If Al Qaeda really wanted to mess with us...

[jl3969]

Well, as long as Jack Bauer is on the scene, I'm sure we'll be fine. Cept for LA, they're [censored].

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
We haven't had a followup because instead of having to fly to USA and spend lots of $$ they can now just go down the street to Iraq and cause massive longterm political and economic damage to the middle east while breeding new supporters.


[/ QUOTE ]

True 'nough. The primary goal of Al Qaeda has never been to destroy America. It's to restore the Caliphate and have a muslim empire in the middle east governed by sharia. If they can help extremists take over Iraq that would be a direct step towards their goal.

[suzzer99]

Supposedly there is a decent amount of dissent within Al Qaeda over the long term stratgeic implications of 9/11. Many in the organization felt it was a huge blunder, as it motivated the American populace and got an 800 lb gorilla breathing down their necks.

This could all be US propaganda. But it certainly seems plausible, and could explain the dearth of attacks here since.

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Can't get the guy in the middle seat to shut up? Click this link on your laptop:

http://www.thecleverest.com/countdown.swf

[guids]

Ive thought about this for awhile, imo, they dont want to do anything "widespread", nukes, smallpox, etc, are going to do nothing more than bring the wrath down on terror. If something like that happened, even the most left of the liberals, would freak out, and we would see the full hammer of teh government crush any and all enemies. Everything we do now cant be done in an extremem enough way to be effective, becuase the media loves to criticize, and our politicians do not demonstrate any cohesiveness anymore (ie, war is way too well coverd, and you have to fight a PC war, which willbe the downfall of our country imo). The last thing Al Queda wants to do is mobilize the citizens of the US. Thier goal, imo, changed after 9/11. At first, ya, maybe they just wanted to blow up a great symbol of our economy, but once they realized that they did such a great job of fractionizing the country, the re-evaluated things.

[Howard Treesong]

I think our most vulnerable infrastructure point is our oil refineries. As I recall it, not a single new refinery has been built in 20+ years because of political/environmental concerns. They're full of flammables and one would think that a well-placed Stinger or RPG shot could really do some damage -- do this to three refineries and oil prices go waaaaaaay up.

It has the secondary benefit of shoveling more money to that lunatic Chavez.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
If something like that happened, even the most left of the liberals, would freak out, and we would see the full hammer of teh government crush any and all enemies. Everything we do now cant be done in an extremem enough way to be effective, becuase the media loves to criticize, and our politicians do not demonstrate any cohesiveness anymore (ie, war is way too well coverd, and you have to fight a PC war, which willbe the downfall of our country imo).

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is completely wrong. The idea that the "media" or a lack of "cohesiveness" has somehow hurt the war on terror is a fabrication of the Bush white house. Al Qaeda has made great gains by provoking an incorrect over-reaction. The US was almost completely cohesively in support of strong response after 9/11 and that support was irrelevant because the actions taken were not correct. The reality is that even a massive amount of force & support cannot fight terrorist organizations without lots of international support (eg. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. etc.), and using military force without also using diplomatic and developmental power is actually a negative thing because it just stirs up the factors that motivate & create terrorists.

If Al Qaeda was smart, they would avoid doing anything so rotten that it would turn countries like Pakistan & Saudi Arabia against them. Like, for example if they released a bio-agent that killed half the population of the whole world or something, they would become hated even by the states that tolerate them, and that would be disastrous. Anything they do which only angers America and doesn't really affect the rest of the world wouldn't really hurt them too badly, because America on its own can't ever do too much against them.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If something like that happened, even the most left of the liberals, would freak out, and we would see the full hammer of teh government crush any and all enemies. Everything we do now cant be done in an extremem enough way to be effective, becuase the media loves to criticize, and our politicians do not demonstrate any cohesiveness anymore (ie, war is way too well coverd, and you have to fight a PC war, which willbe the downfall of our country imo).

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is completely wrong. The idea that the "media" or a lack of "cohesiveness" has somehow hurt the war on terror is a fabrication of the Bush white house. Al Qaeda has made great gains by provoking an incorrect over-reaction. The US was almost completely cohesively in support of strong response after 9/11 and that support was irrelevant because the actions taken were not correct. The reality is that even a massive amount of force & support cannot fight terrorist organizations without lots of international support (eg. Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. etc.), and using military force without also using diplomatic and developmental power is actually a negative thing because it just stirs up the factors that motivate & create terrorists.

If Al Qaeda was smart, they would avoid doing anything so rotten that it would turn countries like Pakistan & Saudi Arabia against them. Like, for example if they released a bio-agent that killed half the population of the whole world or something, they would become hated even by the states that tolerate them, and that would be disastrous. Anything they do which only angers America and doesn't really affect the rest of the world wouldn't really hurt them too badly, because America on its own can't ever do too much against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you took it the wrong way. Yes, right after 9/11 we were cohesive, but over the last 2 years, that has changed, the reason for this is because of the "botched" war in the mid-east. The reason it was botched is because due to media coverage, and politicians, you can no longer fight a "real war" due to the fact that the savagery that is needed to win a war is no longer tolerated by the media/leftwing (whether we should have gone into Iraq, as far as this discussion goes is a moot point). War sucks, but to win one, you have to be ruthless, Bush botched the war, whether were should have fought it or not doesnt matter, it is because he wasnt savage enough. If Bush and co, get in, get saddam out, asap, its a whole different story. Things are ever-changing, they have evolved now, there is a ton of infighting in our country, it really doesnt matter what the reason is, now that the enemies have realized they are on to something, they are waging an all out war to keep us fighting ourselves. You say the reason America cant ever do too much against them, is because people like you wont let the people who have the ability to wipe them out do thier job.

[mntbikr15]

Im astonished that any of you are contributing real ideas on an internet message board. It was mentioned but the NSA and prob half a dozen other alphabet soup agencies that we havent even heard of are monitoring such things.

Just doesnt seem prudent to talk about it here, even if it is all "hypothetical"

Enjoy being flagged for the rest of time.

[RonMexico]

al Qaeda is not what 95% of you think it is. Only two posters in this forum have made reasonable posts. Stop watching so much TV and do some research.