Tom Ridge to Address the Nation

[Dis]

I can't believe he said that. That's a good way to send people into a panic.

How can it be more devestating than 9/11? I am certain they do not have access to WMD.

And to be more devestating than 9/11 the attack would have to be on U.S. soil I'd imagine. (to be devestating in the eyes of americans that is).

While I outlined great plans for terrorism in the past, they are difficult to pull off. Americans such as I could do it, but I would be less noticed...

Hijacking airliners is the only way. But I don't see them able to hijack airliners so easy ever again.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm really getting pissed at them raising the threat level and nothing happens. Yes I know that sounds ****ed up. I don't actually want something to happen. But if nothing is going to happen, then they shouldn't raise the threat level.

We need better intelligence.

We need female secret agents who sleep with the enemy to learn secrets. Throw a burkha on them if that is necessary.

Somehow, I don't think loose women is what these religious fanatics want.

What we probably do need is someone who could pass for a religious fanatic themselves. I think such a person would be extremely hard to "grow."

[Dis]

but not impossible. Hell, a guy in California could do it.

Actually loose women is what these guys need. If these guys got some regular pussie they wouldn't be so violent and angry all the time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
I can't believe he said that. That's a good way to send people into a panic.

How can it be more devestating than 9/11? I am certain they do not have access to WMD.

And to be more devestating than 9/11 the attack would have to be on U.S. soil I'd imagine. (to be devestating in the eyes of americans that is).

While I outlined great plans for terrorism in the past, they are difficult to pull off. Americans such as I could do it, but I would be less noticed...

Hijacking airliners is the only way. But I don't see them able to hijack airliners so easy ever again.

Where could these guys get nukes?

NK? Iran?

[Dis]

neither country is likely to give them to terrorists.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I'll bet that we will never go to Condition Red or Blue in our lifetime.

[Agathon]

Why would they attack the US? They've already got what they want, American troops in Iraq.

OBL's strategy has been pretty clear. He thinks he caused the downfall of the Soviet Union by beating it in Afghanistan, and he wants to do the same for the US. Thus he wants to start a guerilla campaign in the Middle East that would result in US withdrawal.

Obviously, one could comment negatively on the feasibility of this nefarious scheme, but that's his strategy, so I assume that any attack will be in the Middle East, probably Saudi Arabia. An insurrection there would be disastrous for the US which already has it's hands full and would turn this into what OBL wants, a pan-Arab war.

This might explain last week's warnings to US citizens to leave Saudi.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I'll bet that we will never go to Condition Red or Blue in our lifetime.

I agree about blue, and I mostly agree about red. Though there might be one specific instance I can think of in which we would go to red.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon
Why would they attack the US? They've already got what they want, American troops in Iraq.

OBL's strategy has been pretty clear. He thinks he caused the downfall of the Soviet Union by beating it in Afghanistan, and he wants to do the same for the US. Thus he wants to start a guerilla campaign in the Middle East that would result in US withdrawal.

Obviously, one could comment negatively on the feasibility of this nefarious scheme, but that's his strategy, so I assume that any attack will be in the Middle East, probably Saudi Arabia. An insurrection there would be disastrous for the US which already has it's hands full and would turn this into what OBL wants, a pan-Arab war.

This might explain last week's warnings to US citizens to leave Saudi.

I never thought of it in that way. With regards to OBL's desires and strategy. So are you saying he wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. Perhaps we are playing into his hands then. But that doesn't change the fact he doesn't the the resources to take advantage of us in Iraq.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Dissident


I agree about blue, and I mostly agree about red. Though there might be one specific instance I can think of in which we would go to red.

Which one would that be? Or do I have to be of a certain security clearance level to find out?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dissident

I never thought of it in that way. With regards to OBL's desires and strategy. So are you saying he wanted the U.S. to invade Iraq. Perhaps we are playing into his hands then. But that doesn't change the fact he doesn't the the resources to take advantage of us in Iraq.

No, he wanted the US to invade Afghanistan in just the way the Soviets did.

What he didn't bargain for is that the US played it really smart and hired the Northern Alliance to do most of the fighting. This meant less US casualties (which would have been fatal to a US war effort if the war had gone on long enough).

He doesn't have a lot of resources in Iraq, but he doesn't really need them and he doesn't need to do a hell of a lot. A guerilla campaign is really cheap to run, read Che Guevara's book on how to conduct one.

If the occupation continues and the Shias get shut out of the political process things will get more violent. And the more US soldiers die for what appears to be an ungrateful bunch of Arabs, the harder it will be politically for Bush to keep them there.

But that's not the big Kahuna. OBL really wants one thing. To install an Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia - if that happens he wins. The obstacle to this is the Saudi Royal Family. Demographics are on his side, there are many disaffected youth in SA (as 911 showed) and all they really need is to wake up to the possibility of overthrowing the government. A moderately successful guerilla campaign in Iraq is a "threat of a good example".

That's what he wants, whether he will get it is another thing. It is not out of the question though and that is the reason I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Mass unrest in the Persian Gulf would be an economic disaster.

Only one person has anything to gain from risking chaos in the area and that's OBL.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Well he thought that by killing Masud, he would be able to disorganize the Northern Alliance so it would fall apart. Then US soldiers would have to have been called in. The killing of Masud didnt work, so thats why we were able to use the Northern Alliance.

[Dis]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


Which one would that be? Or do I have to be of a certain security clearance level to find out?

I was thinking if we knew for certain terrorists within the U.S. had a nuke weapon or similar high explosive device (or WMD) that could kill thousands and were threatening to use it.

But even that would not be enough.

The scenario I envisioned is something you see in movies such as True Lies. A terrorist organization is confirmed to have a nuclear device and threatens to detonate it unless certain conditions are met (such as releasing prisoners or something like that). I would then think the U.S. would go to red- at least for the affected city.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Well he thought that by killing Masud, he would be able to disorganize the Northern Alliance so it would fall apart. Then US soldiers would have to have been called in. The killing of Masud didnt work, so thats why we were able to use the Northern Alliance.

That's true and is more evidence for the theory. Thanks.

I'm not saying that his plan is going to work, or that it has a realistic prospect of working, or that it's even that well thought out. It does however, have a realistic prospect of screwing things up in the area.

And given that Saddam Hussein was no threat to anyone, it seems stupid to have taken such a risk.

Why don't people sit down and think about why 911 happened. What did Al Quaeda really want? The answer I think is something close to what I said.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dissident


I was thinking if we knew for certain terrorists within the U.S. had a nuke weapon or similar high explosive device (or WMD) that could kill thousands and were threatening to use it.

But even that would not be enough.

The scenario I envisioned is something you see in movies such as True Lies. A terrorist organization is confirmed to have a nuclear device and threatens to detonate it unless certain conditions are met (such as releasing prisoners or something like that). I would then think the U.S. would go to red- at least for the affected city.

Why would Al Quaeda want to do that? They aren't just seeking to kill infidels, they have a plan. It's a dumbass plan, but it's a plan. Nuking a US city would do nothing to further it.