Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will there be another "9/11" ?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 147 (141516)
09-11-2004 6:00 AM


Proposed New Topic...9/11/04
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 12:26 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-11-2004 1:16 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2004 11:39 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 09-16-2004 7:52 PM Phat has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 147 (141545)
09-11-2004 12:21 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 147 (141547)
09-11-2004 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
09-11-2004 6:00 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 09-11-2004 6:00 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 4:15 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 55 by paisano, posted 09-16-2004 11:58 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 147 (141552)
09-11-2004 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
09-11-2004 6:00 AM


I say there will not be a new attack
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 09-11-2004 6:00 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by lfen, posted 09-11-2004 2:08 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 5 of 147 (141569)
09-11-2004 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Minnemooseus
09-11-2004 1:16 PM


Re: I say there will not be a new attack
quote:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-11-2004 1:16 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 6 of 147 (141611)
09-11-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
09-11-2004 12:26 PM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2004 12:26 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-13-2004 4:00 AM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 147 (141618)
09-11-2004 4:39 PM


Weapons of mass hysteria.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 147 (141976)
09-13-2004 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Silent H
09-11-2004 4:15 PM


Thinking like a Terrorist...
holmes writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 4:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2004 6:18 AM Phat has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 147 (141983)
09-13-2004 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
09-13-2004 4:00 AM


yeah, but stop thinking like an idiot...
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 09-13-2004 4:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 09-15-2004 9:59 AM Silent H has replied

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 10 of 147 (142374)
09-14-2004 3:49 PM


Hard to duplicate
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rei, posted 09-14-2004 4:20 PM Mespo has not replied
 Message 23 by Loudmouth, posted 09-15-2004 5:31 PM Mespo has not replied

  
Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 11 of 147 (142379)
09-14-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mespo
09-14-2004 3:49 PM


Re: Hard to duplicate
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Mespo, posted 09-14-2004 3:49 PM Mespo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ThingsChange, posted 09-15-2004 9:21 AM Rei has replied

  
ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5927 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 12 of 147 (142500)
09-15-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Rei
09-14-2004 4:20 PM


Worse terrorist acts are VERY possible
rei writes:
Probably the worst I could think of ...
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.
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:
Of course, people's fears of terrorism are far, far disproportionate to the problem,....
Your opinion, not mine. Neither of us has enough facts to make such a claim. The question is "is it worth the risk?"
....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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Rei, posted 09-14-2004 4:20 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 09-15-2004 10:13 AM ThingsChange has replied
 Message 18 by Rei, posted 09-15-2004 1:44 PM ThingsChange has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 13 of 147 (142505)
09-15-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
09-13-2004 6:18 AM


Re: yeah, but stop thinking like an idiot...
holmes writes:
What the HELL does Iraq have to do with terrorism??? They didn't attack us, remember? Not even with terrorists.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2004 6:18 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 09-15-2004 10:08 AM Phat has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 147 (142507)
09-15-2004 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
09-15-2004 9:59 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 09-15-2004 9:59 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 09-15-2004 1:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 147 (142510)
09-15-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ThingsChange
09-15-2004 9:21 AM


Re: Worse terrorist acts are VERY possible
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.
  1. Immediately legalize, federalize and subsidize all currently illicite drugs in the US. Give them away for free.
  2. Create some way to identify who is allowed in a country, an identity method where the card or passport can be instantly verified against a central database.
  3. Concentrate on controling borders and access. This would include internal access points (airports, inland waterways, etc. It would also include increased inspection of air-cargo containers that will transit national airspace.
  4. Increase cooperation with Nation State intellegence networks.
  5. Increase funding for on the ground-In country intellegence.
  6. Concentrate on the Money. Stop funding and you do real damage to the terrorist organizations.
  7. Identify which Nation States are really involved in funding terrorism. For example, most major Arab States fund terrorism because actions against the US or Israel lower internal pressures within their own nations. Better to have their disgruntled citizens looking outward instead of inward.
  8. Identify what the really big exposure points are and make a real effort to protecct them. For example, the lock system on the Atchafalaya basin. If it was broached the whole channel of the Mississippi River could be diverted and every town from the port of New Orleans as far North a Baton Rouge would find themselves landlocked while millions would be flooded.
  9. Stop creating and funding our own tame terrorists.
  10. Finally, begin explaining to the public just what terrorism is really about. So far that is one of the big things that has not been done.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ThingsChange, posted 09-15-2004 9:21 AM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ThingsChange, posted 09-15-2004 3:28 PM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024