logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> The next big attack., Is it inevitable, and then what?
moif
post Mar 13 2006, 11:57 PM
Post #1


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,690
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Female
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Bin Laden and his gang have made a very specific threat against the USA:

QUOTE(WorldNetDaily)
The threat suggests the attack will be far greater in magnitude than Sept. 11, 2001, because following this one, "there will be no one to analyze and investigate, because the mind and the heart will be unable to comprehend it. ... This will not be a single operation, but two; one bigger than the other, but we will begin with the big one and postpone the bigger one, in order to see [how] diligent the American people is [in preserving] its life. If it chooses life, [it must] carry out the demands of the Muslims, and if it chooses death, then we are its best perpetrators."

[snip]

"Let me now inform you why we opted to inform you about the two operations and your inability to stop them before they are carried out. The reason is simple: You cannot uncover or stop them except by letting them be carried out. Furthermore, the best you could do would be to accelerate the day of carrying out the operations. In other words, if we schedule the operation to take place tomorrow, the best you could do is to make it happen today."
Link.


Is this credible or just a ruse?
Would Bin Laden risk his credibility or can he afford to make idle threats?

If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?

If al qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
Fma
post Mar 17 2006, 04:15 PM
Post #21


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Member No.: 4,449
Joined: February-2-05

From: Istanbul, Turkey
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 17 2006, 06:00 PM)
As for Scandinavia, both Norway and Denmark were invaded by the Nazis, despite their claimed neutrality.  The Danes surrendered a mere two hours after the invasion!  In Norway, after its fall, the Norwegian police helped the Nazis exterminate 40% of its Jewish population.


So what?

The Nazi Germany was an exceptional and unique case. It was the worst of all possible scenarios. It is very wrong to say that it is proof against "violence begets violence". There are exceptions to everything.

Yet, there were countries who managed to remain neutral. (Switzerland, Turkey, Sweden, Spain-to some extent)


QUOTE
"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst" is a good rule of thumb in foreign policy.  I do not think there are any examples of a peaceful government being successful anywhere in the world for any extended period of time without the help of outside forces.
*



As long as we excuse war and all the horrible things it brings, we are going to see a lot of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Know Paine
post Mar 17 2006, 04:21 PM
Post #22


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 5,807
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 16 2006, 02:08 PM)
Violence begets violence...OR violence is a constant factor in the world?  Do we have any evidence that a non-violent society has avoided outside violence?  Any at all?
Violence is a constant factor in the world because we have difficulty letting go of our primitive instincts which were designed not for a civilization, but for survival of the fittest. Worse yet, whenever a nation becomes as influential as the United States is today, it fails to set an example for peace.

QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 16 2006, 02:08 PM)
Your claim about "messing" with other nations' sovereignty flies in the face of recent history--notably Japan and Germany both of which are allies of the US (and close ones) after we forcibly removed their dictatorships.  So your claim that "this has always been and always will be" is clearly wrong.
Did not Japan and Germany face retribution for their hegemony? Today, is there not contempt amongst Arabs regarding the resultant State of Israel, the establishment of which the Holocaust was a major factor?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ringwraith
post Mar 17 2006, 04:55 PM
Post #23


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 253
Member No.: 697
Joined: April-28-03

From: Houston, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Hi Know Paine. Let me see if I understand your position correctly. The question was.....

QUOTE
If al qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?


Your response reads...

QUOTE
None at all. The circumstances may change, but the truth remains that violence begets violence. When you mess with the sovereignty of nations, even if the government becomes your puppet, you create resentment amongst the people. With the failure of the governments to provide retribution, the people will band together and do it themselves. This has always been, and always will be the case. No catastrophe will ever change that fact.


Do I take it then that if you were President of the United States and we were attacked with Nuclear Weapons against a major american city (lets say New York City for example) and it ceased to exist, your suggestion is you would simply turn the other cheek? Is this correct or am I missing something?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Know Paine
post Mar 17 2006, 07:41 PM
Post #24


***
Junior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Member No.: 5,807
Joined: January-27-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Ringwraith @ Mar 17 2006, 11:55 AM)
Do I take it then that if you were President of the United States and we were attacked with Nuclear Weapons against a major american city (lets say New York City for example) and it ceased to exist, your suggestion is you would simply turn the other cheek?  Is this correct or am I missing something?
I would definitely retaliate against the offending parties. As I said, violence begets violence, and the victims have every right to seek reconciliation. Such a reaction should only be used insofar as it quells the assault and restrains the transgressor. I would never attack anyone preemptively.

Most importantly, I would work to mend our relationships with other countries, especially in the Middle East. We have wreaked too much havoc over there in the past half century, and we are still a major thorn in the side of sovereign nations. For example, I am sure that Iran is still bitter about our role in giving them a dictatorship which they had to rebel against, and about our assisting Iraq in it's assault on them after their revolution. If they were able to trust us, then we could finally trust them, and their nuclear power plants would no longer be a threat to us. Proper diplomacy can prevent future disasters.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Victoria Silverw...
post Mar 21 2006, 07:30 AM
Post #25


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



I'll skip questions one and two; the first one because I simply do not know; the second one because it is too big a question for me to answer with my feeble abilities.

But I feel compelled to answer question three.

No.

If anything, another major terrorist attack on the United States by the fanatical branch of Islam would simply be evidence (if any be needed) that secular liberalism is the only rational basis for a modern society.

Fundamentalist Islam, like its less violent cousin Fundamentalist Christianity, is the absolute antithesis of liberalism. It is insanely anti-feminist, anti-gay, and anti-secular.

Why would an attack by anti-liberals make me less liberal?

This post has been edited by Victoria Silverwolf: Mar 21 2006, 07:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
labrocca
post Mar 31 2006, 11:33 PM
Post #26


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 5,985
Joined: March-31-06

From: Las Vegas
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I take his threat serious but I don't believe he has the capabilities to really do national damage to the USA. He will only push us into a war. It would become a holy war really fast too. It would be the USA (christians) vs the Arab (muslims). It's viewed this way already by many in the world. Bin Laden wants this. He wants us to perpetuate a holy war.

If they ever do attack again on US soil and kill a mass amount of people...he will see the true resolve of Americans.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Reflection
post Apr 10 2006, 12:42 AM
Post #27


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 6,002
Joined: April-6-06

From: United States
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Is this credible or just a ruse? Would Bin Laden risk his credibility or can he afford to make idle threats?

Is this threat credible? I do not think anyone can answer that with absolute certainty, and those who can offer the best analytical response of such a question are not going to do so in a public forum.

As for bin Laden's credibility, it should be accepted as being as solid as concrete. Bin Laden does not make hollow threats about his network's operations. He has shown time and time again that his threats of impending attacks should taken at face value, which is to say there is no reason to presume they are merely hollow threats. Bin Laden is very well versed on this country and has shown to have an acute understanding of how it operates and how public opinion is both shaped and influences politicians.

Furthermore, his most recent couple of statements have included paragraphs and sections that addressed the American people, whereas the majority of his previous statements have been directed at America's political leaders. This should be interpreted as bin Laden keeping with the Prophet Muhammad's injunction that the enemy be warned before being attacked, something a number of Islamic clerics, including some who support bin Laden, were critical of after the attacks on 11 September 2001.


If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?

The "If" in the above question should be replaced with "When". Perhaps the attack(s) will enlighten many people in the country who believe the rhetoric of many U.S. politicians who insist "this is a war on freedom and democracy...", refuse to accept that bin Laden's movement was and is a response to U.S. and Western foreign policies (that is not to say I agree with bin Laden or his actions/tactics), and continue to harbor the belief that "the American way is the best way."

Based on the current President's approach of breaking any law and violating any part of the Constitution in the name of "fighting terrorism," I would expect us to lose even more civil liberties and constitutional rights.


If al Qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?

No. As a whole neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties (there are exceptions to this in both parties, but such exceptions are few & far between) have taken substantial action to increase the country's safety from terrorist attacks.

While members of both parties continue to pat themselves on the back for there having been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 11 September 2001, which they attest to their actions having "made our country safer", time will prove them wrong. And when there is another major terrorist attack I will be curious to see how many of these "protectors" step down from Congress. The attacks of 11 September 2001, while officially and publicly blamed mostly on failures by the CIA, were the result of failures by Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, Congress, and senior-level "decision makers" in the various departments responsible for preventing and/or disrupting such attacks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lek
post May 3 2006, 09:53 PM
Post #28


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 136
Member No.: 5,768
Joined: January-11-06

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Independent



Bin Laden and his gang have made a very specific threat against the USA:

QUOTE(WorldNetDaily)
The threat suggests the attack will be far greater in magnitude than Sept. 11, 2001, because following this one, "there will be no one to analyze and investigate, because the mind and the heart will be unable to comprehend it. ... This will not be a single operation, but two; one bigger than the other, but we will begin with the big one and postpone the bigger one, in order to see [how] diligent the American people is [in preserving] its life. If it chooses life, [it must] carry out the demands of the Muslims, and if it chooses death, then we are its best perpetrators."

[snip]

"Let me now inform you why we opted to inform you about the two operations and your inability to stop them before they are carried out. The reason is simple: You cannot uncover or stop them except by letting them be carried out. Furthermore, the best you could do would be to accelerate the day of carrying out the operations. In other words, if we schedule the operation to take place tomorrow, the best you could do is to make it happen today."
Link.


Is this credible or just a ruse?
Would Bin Laden risk his credibility or can he afford to make idle threats?


To me it is very credible as an actual physical attack possibility! I can think of several "attacks" that I would consider meeting the threat statement.

However, it is also a valid Psych War (PW) "attack" as it stands. (Ruse and credibility get re-defined in PW!) "Crying" oneself a "hungry wolf" works for a while as a PW attack; then when "the prey" is sufficiently dulled, it is a good set up for a real attack on the hoi polloi of whatever group one targets.

The wording of the above leads me to think it is not yet an immediately real physical attack threat. But, there are no guarantees in this guessing game. Being prepared for all threats is our best defense. And we ain't there yet to my mind! (Cuz the list of threats has not yet been adequately covered; and, we are not to list them publicly under present "unofficial guidelines for National Security!" Catch 23!)

If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?

I would hope it would catalyze us into taking the listing of all threats quantitatively as a serious necessity to do now well and completely. Then seriously countering each according to its "damage" magnitude. The "We ain't gunna study war no more." mind sets (of the '60's)", may feel nice; but its ignorance generation leaves all the doors open to disingenuous rhetorical posturings. Whomever wants to walk in, can!

If al qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?

No. I'm afraid it would actually confirm it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Twilight Sky0
post May 5 2006, 11:27 PM
Post #29


**
Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Member No.: 4,431
Joined: January-30-05

From: Ireland
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE
Is this credible or just a ruse?


It's difficult to say. The statement is certainly designed to cause fear and panic. It doesn't exactly make sense for him to broadcast this if he was actually planning on pulling something off, secrecy would be the safest bet. It seems to be as if he's just trying to intimidate America.

QUOTE
Would Bin Laden risk his credibility or can he afford to make idle threats?


That depends on how his followers think and behave, and how much Bin Laden tells them about his plans. If this is a fake threat and they know it, obviously there's no risk. But if they believe it to be real and he doesn't deliver, it could have negative consequences for him.

QUOTE

If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?


There would be a wave of serious anti-Muslim feeling in America, and the populace would likely support reductions of civil rights and privacy. America would probably begin taking more radical steps toalter the Middle East, which could in turn cause more extremism to crop up there. A vicious cycle ensues.

QUOTE
If al qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?


No.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 5th, 2021 - 11:07 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.