Hatred On "Coming Out"? posted Fri May 19 2006 03:17:07 by Cadet57
My Opinion On Why Films Are In The Tank posted Mon May 8 2006 04:46:12 by Blazingcessna
Your Take On The UK posted Sat Apr 29 2006 02:01:31 by Ba757gla
Your View On The Vietnam War? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 21:14:45 by Wrighbrothers