Are More Terrorist Attacks Likely ?

[EG]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62289,00.html

In an interview, Jacquard said Al Qaeda had plans for attacks using pesticide planes in the United States and a third wave of attacks against landmarks in Europe.

"They wanted also to plan some terrorist attacks with chemical arms and biological arms against even ... Notre Dame in Paris, and probably some other targets in London," he said, adding that other possible targets were in Strasbourg, in eastern France.

The preparations for the attacks included poison tests on live subjects such as rabbits, dogs and even human volunteers, he said.

The rout of the Taliban government in Afghanistan has robbed Al Qaeda of crucial diplomatic and logistical support, disrupted its communications systems and deprived it of some of its leaders, Jacquard said.

But Al Qaeda "is still working and they still have a lot of plans," he said


IMHO more attacks are likely in the distant future as soon as Al Queda has a chance to regroup and find another base of operations.

[Blackadder]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62289,00.html

In an interview, Jacquard said Al Qaeda had plans for attacks using pesticide planes in the United States and a third wave of attacks against landmarks in Europe.

"They wanted also to plan some terrorist attacks with chemical arms and biological arms against even ... Notre Dame in Paris, and probably some other targets in London," he said, adding that other possible targets were in Strasbourg, in eastern France.

The preparations for the attacks included poison tests on live subjects such as rabbits, dogs and even human volunteers, he said.

The rout of the Taliban government in Afghanistan has robbed Al Qaeda of crucial diplomatic and logistical support, disrupted its communications systems and deprived it of some of its leaders, Jacquard said.

But Al Qaeda "is still working and they still have a lot of plans," he said


IMHO more attacks are likely in the distant future as soon as Al Queda has a chance to regroup and find another base of operations.

From what I know and observed so far, I think it's very likely, why? The T's percived that they have been wronged by the US, so they fly a few planes in to buildings,The US gets upset, attacks people who support the T's. The T's gets mad, attack more targets,The US get mad attack the T's/T's supporters and so on and so forth.

[Frostic]

The Republicans should just let it die away. It's been a year now and they haven't done squat but keep the Al Queda moving. Bush is just gonna use the "war on terror" as a tool to try to get re-elected. If Bush actually had some proof that Iraq was in on this then he should have produced it a year ago and declared war on Iraq a year ago. I was all for the war a year ago but Bush has done too little too late. It's been a year. How long does it take to stockpile resources for a ground war?

Unfortunately the window for action is slowly fading away. No one but Britain supports us. And Bush lacks the charisma and the game plan needed to form a coalition.

At this point, what I'd like to see happen is for the US to get off of Arab oil. Remove all embassies in all Arab countries. Cut off all aid and trade. Basically, just treat them all like they don't even exsist and let them live in their medieval squalor. In other words, treat them like we treat Cuba. Don't even allow them to visit this country. If their passport says Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc... then deny entry.

I'd also like for us to stop blindly helping Israel. I don't care for Israel any more than I care about Iraq. It's a POS country half way around the world that needs to learn to deal with their own problems. The Israelis and the Palesteinians can kill each other off for all I care. They need to either make peace or go to all out war and get it over with.

I also think that we should withdraw a lot of our military from various parts of the world. Western Europe is old enough to defend itself. The only exception would be the U.K. I see them as perhaps our only true ally. The only reason western Europe isn't speaking Russian right now is because we've had 100,000s of troops over there deterring the Russians. I think we should worry more about our own security and less about policing the world.

Somalians starving? Screw 'em. Genocide in Yugoslavia? Screw 'em. No one criticizes Switzerland for being neutral. Why should we have to go overseas and take care of these things? I short, I'd like to see us go back to our pre-WWII isolationist policy. Most countries liked us then. We didn't step on toes like we do now and we made lots of money off of trade.

[opus512]

Originally posted by Frostic
The Republicans should just let it die away. It's been a year now and they haven't done squat but keep the Al Queda moving. Bush is just gonna use the "war on terror" as a tool to try to get re-elected. If Bush actually had some proof that Iraq was in on this then he should have produced it a year ago and declared war on Iraq a year ago. I was all for the war a year ago but Bush has done too little too late. It's been a year. How long does it take to stockpile resources for a ground war?

Unfortunately the window for action is slowly fading away. No one but Britain supports us. And Bush lacks the charisma and the game plan needed to form a coalition.

At this point, what I'd like to see happen is for the US to get off of Arab oil. Remove all embassies in all Arab countries. Cut off all aid and trade. Basically, just treat them all like they don't even exsist and let them live in their medieval squalor. In other words, treat them like we treat Cuba. Don't even allow them to visit this country. If their passport says Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc... then deny entry.

I'd also like for us to stop blindly helping Israel. I don't care for Israel any more than I care about Iraq. It's a POS country half way around the world that needs to learn to deal with their own problems. The Israelis and the Palesteinians can kill each other off for all I care. They need to either make peace or go to all out war and get it over with.

I also think that we should withdraw a lot of our military from various parts of the world. Western Europe is old enough to defend itself. The only exception would be the U.K. I see them as perhaps our only true ally. The only reason western Europe isn't speaking Russian right now is because we've had 100,000s of troops over there deterring the Russians. I think we should worry more about our own security and less about policing the world.

Somalians starving? Screw 'em. Genocide in Yugoslavia? Screw 'em. No one criticizes Switzerland for being neutral. Why should we have to go overseas and take care of these things? I short, I'd like to see us go back to our pre-WWII isolationist policy. Most countries liked us then. We didn't step on toes like we do now and we made lots of money off of trade.

I was rolling right along with you there buddy, untill the end.

When America ignores the world the world goes to shit, been proven time and again.

We have, and this irritates a lot of people, but we have, IMO, a moral responsibility to do certain things because we can. Of course, that comes down to specific interpretations of morality, but that's still my opinion. If you drive by a car accident, can plainly see injured people, do you have a responsibility to do anything? Do you just ignore it, not get involved, keep driving? No, you, hopefully, contact the authorities, maybe see what you can do to assist while waiting for them to arrive. Same, IMO, can be said about us as a country. Should we do more to help oursleves? Certainly, but that doesn't mean we should ignore everyone else just because it's inconvenient. If we haden't ignored Germany leading up to WW II, maybe history would have been written differently, we'll never know, because we didn't take any action.

Back to the original question: Are more attacks likely? Hell yeah, and not just from Al-Queda. We could wipe them off the face of their Earth (which for one is impossible), and we would still get attacked. We've poked enough eye's around the world to insure we will allways have people pissed off at us. But that comes with the job, whether we like it or not.

[Frostic]

The blame for WWII lies on the shoulders of Hitler anf the Germans and not on us. I don't buy into the theory that WWII was caused by our isolationist policy. WWII was caused by Imperialist policy and not isolationist policy. If more countries adopted Switzerland's stance then the world would be a much safer place.

We don't have a moral responsibility to interfere with other people's business half way around the world. If some one is in a car accident then I will help my fellow citizen. If some Moslim extremist half way around the world who hates me needs help then he can beg for a hand out from his local oil Shiek. If that seems harsh then you can think of it like the Prime Directive. Don't interfere with other cultures because in the long run it does more harm than good.



The U.N. was created to prevent another world war. The U.N. should be policing the rest of the world and not us. It worked in Desert Storm. When an actual country was over run by another country then the U.N. stepped in.

[Blackadder]

Originally posted by Frostic
The blame for WWII lies on the shoulders of Hitler anf the Germans and not on us. I don't buy into the theory that WWII was caused by our isolationist policy. WWII was caused by Imperialist policy and not isolationist policy. If more countries adopted Switzerland's stance then the world would be a much safer place.

We don't have a moral responsibility to interfere with other people's business half way around the world. If some one is in a car accident then I will help my fellow citizen. If some Moslim extremist half way around the world who hates me needs help then he can beg for a hand out from his local oil Shiek. If that seems harsh then you can think of it like the Prime Directive. Don't interfere with other cultures because in the long run it does more harm than good.



The U.N. was created to prevent another world war. The U.N. should be policing the rest of the world and not us. It worked in Desert Storm. When an actual country was over run by another country then the U.N. stepped in.


The UN does not have a military force of their own, the UN simply have a huge supply of blue berrets, UN stickers and perty little arm patches, They "Borrow" muscle power from member countries ( which happens to include the US) peace keeping in east timor it was a UN campaign but the people on the ground are Soilders from ASEAN members, not the mythical UN army.

but really, from what I can see, the US plays quite a major role in keeping the world peace just by aiding other nations right now, for an example, if it wasn't for the fear of losing US aid and support, Israel would be merrily eraseing the palestianian state off the map by now, if it wasn't for the fear of losing US support and fear of US retaliation, Thailand and Myanmar would be at war right now.

my point is that the US is too far in to this to back out of it now, if the US doesn't like the way things are, then they should never have aided britain 90 years ago during WW1, IMO that what started this whole mess with the US.

[Ibanez]

As long as the terroist have my support, they shall never fail.

[opus512]

Originally posted by Frostic
The blame for WWII lies on the shoulders of Hitler anf the Germans and not on us. I don't buy into the theory that WWII was caused by our isolationist policy. WWII was caused by Imperialist policy and not isolationist policy. If more countries adopted Switzerland's stance then the world would be a much safer place.

We don't have a moral responsibility to interfere with other people's business half way around the world. If some one is in a car accident then I will help my fellow citizen. If some Moslim extremist half way around the world who hates me needs help then he can beg for a hand out from his local oil Shiek. If that seems harsh then you can think of it like the Prime Directive. Don't interfere with other cultures because in the long run it does more harm than good.

The U.N. was created to prevent another world war. The U.N. should be policing the rest of the world and not us. It worked in Desert Storm. When an actual country was over run by another country then the U.N. stepped in.

I didn't claim we were 'to blame', now did I? No, but our policy of the time certainly didn't 'help' the world, either. There was no 'cause' from the US, but there was no intervention, either, that may or may not have avoided the conflict. As history is already written, anything else now is pure conjecture, either from me or you.

And you interpret it as 'interfering', when I interpret it as 'helping'. We have no moral responsibility to stop sensless slaughter? Then we had no responsibility to get into either world war, we should have just staryed out and let the world destroy itself, except that eventiully, it would have came to our shores, especialy in WW II. The Prime Directive analogy is shallow, at best, IMO, but to each their own.

The UN does not live up to the role it was created to fill, not the least because of our policies with it. You can justifiably blame the US for many of the UN's failings. We hamper it's effectiveness every time we cry nationalism. The UN didn't step in to Desert Storm, we did. We were by far and away the major muscle in that conflict, by far, not even debatable, IMO.

But why should the UN get involved if we shouldn't? What gives the UN the moral authority where we don't? Bda example, anyway, again IMO, as the whole thing was fought over oil, not outrage or moral issues.

[EG]

Originally posted by Frostic
The blame for WWII lies on the shoulders of Hitler anf the Germans and not on us. I don't buy into the theory that WWII was caused by our isolationist policy. WWII was caused by Imperialist policy and not isolationist policy. If more countries adopted Switzerland's stance then the world would be a much safer place.

We don't have a moral responsibility to interfere with other people's business half way around the world. If some one is in a car accident then I will help my fellow citizen. If some Moslim extremist half way around the world who hates me needs help then he can beg for a hand out from his local oil Shiek. If that seems harsh then you can think of it like the Prime Directive. Don't interfere with other cultures because in the long run it does more harm than good.



The U.N. was created to prevent another world war. The U.N. should be policing the rest of the world and not us. It worked in Desert Storm. When an actual country was over run by another country then the U.N. stepped in.


The UN...LOL

The emperor has no clothes.

It worked in Desert Storm because of the coalition built by the United States....all the UN did was play lip service to Desert Storm.

[Blackadder]

for all those of you who doesn't know, the closest thing that the UN has to a weapon are those funny blue berrets.

[Cop]

And their breath, if the troops are French :evil:

[PaleDuke]

To the original posted question, yes...future "terror" attacks are inevitable. Until the Islamic world gets its act together and the US adopts more of an isolationist policy I can see nothing but a cycle of violence and retaliation.

I agree with 90% of Frostic's sentiment. A bit too harsh concerning human catastrophe scenerios but other than that I support an equal stance. It's truly time to re-evaluate what and where we "assist" and "nudge" states and their representatives. The one thing Bush Jr had going for him that I admired, pre-09/11, was his hands off foreign policy. Now, he's on a mission from God. :rolleyes:

[opus512]

Originally posted by PaleDuke
The one thing Bush Jr had going for him that I admired, pre-09/11, was his hands off foreign policy. Now, he's on a mission from God. :rolleyes:

There was no 'foreign policy' pre 9/11 :P

As for the 'mission from God', what do you expect? Half the people working for him were members of Reagans Holy Crusade, heh.

[Frostic]

The U.N. is a joke because the U.S. has treated it like a joke since it was created.

I am also well aware of the fact that the U.N. doesn't have an army. If countries didn't treat the U.N. like a joke and loaned troops to the U.N.'s "mythical army" whenever the U.N. needed it then the U.N. would be a lot more effective. It shouldn't be the U.S. supplying the majority of the troops and funding every time it's needed either. The European Community's economy is roughly the size of America's.

And isolationists don't need a foreign policy. :)

[opus512]

Originally posted by Frostic
The U.N. is a joke because the U.S. has treated it like a joke since it was created.

I am also well aware of the fact that the U.N. doesn't have an army. If countries didn't treat the U.N. like a joke and loaned troops to the U.N.'s "mythical army" whenever the U.N. needed it then the U.N. would be a lot more effective. It shouldn't be the U.S. supplying the majority of the troops and funding every time it's needed either. The European Community's economy is roughly the size of America's.

And isolationists don't need a foreign policy. :)

Yes, but the EU has no army, either, so it falls to us. And we don't always finance things, we owe the UN a few hundred million, if not more, in back dues.

[ItsNoot]

Without reading...

Likely is a bit soft. I would say eminent. Only, they will come when people have soften their guard, when we stop paying attention. Also, I'm not so sure it will be the US next time. If they are really hot on China we may see it there, perhaps the UK as well.

They will not give up there mission unless they are eradicated, and thats not likely to happen.

[Frostic]

Opus you do know that the countries within the EU have armies don't you?

[ItsNoot]

Originally posted by ItsNoot
Without reading...

Likely is a bit soft. I would say eminent. Only, they will come when people have soften their guard, when we stop paying attention. Also, I'm not so sure it will be the US next time. If they are really hot on China we may see it there, perhaps the UK as well.

They will not give up there mission unless they are eradicated, and thats not likely to happen.