Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will there be another "9/11" ?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 147 (142584)
09-15-2004 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Mespo
09-14-2004 3:49 PM


Re: Hard to duplicate
quote:
It going to very hard to duplicate 9/11. Besides, the sequel is seldom as good as the original. So terrorists are left with...
9/11 was the third in a trilogy for bin Laden. Don't forget the bombing of two US embassies in Africa (episode 1), and the bombing of the USS Coles (episode 2). With a death toll of about 3,500 a sequel is quite possible.
Just to add to your list, anthrax is still a real threat. You can find a source of anthrax just by searching cow shit in a pasture, preferrably in a third world nation where antibiotics in cattle feed isn't as prevalent. From that point all you need is about 25,000 dollars in equipment and somebody with the know how.
I think Bush was right (god I hate saying that) when he said that the war on terror will never be won. In the same way, no society is safe from attacks that could kill thousands. Without Orwellian measures being foisted on a society the possibility of a major attack is quite high. The question is not CAN the terrorists kill thousands of people but WILL they.

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 26 by nator, posted 09-15-2004 7:32 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 147 (142586)
09-15-2004 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ThingsChange
09-15-2004 3:28 PM


Re: Worse terrorist acts are VERY possible
quote:
- Eliminate their hiding places. Make it clear to harboring countries that we will not let the terrorists hide (i.e. or else risk invasion to go get the terrorists).
So do we invade Florida because the hijackers were trained to fly in that state? Of course this question is over the top, but so is Bush's rhetoric at times. There is a fine line between state sponsored terrorism and unknowingly harboring terrorists. In the case of Iraq, the best the Bush administration can do is claim that Iraq posed a threat to Israel. Saddam was openly supporting terrorism in the struggle between Israel and Palenstine. Of course, Israel is also a threat to Iraq as per the example of Israeli jet fighters bombing a nuclear factory being constructed in Iraq. At best, Bush could claim that people in the Iraqi government supported terrorism against the US but that is a far cry from state sponsored terrorism. I don't know if you agree or disagree with the War in Iraq, just felt like including it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ThingsChange, posted 09-15-2004 3:28 PM ThingsChange has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ThingsChange, posted 09-15-2004 7:46 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 147 (142730)
09-16-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
09-15-2004 7:32 PM


Re: Hard to duplicate
quote:
Don't worry, he "corrected" himself to be wrong again right after saying that by claiming that it CAN be won after all.
Figures. So would you say this is a flip-flop?
I guess we can add the War on Terrorism to the list of wars we are on the brink of winning. Also on the same list is the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty. So much for honesty and integrity in the White House.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 09-15-2004 7:32 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024