Terror threat against election

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 11:39 am

It seems that a new undefined threat have been stated by the Homeland Security towards the upcomming election.

Ridge says al Qaeda planning attack

From the article:

He said U.S. officials have no precise knowledge of the time, place or method of attack, but said they are "actively working to gain that knowledge."

"The boy who cried wolf", a real threat or election tactics?

I'm pretty sure we had disussions about this topic some time ago (couldn't find the right one though

), but anyways....

I don't doubt it would be an "excellent" time for Al-Qaeda to perform a terroristic act, in the middle of the election process or possible the voting itself.
But we have heard this statement often - about undefined threats towards the US, and I, for one, find it rather suspect that this threat is announced so shortly after Kerry has appointed Edwards and was starting to get a lead in the Polls.
But then again - no doubt there is a real threat against the US and the west in general, in regards of terrorisme, but I don't think an "undefined" threat is something that secures the public as much as cause more fear amongst the people, and therefore I see only a few reasons for announcing it.(the upcomming election being one).

However, one could argue, that the government got blamed for 9/11 because they didn't respond to the threats, so now they announce pretty much anything, but would 9/11 have been avoided if they had announced "an undefined threat" back then (I personally doubt that)?

I'm usually very cynical, so I can easily see this being an election ploy by either Bush himself, or his supporters. The timing is rather suspesious.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:09 pm

Well, we were supposed to have multiple attacks around July 4th, and nothingn materialized. As the FBI/CIA/Homeland MindPolice haven't triumphantly unveiled several agents caught in the act of sabotage, we can only assume nothing happened, despite the dire if general warnings issued a month ago. Does that mean attacks won't happen...? No. But it does give me pause to wonder what they hope to achieve by issuing such bland announcements.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:28 pm

"Strangely" enough - I just watched some CNN Live, and they layed forth the same speculations from Democratic groups as I did, that the timing seemed very much as a ploy to draw attention from the Kerry/Edwards situation. (I wonder if they read this board

)

I wonder ..... it is things like this I wouldn't mind *knowing* about, but of course, we likely never will, so all we have is speculations.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:04 pm

The chance of being affected by a terrorist attack is no greater today than it was before September 11, 2001. It is also equally likely that it can happen at any given moment, although some events make the risk higher like the Olympic games, the US election, etc. This is common sense. Yet people are so much more afraid today than they were, for instance, in the 1970's when Rote Arme Fraktion, the IRA, ETA and a number of other terrorist groups were active. Personally I dont give a rat's behind about the warnings irregardless where in the world I might be.

To me, the warnings are more than anything a sign of the US government not having a clue, since if they had any significant leads for some imminent attack, it would be better if they took action against it instead of putting out a warning. If they actually do know where and when, it is very easy for the government to do something. If on the other hand they don't know where and when, a warning is completely pointless since there is no way you can protect yourself against the attack. Even so, in the US the risk of being shot by your neighbour or run over by someones SUV is a greater risk by a number of factors of ten compared to dying from a terrorist attack. The conclusion must be that all warnings, true or false, are solely for political purposes.

Since the second world war, it was convenient to scare up the American people with the Ruskies to keep the masses in shack. My feeling is that the replacement of choice turned out to be terrorism. For Bush it has obvious advantages, because the more imminent the threat, the better the results for the hardliners. If he can get people scared enough, they are likely to go with the militarists - that is, the Republicans. It won't matter that much that his track record sucks, since even a bad war record is better than a pinko-commie-pacifist-spineless-backing-out-when-the-heat-turns-on-chicken record. This is how it used to be, and unfortunately I don't think the US voters have changed that much.

Edit: By the way, the moral of the "cry wolf" story is a falsity. It does help to cry wolf over and over again. It's called indoctrination.

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:29 pm

I think Ridge has issued a warning for almost every US national holiday since 9/11/01. Silur, I think you're right on in saying it's all for political purposes. At least it makes them look like their pants aren't around their ankles if/when an attack occurs on us soil.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:34 pm

[QUOTE=Ned Flanders]I think Ridge has issued a warning for almost every US national holiday since 9/11/01. Silur, I think you're right on in saying it's all for political purposes. At least it makes them look like their pants aren't around their ankles if/when an attack occurs on us soil.[/QUOTE]

...which of course is utter BS, since IF an attack occurs their pants were around their ankles...

The important question to ask if they claim the contrary is, "then why didn't you do something to prevent it?".

Psi_RedEye22 · Post by **Psi_RedEye22** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:57 pm

So can we just conclude that these announcements are made at random, and during important events, to cover the asses of the higher ups in case of an attack?

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:01 pm

I don't know, if the US is as vulnerable now as it was before 9/11, why wear pants at all?

And, hypotheitcally speaking, they may have done something in prevention, it just wasn't enough, but how do you define what 'enough' is if an attack can happen anywhere, anytime? Oh yeah, it's called the Patriot Act.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:27 pm

It seems like a win-win situation for Ridge. If no attack happens, he can claim that his warning was enough to scare off the potential attackers. If the US foils a terrorist attempt, he can say that everything is working perfectly. If an attack happens, he can say, "See? We knew something was coming, but didn't have enough info to prevent it. We need to strengthen the Patriot Act!"

[QUOTE=Ned Flanders]why wear pants at all?[/QUOTE]This pretty much is your answer to everything, isn't it Ned?

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:39 pm

I think that if a terrorist attack actually happened and tried to influence the election, Bush would win, hands down. Which could be what al Quaeda does NOT want. Granted, though, with Bush and Co. at the helm, their war against the western world is rather easy to sell while searching for support from third world countries.

Either way, if an attack does happen, Bush will win the election.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:39 pm

Perhaps a leak of information was released and the government wants to keep its people informed. I understand the help the bush administration would get from an attack. But seriously... perhaps they just want us to be ready... instead of waking up to buildings being destroyed out of no where. Not everything is a plot/scheme or trick.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:40 pm

If the terrorists successfully strike us with a horrible attack, it will show how desperate they are and prove that Bush is winning the war on terror.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jul 08, 2004 4:54 pm

This question comes from someone who does respect Bush at all. This will be a hypothetical. No offense intended.

But how many of you think that Bush may allow a terrorist attack so that he does win the elections and his policies do move forward?

Or worse still stages one?

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:49 pm

I disagree that Al Quaeda do not want Bush to be reelected. The man has given them everything they could ever wish for, and keeps doing so. It is interesting to see how the US government, contrary to all their own research on the subject, act completely contrary to all proven methods of handling terrorism. A number of key facts:

- The US have not caught Osama Bin Laden, which portrays the guy as a shrewd operator that can get away with blowing up stuff in the US.

- The US has pissed off basically the entire middle east, muslim south east asia, northern africa and a lot of people in ther rest of the world as well, forming an enormous recruiting ground for any terrorist group.

- By alienating most of their allies, the US has pretty much pushed most other nations into non-involvement in the "crusade against terror" since the choice is either to go with the US, in which case you will be morally questionable and a more likely target for terrorist acts, or not getting involved in which case the US will take both the moral and literal flac.

- Getting the UN to step in is getting more and more difficult, since the US stance on the issue is "demanding" to put it euphemistically. Even considering the US recent backoff on getting special treatment in terms of pre-approved amnesty for war crimes, the US line is not softening enough to make guys like Chirac budge.

... and there are numerous others. Now, if I were Osama, I would break out the champagne and party. I would also love to keep the current dimwits in the White House.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:52 pm

[QUOTE=VonDondu]If the terrorists successfully strike us with a horrible attack, it will show how desperate they are and prove that Bush is winning the war on terror.[/QUOTE]

Really? I would think that it would show that in spite of all that Bush has done, they can still strike at will in the US - basically proving that the Patriot act and all the limiting of normal peoples rights has done absolutely zilch in limiting the rights of the terrorists.

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 6:57 pm

[QUOTE=CM]This question comes from someone who does respect Bush at all. This will be a hypothetical. No offense intended.

But how many of you think that Bush may allow a terrorist attack so that he does win the elections and his policies do move forward?

Or worse still stages one?[/QUOTE]

My thoughts? Yes and yes.

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:49 pm

In all morbid and unfortunate honesty, 9/11 was the best thing that happened to the Bush Administration. It skyrocked their popularity, and gave them reasons to push agenda's they wanted.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:11 am

Has any country ever succesfully dealt with the problems of terrorism. I guess Britian... with the IRA? Any others? Wheres our history lesson...

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:28 am

[QUOTE=Nightmare]In all morbid and unfortunate honesty, 9/11 was the best thing that happened to the Bush Administration. It skyrocked their popularity, and gave them reasons to push agenda's they wanted.

[/QUOTE] You know there are a few conspiracy theories around that argue the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the attack but did nothing because they thought it would provide the justification they needed to go into Iraq...

At first, I dismissed this as a pile of crap... I thought there was no way a government in a democratic country would allow for its own citizens to be slaughtered like that, the thought was appalling and I just could not conceive of it. I am cynical, but that notion was beyond even me.

Now, after everything that has happened... Well let's just say I'm no longer entirely sure... It would not be the first time such a tactic has been employed... Pearl Harbour springs to mind....

Silur · Post by **Silur** » Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:31 pm

[QUOTE=RandomThug]Has any country ever succesfully dealt with the problems of terrorism. I guess Britian... with the IRA? Any others? Wheres our history lesson...[/QUOTE]

Fable is probably better at this, but there are a number of success stories in terms of defeating terrorist groups. The British have held the IRA in shack, although not really uprooted or defeated them. In Germany, the Rote Arme Fraktion were effectively defeated, although they did bend the laws a bit (nothing close to the Patriot act, mind you). In Peru, the now despised president Fujimori used both force and social reform to undermine and ultimately destroy the Sendero Luminoso. I know there are a few others, but my memory of them is too vague to be of help.

One of the more effective means to deal with terrorism is to remove the reason for it to exist. An example of this is the Spanish handling of ETA, where the terrorist group no longer has support from the local Basque people. You still have the one or two fanatics to stir up trouble now and then, but overall, the number of ETA attacks have dwindled over the years. Over time, so will ETA. Similarly, by giving the mountain people of the Andees ever so little support to make their lives better, Fujimori removed the recruiting grounds for Sendero Luminoso. He also sent death squads after them, which perhaps wasn't quite as noble and kept the squads around for later, which is why no one in Peru likes him.