|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Will there be another "9/11" ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I thought that it would be appropriate to post this topic today, on the third anniversary of the World Trade Center destruction and the five hijacked airliners. I just want to ask everyone if they think that such an event or even something worse is likely to happen in the next decade. Personally, I think that it is likely to happen again. Why?
1) The United States has more enemies than before. 2) It was shown that the U.S. could be attacked. I think that if another attack occurs, it could be potentially worse, since it only makes sense to attack hard. The enemy will not get more than one opportunity. Perhaps next time may involve Nuclear or Biological weapons. 3) Is there any way to avoid this nightmare? BTW...moderator, I do not know which forum would be appropriate for this. Place it where you think it belongs. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-11-2004 09:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
3) Is there any way to avoid this nightmare? What exactly was "nightmarish" about it? I mean, more people died in motorcycle accidents than in 9/11. Certainly the national reaction was devastating to a number of industries, including airlines, but wasn't that just a bit of an overreaction? What about the attacks merited that sort of deep national fear? Plenty of people are starving in this country; plenty of children. Plenty of people have no homes. Aren't those bigger problems for us to worry about? People act like 9/11 "changed the world." I don't see the change. What I saw a change in was how scared people became of something that was likely never to ever affect them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I think the masterminds behind 9/11 tipped the first domino, and the U.S. government took it from there.
After 9/11, the U.S. had the sympathy and support of the world. Subsequent U.S. actions has severely dented that sympathy and support, and has (in some areas) triggered further development of terrorist organizations. A new 9/11 attack would swing the sympathy and support back toward the U.S. Why would a smart (and I think they are smart) terrorist organization want to do that? Moose ps: 5 hijacked airliners? I remember it as being 4. Or did one hijacking get thwarted, and I don't remember.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4698 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
quote: There is a saying in the US, I've no attribution, that all politics are local. I suspect that the terrorists's "audience" are other muslims and islamic states. They use terrorism primarily for influencing the attitudes of members of that demographic. I could be wrong about all this, it's just how I make sense of this. If that's the case the determining factors will not be world opinion but arabic and muslim opinion and thus further terrorist attacks might be evaluated as helpful. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
What exactly was "nightmarish" about it? Flying hijacked planes into two major skyscrapers and bringing them down, as well as plowing one into the pentagon. You are correct about the statistics (in a year) being pretty minute and the demographic affected (when checking the nation), being pretty small. However over 2000 people dying in less than an hour in the middle of a city is a rather drastic statistic by any standard. And for anyone in those locations, including the planes, I would list those situations as close to "nightmarish" as I can think... barring aliens showing up or sharks being able to fly.
People act like 9/11 "changed the world." I don't see the change. I think you are right that people believe the world has change in ways that it has not. But I do believe it really has changed. That was an indicator that small espionage styled groups... kind of like DrNo and SPECTRE... really could deliver city stopping damage as well as mass casualties. What's more they could do so with clever planning and no use of WMDs snuck in from outside. In the end the US has to change how it treats such organizations as well as taking care of situations before the escalate into hostile action against the US. Unfortunately people got it in their heads that the change was that we now were against everyone else (or they were against us) and it was strike first or die... or worse yet, better to kill innocent people over there to prevent innocent people getting killed over here. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Weapons of mass hysteria.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
holmes writes:
My friend who works at Ball Aerospace once had a living room discussion with me about terrorism. He maintained that if a group of militants wanted to simply cause large numbers of casualties as a terror weapon, no fancy smuggled gadgets would be needed. He brought up the scenario of purchasing a cheap estes Rocket or Model Airplane and equipping it with an airborne virus or poison and how such a device could be flown from close range into a football stadium seating 75,000 people. Let us pray that this never happens, but it is not taboo to discuss the possibility. If the U.S. wants to prevent future attacks, we must focus on better foreign policy. Show the world that we are not the evil Capitalist Empire of Infidels that they see us as. Just as we accept Muslims in Iraq better now that we know them, (despite some bad apples) they need to see us as human and humane.
That was an indicator that small espionage styled groups... kind of like DrNo and SPECTRE... really could deliver city stopping damage as well as mass casualties. What's more they could do so with clever planning and no use of WMDs snuck in from outside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I was on board with everything you said until...
Just as we accept Muslims in Iraq better now that we know them, (despite some bad apples) they need to see us as human and humane. What the HELL does Iraq have to do with terrorism??? They didn't attack us, remember? Not even with terrorists. And before our invasion the nation was lead by a pretty much secular muslim, who was the enemy of the people that did attack us. I will add that there are also many other religions within Iraq, including Xians. At this point in time, when I see or hear someone discussing Iraq as if it had ANYTHING to do with Terrorism (at least against us or in any major way) or Islamic Extremism, I want to EXXXXXPPPPPPLLLLLLOOOOOODDDEEE! holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mespo Member (Idle past 2905 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
It going to very hard to duplicate 9/11. Besides, the sequel is seldom as good as the original. So terrorists are left with...
1. Car bombs - Good ol' ammonium nitrate and deisel fuel. Available at most rural grain and feed stores. Simple and effective. However, the terrorist would have to learn to navigate rush hour traffic, so that leaves out Los Angeles and Atlanta. Boston, too. 2. Back pack nail bombs. But the hike from the Middle East to New York or Atlanta requires an in-house network to move people around. And, HEAVEN FORBID, they might run into a patriotic American muslim who would blow the whistle. 3. Zodiac inflatables packed with explosives. The attack on the U.S.S. Cole was with about 2 tons of explosives, if I'm not mistaken. In a typical U.S. marina, the terrorists might get away with it if the bombs are packed in Coors Lite beer kegs. 4. Cargo containers - The containers equipped to haul people illegaly are already filled with Chinese immigrants, so the terrorists will have to take a number and pay $10,000 to the Chinese Mafia. 5. Drunk Driving. Now there's a REAL terrorist weapon! (:raig
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7033 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Probably the worst I could think of would be if a group took over a liquified natural gas tanker and vented the fuel, and then lit it, near a downtown area. It's not like there's any significant security force on board that a small terrorist group couldn't overcome. It would probably be the largest fuel-air explosion ever created by humans, and have the destructive force of a small nuclear warhead. Another possibility would be to vent hydrogen fluoride or a gasseous organophosphates from a chemical plant of some kind . Not as destructive, but perhaps more horrific of an aftermath when the cameras come in, and more crippling to the US economy (securing LNG ships would cost a fraction as much as securing every facility in the US that handles toxic chemicals).
Of course, people's fears of terrorism are far, far disproportionate to the problem, and our reactions have been making it worse. Yes, you don't ignore it, but you don't wage massive full-scale overt warfare, especially in places that are only peripherally involved. Oh, and to the original poster: it is quite possible to effectively stop commercial jet hijackings. Only 1 El Al airplane has ever been hijacked; the security measures put in place as a response have effectively stopped hijacking. And that's not all that could be done, either. In fact, in a most extreme circumstance, you could have the cabin completely isolated from the rest of the craft (so you'd need metal cutters to get in), and have an emergency control override from the ground, run from a heavily secured facilities, with multiple control rooms in case one was compromised. The only question is A) how much you're willing to spend, and B) how much is really justified. "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThingsChange Member (Idle past 5946 days) Posts: 315 From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony) Joined: |
rei writes:
You seem pretty smart, so I assume you haven't given this much thought. Or, maybe I see so many possibilities that I am just more devious. Probably the worst I could think of ... The use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons can easily dwarf the loss of life and property (and damage to economy... i.e. more people) from 9/11. There are a number of dispersion techniques that would be difficult to detect and prevent. Even ordinary bombs in strategic places can have more aftermath effects than just the impact on the location.
rei writes:
Your opinion, not mine. Neither of us has enough facts to make such a claim. The question is "is it worth the risk?"
Of course, people's fears of terrorism are far, far disproportionate to the problem,.... ....and our reactions have been making it worse. Yes, you don't ignore it, but you don't wage massive full-scale overt warfare, especially in places that are only peripherally involved
We are in a new era of warfare that some of us recognize, but liberals don't yet acknowledge. This comes in two forms: (a) the growing radical Muslim movement worldwide, (b) technology of weaponry in small scale plus more power/danger. Or as they say in law, motive and means. Just like a virus, the terrorists have found vulnerability by the very nature of our free society. So, what would be your approach to addressing terrorism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
holmes writes: Because there are a lot of young people who are being influenced by conservative clerics. It is a war of contrasting ideologies. 50% of the population of Iraq is 20 years old or younger. It is true that by attacking Iraq, we may have made the problem worse. At any rate, part of the reason for the current war is to bring the enemy out of the woodwork. It is easier to identify an enemy than to deal with random acts of violence. The current administration, who by and large defends the interests of the wealthy, feels that this war on terror was inevitable. It is a war against the affluent.
What the HELL does Iraq have to do with terrorism??? They didn't attack us, remember? Not even with terrorists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Because there are a lot of young people who are being influenced by conservative clerics. It is a war of contrasting ideologies. 50% of the population of Iraq is 20 years old or younger. It is true that by attacking Iraq, we may have made the problem worse. At any rate, part of the reason for the current war is to bring the enemy out of the woodwork. It is easier to identify an enemy than to deal with random acts of violence. Oh that didn't help at all. Let's see here, no one was attacking us but some day some might grow up to attack us. This is because there are people in Iraq that were not liking the US. Yeah okay they weren't ordering anyone to go kill americans, but they MIGHT. So lets go in an kill a bunch of innocent Iraqis, creating a large number of people that really hate us, then have no plan for the peace afterward which allowed OUTSIDE conservatives in to fight us. And then we can kill a bunch of people that really hate us, but under no circumstances previously would have. That of course is "bringing them out of the woodwork (like human beings other than US citizens are mere pests). You know a lot of people hate China. I suppose that gives China the right to invade the US in order to "bring the potential enemies out of the woodwork"? I cannot believe you are falling for these ridiculous excuses. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We are in a new era of warfare that some of us recognize, but liberals don't yet acknowledge. Nonsense. It is silly to say that liberals don't recognize the issue of terrorism. They may well disagree on how to try to keep it within manageable levels but you cannot say they don't recognize it.
This comes in two forms: (a) the growing radical Muslim movement worldwide, (b) technology of weaponry in small scale plus more power/danger. This shows that you may not really understand the terrorist threat; radical Islam is just one user of terrorist tactics. It's not the first and will certainly not be the last. Remember, it was Ronald Reagan and Bush senior, both strong supporters of terrorism, that helped fund, train and create the radical Islamic terrorist forces.
So, what would be your approach to addressing terrorism? Well, first, I believe we need to realize that terrorism is really unique. It is not a Nation State conflict. So far the administration has been treating the terrorist threat as though it were just another Nation State conflict; invade Afghanistan, invade Iraq, threaten to invade somewhere else. Such behavior is pointless when dealing with terrorism but may be great in the polls. Second, IMHO we need to address terrorism as a police/criminal manner, just like any other crime syndicate. You remove their funding, get lots of intellegence, and sanction the key planners and controlers. If you want specifics on how to bring the level of terrorist threats down to manageable levels world-wide, I would suggest the following.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024