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

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?

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

Nobody knows. But one thing for certain, we can't just go on the assumption it is a ruse. To the contrary, 9/11 showed beyond a doubt that he is willing and capable of pulling off such attacks. As far as risking his credibilty, I think he cares little about this as he already has all the credibility he will ever need in the middle east.

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


The populace will demand the gloves are taken off...FOR REAL. This means any state that has sponsored terrorism may suffer a day of reckoning long overdue. Iran, Syria and other spots in the middle east may simply cease to exist if the attacks as threatened (and alluded to as nuclear) do occur in the United States. Other states (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) will cooperate fully in the war on terror or also suffer serious consequences.

On the domestic side, I also think that many of our cherished freedoms would be in danger. Emigration will probably cease. The borders will most likely be secured (for real this time) and non-americans will find it next to impossible to get into our country. In short, I see us isolating ourselves from the rest of the world in many ways.

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


No. I would only DEMAND action from whichever party is in power to finally get serious about this war. If it is truly a war, then we need to commit ourselves FULLY to winning it.

I don't know. But my feeling is that this is nothing more than an idle threat. If he had some way hit America, I think we would have heard his comments after the "attack"



As in any terrorist action, innocent civilians will die.

But, politically nothing will change. This facade called "War on Terror" (War for "Global Domination") will continue. The idiotic "Jihadist" mentality will continue. People will still refuse to think on how to prevent terrorism but their paranoia will make them resort to the use of arms even more.

Things won't get any better, on the contrary, they will get a lot worse.



It might, but that does not mean that I will give in to my paranoia and change my opinion now.

Given the fact that they have succeeded in the past, one has to give it credence.



About the only thing that would hurt OBL's credibility with his mobs would be to become a Mormon.



Jimmy Carter and the left will want to give him a couple donuts and a hug, and explain how America and Christians, Hindus, Buddists, Atheists, Druids, and those ever-present characters in orange at the airports are to blame.

The Eunuch N would pass a resolution saying now they are really, really, really mad, and to please quit it.

The W and the right will choose to destroy them wherever and whenever they can and let God sort them out.



Without a doubt, I would forego the Eunuch N entirely, as they are proving themselves impotent once again with Iran.

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

IMO it is only because we have dismantled AQ badly after 9/11 and we have followed all leads, that we have not been hit again. We can, I think, be sure BL will try to hit us again – and mass casualties and economic impact will be the goal. IMO bio or chemical WMD most likely. His agents could be walking across our southern border as we speak.

If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?
Depends on the attack. If a series of big malls are hit with lots of casualties then people will stay away causing huge economic consequences.



If al Qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?
No.

Wow Yogurt, did you take an extra helping of rage pills today? Yes, Jimmy carter and the American left would LOVE OBL for mounting another devastating attack on the US. They would clearly want to send him flowers and invite him to speak at the Harvard Club.

Are you even trying to be credible any more?

I mean that post is one steriotypical fascile insult away from being reportable to the mods.




Well, actually thats not really the case. Every single report on Al Qaida that exists, including the IISS report, Congressional Research Report and the CIA analysis, all say that Al Qaida regained its strength entirely following the Bush Jr. decision to divert from the war on Terror and attack Iraq. Left largely alone at that point, as of over a year ago Al Qaida was estimated to be stronger, more numerous and better funded and equipped than it had ever been.

However, I do agree with you that OBL will certainly try again at some point, and frankly huge threats like actually have the opposite effect on me. It does not make me more afraid of an attack, frankly long periods of total silence would scare me more. Loudly advertising things like that tends to diminish rather than increase one's credibility...

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsr...29_05232003.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm

After all, the chief Taliban apologist was given a spot at Yale, so why would I suspect otherwise? I would also be willing to bet that he will be teaching at a college in the US within 10 years.

As for Jimmie Carter, I think he truly is a pacifist, which is fine. I just don't think he should be out there trying to negotiate his own deals. I just believe his idea of negotiaton is basically "You do whatever you want, and we'll just close our eyes, is that OK with you?", as evidenced in North Korea.

Yes yes, anoyong against Bush is a traitor, the left would rejoice at another attack on the US, the Democrats are all in love with OBL...

Like I said Yogurt, if I didn't know better I would assume somebody had hacked your account and was making a deliberate effort to destroy any remaining credibility you might have had here.


I mean, I have to ask, in all seriousness... do you actually BELIEVE Democrats and Americans on the left would want to give OBL a hug if he launched another major attack on the US? I mean, are you that far out of touch with reality?

If not, then why would you make such a pointlessly infammatory and insulting comment?

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

Well, since it’s some guy named Rakan bin-Williams who made the statement and claims they’re just “awaiting orders” from bin Laden, I have to wonder if bin Laden has anything to do with it (or indeed, if he is even still alive).

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

I have no doubt that it is possible for a terrorist to mount an attack of some sort, but something about the article doesn’t ring true to me (just my opinion, mind you). Maybe it is just a way of fomenting panic and fear (after all, the Bush administration isn’t the only body capable of using fear as a weapon to control people). By specifically mentioning “states far from Washington”, a huge expanse of red states would be a target (plus the blue left coast, but we don’t believe Bush could/would protect us anyway). And that section of the country is ripe for the fear-pickin’ - they've been expecting it.

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

Assuming it didn't go off in Los Angeles and obliterate me , it would confirm my belief that Dubya was wrong, wrong, WRONG going off on a tangent in Iraq, leaving bin Laden and Al Qaeda to their own devices. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Dear Leader had concentrated on capturing bin Laden and wiping out al Qaeda instead of obsessing over Saddam and Iraq.

I've gone through this before and I think the logic is still sound. The US needs another devastating attack, or rather, the Planners need another attack. Conscription is just around the corner and I know that because the US has no plan to let up on it's fabled 'war on terror' therefore it stands to reason that more fodder will be needed to realize those plans. The US military is stretched so thin right now there is no way they could open up another front and still maintain its global agenda. That makes conscription the only viable alternative. So how will the Planners be able to do that? Simple. Another massive 'Islamist terrorist attack'. Post 911, Americans made it clear that they would support anything and believe anything if they think it will "make them safe". So that gives Planners a clear getaway again.
There are two logical plans which I feel will bear fruit in the near future. One is the domestic attack (like 911, against Americans and on American soil). The other is the foreign attack. If the Planners choose to use America as it's staging ground again then here is a possible scenario: An unconventional and devastating, perhaps using WMD, attack on the American people on American soil will take place somewhere significant in relation to the American way of life. Perhaps a traditional holiday or event such as the Super Bowl or something of that nature. There will be heavier casualties than on 911, and it will take place in a part of the US where minorities are not the norm i.e. it won't take place in Los Angeles or Texas. I think it will, like 911, take place on the Eastern US coast, such as New England or such. This I feel is true because of the US reaction to the minority blacks in New Orleans. That guy was correct in saying Bush doesn't care about black people. So there's no way the US people would support conscription over an attack which kills five thousand Mexicans or blacks.
The other mode of thought is the foreign attack scenario. I think there will be some serious (perhaps with WMD) attack on a major US installation in Iraq, and major casualties will be reported. The finger will be placed on countries like Iran or Syria, and there will be a major drive for revenge on the "Islamofascists". That's where conscription will enter the fray. That future WMD attack on the US troops will kill many birds with one stone. Get the American people in the mood for revenge. Check. Get Iran and Syria to take the blame. Check. Expand the fabled "war on terror" to further the US goal of world domination and control of its energy reserves. Check.

At first I was thinking, 'Where did he come up with the "rejoice" idea?', then I realized your inference of my use of the word "hug" was different than my intent. I meant it in the 'Barney dinosaur' 'I feel you pain' kind of embrace that Carter has been known to do physically or emotionally with the likes of Arafat, the Ayatollah, Saddam, Il Sung, Ortega, and many others.

Like I have said, I think Carter is well intentioned in most cases, but he,and some others on both the left and some on the right, see "good" in everyone irrespective of their actions. To this day Jimmy Carter can't comprehend how badly he has been used by every ne're-do-well he has embraced. I also try to see the good in people, but I don't let someones words be a smokescreen for their actions. There are some people who are just plain evil, and who want to do evil acts. To blind oneself to that is to blissfully look at the world though rose tinted lenses and ignore reality.

It's credible. Bin Laden is making these threats to "terrorize" us. That is, after all, what terrorists do.

What impact will they have? Well, the left will blame President Bush for "creating" terrorists as though taking an aggressive and proactive stance against those who declared Jihad against America somehow provoked them. And, there will be loud calls for the US to disengage from Iraq and the rest of the Islamic world.

Would such an attack change my political perspective? No. 9/11 did. I realized then that sitting back and taking a cautious stance toward these fanatics just encourages them just as our current display of division, infighting, and the general undermining of Bush and the war in Iraq transmits a fundamental weakness to Bin Laden and his ilk.

Attacks are not prevented by the display of American weakness and lack of resolve. They are encouraged and nearly guaranteed.

No Lordhelmet, easy mistake for you to make here... thats not a 'prediction', its an 'insult'.

However there will be a lot of blame for Bush, from the left AND the right, though probably not the fanatic far-right, about why he took his eye off the ball in the war on terror and got divertd into his own personal crusade on Iraq, thus giving Al Qaida the time, space and resources the rebuild themselves entirely?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1331362,00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/25/...ain619467.shtml




Those loud calls already exist. That fact that you choose to ignore them does not make them go away. But yes, another attack will probably make them louder, and drop Bush Jr's popularity again. Though the good news for him is that, seeing as how he is at 38% now, he can't really drop that much further...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1002115227

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/2006-03-02-poll.htm



Actually, as the IISS report above clearly states, the invasion of Iraq is what directly tranlated to strength for Al Qaida and OBL.


Sorry, but facts trump rhetoric, especially old tired rhetoric.

Your post just confirmed my prediction that the neo-isolationist calls for us to disengage from the Islamic world would increase and that Bush would be blamed for the attacks.

In fact, your post is a "pre-emptive strike" of that phenomena prior to any attack by any terrorists. Should such a post be considered part of the "Vermillion Doctrine"?

Yes, quite the precognitive you.

Though to be fair, I pointed out that the calls for disengagement already exist, and are quite strong. From both the right and the left.

So 'predicting' a fact that is already commonplace and happening as we speak does not exactly make you nostradamus.

Also, to be fair, most of the polls are talking about withdrawal from Iraq, not necessarily the Middle East as a whole. The US should certainly carefully consider its other engagements in the middle east, but just universal withdrawing unilaterally is extreme thinking, and thats what got you into this mess in the first place.


Oh, and while I would not say Bush would be 'blamed' for the attacks (that would go to Al Qaida), I think he would certainly deserve a share of the blame. And more importantly, would you not agree? I mean you chose not to address the fact that his decisions allowed Al qaida to regroup and regrow, because despite his rhetoric, Iraq was more important to him than the 'war on terror'....

Also, I'm hardly 'neo-isolationist', whatever that means, I just think international intervention, when it happens, should be done with some intelligence and for the right reasons.




I don't even know what that means, but I will assume that it is some kind of insult.

All I am doing is citing polls (which, as it turns out I was in error about, the latest popularity poll for Bush Jr according to Pew research is not 38%, its 33%) and linking to reports showing facts about international terrorism.

If you don't like facts... well, thats not really my problem...

Actually, that's not true.

The IISS came up with its estimate of 18,000 Al Qaeda members by taking the estimate of 20,000 fighters trained in Afghanistan camps and subtracting the 2,000 estimated fighters killed or captured since. Nothing in that estimate shows additions from recruits since 2002 or defections. It is a very, very simplistic estimate in my opinion and certainly does not reference Iraq.



Now, the IISS goes on with some (unsubstantiated) assumptions: because of attacks in Madrid and elsewhere suggest that Al Qaeda is "fully reconstituted". Of course, Al Qaeda has not taken credit for the Madrid bombings, the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and its offshoot the Salafia Jihadia are the groups identified as the parties responsible. source These groups have very tenuous ties to Al Qaeda and their goals are an Islamic state in Morocco.

In fact the estimates of Al Qaeda's strength go as low as bin Laden plus a few cohorts (BBC Documentary: The Power of Nightmares).

The IISS makes no claim that the Iraq war has bolstered Al Qaeda's numbers, only that it is a magnet for foreign fighters.


You seem to be drawing conclusions that the authors themselves do not draw. In fact, you draw the opposite conclusions:



It is more decentralized and relies on its operational "heavy lifting" on local groups. That indicates that its strength is lower than before, not higher.

Is this credible or just a ruse?
Would Bin Laden risk his credibility or can he afford to make idle threats?
It should be credible. When you are at war, you cannot be surprised when your opponent retaliates.

If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?
It depends on who the President is at the time. If it is still an oil executive playing commander-in-chief, the excuse would likely be used for overthrowing another country in the Middle East. The United States will go bankrupt and taxes will skyrocket. At that point, the terrorists win.

There are two ways to end a war: eliminate the enemy, or negotiate a peace. If we open up some dialogue, we may find that all they want from us is to stop killing them. If we truly want the same thing, for them to stop killing us, then the "negotiation" could turn out to be just an instant peace. Since the current president has taken an opposition to any dialogue, we can only expect more bloodshed.

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

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?

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.

Is this credible or just a ruse?
Would Bin Laden risk his credibility or can he afford to make idle threats?
I agree with KnowPaine that in a war, you must expect attacks. Bin Laden however must not subscribe to Sun Tzu's theory of striking where your enemy least expects it. As far as I know, announcing attacks hasn't been in OBL's playbook until now. That in itself is interesting.

Bin Laden has the advantage of almost infinite credibility. He has demonstrated his organization's ability to carry out attacks. Nothing he fails to do will diminish his credibility in the foreseeable future.

If these attacks do take place, and are as serious as the threat implies, what impact might they have on America?
I think the biggest impact would be the hardening of people's attitudes towards sympathizers with terrorists (or perceived terrorists). I think it would be disastrous for support for the Palestinian authority, for example, which recently elected a terrorist organization to run its affairs.

In the US, there will be investigations into why the attack wasn't prevented. Of course, the question would be misplaced because as Know Paine stated, during a war you should expect attacks.

I think we should keep in mind AMLord's 3/16/06 announcement (which follows):


My announcement does not make me Nostradamus, nor does it indicate I have specific knowledge of when where and how the attack will (or will not) occur. It IS something we should keep in mind when we formulate policies and opposition to policies. An attack IS being planned somewhere--are we doing everything we can to find it, mitigate it, and stop it?

If al qaeda detonated a WMD in the USA, would that change your political perspective at all?
No. As I've said, I expect an attack is in the works. Why should fulfilling my expectations make me change my conclusions?

Well, let's take a look at our own hemisphere, specifically, look up. Canada has not been invaded since the English took over. Okay, now look to the right. I do believe that Iceland and Greenland have never been invaded. Keep looking to the right and we come to Switzerland, a country that has sucessfully remained neutral. Looking up again, Finland got dinked but not the rest of Scandinavia. What's up with that?

I don't think any of these countries have experienced terrorist attacks either.

As ye sow so shall ye reap. It's a pretty simple concept. Violence does indeed beget violence, and more so, the scale keeps escalating. The mythological Hydra is an image symbol for this ancient concept. I know it's hard to do, but someone has to turn the other cheek -- or simply walk away.

But when it comes to terrorism attacks on the US or US property abroad, or US interests abroad, I'm afraid the karma runs so deep as to be impossible to pay. Thus, the illusion of violence as a constant factor in the world is an easy one to take.

Yet it is still an illusion. We also create our own realities, don't we.

Switzerland was invaded in 1798 by France. After Napoleon was defeated, the Swiss confederation was restored (by non-Swiss outsiders). Switzerland also had a brief civil war in 1847 (Catholic vs. Protestant, go figure) and was targeted for invasion by the Nazis in WW2. I wonder how safe their neutrality would have made them had the Allies been defeated?

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.

The Swedes (who were not invaded and cultivated peace with the Nazis by, among other things, censoring anti-Nazi newspaper articles) were fairly unmolested in the war but it made some very difficult compromises (including some freedom of the press) to remain so.

Canada is protected by the United States. Although it has a respectable military, it is no secret that its close relations with the US are helpful. Of course, in referencing Canada, you left out that the United States has also not been invaded in the same time frame and that Canada has been involved in wars abroad.

"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.

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)




As long as we excuse war and all the horrible things it brings, we are going to see a lot of it.

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.

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?

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



Your response reads...



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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.



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.



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.



No.