| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Al-Qaeda has Sinister Plan(R) to hit both major cities and remote areas |
| 2003-12-23 |
| Al-Qaida operatives may be plotting several unrelated attacks in the United States, targeting not only major cities but also remote bulwarks of the "critical infrastructure" in an effort to cause mass casualties and major economic damage throughout the nation. Senior U.S. counter-terrorism officials said they have been unable to nail down specifics about a time or place for any potential attacks, despite a mad scramble to do so since receiving an alarming cache of corroborated intelligence beginning last Thursday and Friday. But the intelligence they have received — much of it from intercepted communications among known terrorist operatives overseas — clearly refers to at least one series of coordinated, simultaneous strikes, like the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as well as isolated plots of varying degrees of sophistication. "We’re concerned that there could potentially be many separate plots," said one U.S. official with knowledge of the recent intelligence. "It’s hard to establish a certain theme to all of this because we are getting such a massive volume of reporting." Much of the recent intelligence makes broad references to large urban areas, including New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, while other pieces of intelligence cite such obscure locales as Rappahannock, a county in Virginia, and Valdez, Alaska, where tankers load oil from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. According to information received as recently as Monday, authorities remain primarily concerned about al-Qaida operatives plotting to hijack commercial airliners and cargo planes and fly them into U.S. targets, as Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Sunday in announcing the decision to elevate the terror threat level one notch, from "elevated," or yellow, to "high," or orange. They cite a large amount of corroborated and specific intelligence that refers to efforts to hijack planes not only outside the United States, where security is not as tight, but also at domestic airports by using new and improved techniques that terrorist operatives believe could thwart the nation’s vast new homeland security apparatus. But the FBI, the CIA and other authorities have also picked up troubling intelligence about other plots, and efforts to blow up chemical and hazardous materials facilities, nuclear power plants, dams, power grids, ports and airports. One senior federal law enforcement official said the FBI and other authorities are alarmed and frustrated because the intelligence varies so widely according to potential targets and methods of attack, as well as by its degree of specificity and corroboration. Of particular concern, he said, are vague references to upcoming attacks on "major metropolitan areas and events that we’re looking at ... bowl games, New Year’s events, that kind of thing." "There is no one specific threat here. There is no place or time to tie to this," said the senior federal law enforcement official. "So we have to take all this information and do analysis." A recent FBI alert alludes to such confusion. Citing unconfirmed intelligence reports, it warned that al-Qaida may be preparing an attack in the United States before the end of the month. But, the alert adds, "We have no information on the possible operatives, target, timing or method of a possible attack." On Monday morning, Ridge, FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, CIA director George J. Tenet and several other senior counterterrorism advisers spent more than 50 minutes briefing President Bush on the long list of threats, as well as on recent efforts to dispatch thousands of federal, state and local agents to defend potential targets around the country. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security has asked governors and mayors to specifically protect several hundred individual "critical infrastructure" facilities that, if attacked, "could result in a catastrophic loss of life or a devastating effect on the economy," according to the senior U.S. official. For instance, authorities in Los Angeles have identified several chemical facilities and dozens of other potential targets throughout Southern California but asked that they not be disclosed in order to better protect them from attack. The intelligence that has prompted such an unprecedented level of concern comes from conversations among known terrorist operatives of both senior and foot-soldier rank, and also from information gleaned from intercepted e-mails, discussions in Internet chat rooms and interrogations of al-Qaida detainees on several continents. The information, the officials said, comes from intelligence gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency, as well as from allies such as Britain "and a host of many, many other countries," said the senior U.S. official. Unlike past elevations of the terror threat level, the decision to raise the alert to orange this time was unanimous and decisive, because it was based on what senior Bush administration officials described as the most alarming, credible and specific information they had ever seen. "I have never seen the national security leadership as tense and anxious as they are right now," said a second senior federal law enforcement official. He said even the timing of the elevation of the threat level was moved up a day because of rapidly developing concerns over the weekend. Bush administration officials were so concerned, he said, that they sent a plane to Missouri on Saturday to bring Attorney General John Ashcroft back to Washington from vacation. "In the past, there were disagreements over whether the elevated alert was needed," that senior official said. "This time, everyone said, ’Yeah, let’s do it.’ It is the most specific and credible information we’ve had, period." In Los Angeles, FBI officials quietly reopened their command center last week for the first time since the beginning of the war in Iraq. The move, officials said, was aimed at bringing the FBI’s third largest office into an around-the-clock counterterrorism footing in the event the latest threat materialized. On Monday, the Los Angeles FBI office also convened an unprecedented meeting of about 100 federal, state and local law enforcement officials to outline strategies for safeguarding the region. "Everyone you could think of was there," said FBI spokesman Matthew McLaughlin. The meeting, he said, was aimed at coordinating security measures for the five-county region served by the local FBI office and other federal agencies. The area, with a population of more than 18 million, includes a number of high-profile targets like Los Angeles International Airport, the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and various tourist attractions. "What’s new this time is the credibility of the threat," said McLaughlin. "In this case, in addition to do more to safeguard locations, we are taking additional investigative steps to get ahead of this threat in a real aggressive way." In Los Angeles, San Francisco and other cities, counterterrorism agents fanned out Monday for hundreds of interviews with individuals — including longtime FBI or CIA informants — who may know about Middle East extremists. "We have had other alerts," said San Francisco FBI spokeswoman LaRae Quy. "But this time, we are reaching out more to human sources to glean whatever information we can about this threat. We are asking them if anything doesn’t feel right or sound right, if they are noticing any unusual travel by persons they have been watching. We are just trying to be more proactive than usual." Roger Cressey, a former senior Bush administration counter-terrorism official, said the current intercepts have authorities so concerned because they so closely mirror the conversations picked up before the Sept. 11 attacks. "It is known bad guys talking in that expectant chatter, saying things like we’re finally going to respond to Iraq, Afghanistan and strike down the infidels ... that something big is going to happen," he said. "It’s the volume and the quality of the intelligence that is wigging everybody out, and the fact that they just don’t know" where or when an attack may occur. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #31 Nobody will probably read this because its yesterdays link but here's my prediction if there is an attack larger than Sept 11. (1) The US won't need a draft, the lines to enlist will be blocks long. Congress will pass legislation giving the military branches the money to hire as many as they need. (2) Anti-Islamic tone that has been bottled up will come out and if we don't see internment camps we will certainly see an outflow of non-American Arabs. An end to visas from the Arab world, and probably an outflow of Arab-Americans heading for Canada. (3) A dozen dictators throughout the world will pull a Libya in the hopes of clearing their name before the US goes into action. (4) The US will get the full backing of the UN for any action even if they don't go to the Un looking for support. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2003-12-24 1:16:25 AM |
| #30 Yes, Shipman, South Georgia. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-12-23 10:47:07 PM |
| #29 "The risk is Muslim countries starting to actively cooperate with and fund al Qaeda..." Okay. Hmmm - you sure that's what your gut tells you? I don't agree, but that was what I asked for! I believe that the "leaders" of the remaining Arab countries, in particular, would do the opposite (to stay in power - as they are mercs, too, and of this I have no doubts at all) and put as much distance as possible between themselves and AlQ - and US retribution. I'm less sure what Malaysia, Indonesia, and Pakiwakiland would do, however. In the 90+ days term, when the merc money had dried up, Malay and Indo would follow suit, IMHO. Shorter term, I don't know or have a good feel. Perv's patch would be the one place, IMHO, where no logic would hold - and it could tip either way based upon more factors than I could track, I'm certain. That's why I've always seen Pakiwakiland as an aspiring smokin' / glowin' hole - the worst case scenario since they have enough nukes to cause serious damage. As for Russia - I don't buy the idea that they would back Muslim interests - certainly not openly. China is another voodoo equation, like Pak - I don't know how they'd fall, but I would guess it would be under the radar support if they chose that route, thinking themselves to be master strategists ala the Iranian Black Hats. We ARE going to have this knock-down battle somewhere along the line. The WoT won't be a low-grade game forever because they WILL succeed in hitting us hard, again, since it's obvious that it's too much for most to take the extreme pre-emptive approach. And after that happens to us, the unthinkable will evolve into the obvious in some form. That's my immediate take, anyway. I'll stew on your response and see what happens. Okay - thanx, ZF! As always, you make me think! Anyone else??????? |
| Posted by: .com 2003-12-23 10:11:46 PM |
| #28 As for the negatives, I think Iraq has demonstrated what we can actually expect from the Arab World: seething and bluster and paralysis - and eventually the letting loose of the fringe (as long as deniable) who have no life other than the jihad drilled into them by their imams. It would be more of the same, IMHO, not some sudden millions upon millions spilling out in retribution. With regard to a Saudi Arabia invasion scenario, an uptick in al Qaeda terrorist activity from newly-recruited isn't the danger. The risk is Muslim countries starting to actively cooperate with and fund al Qaeda, which could mean the need for WWII-style campaigns against those countries, one after another. What happens when the Russians or the Chinese decide to defend allied Muslim countries? Will a WWII-style draft, when 12% of the population was under arms, be necessary? Will defense spending have to go up to 50% of GDP? The list of unknowns is just staggering. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 9:41:35 PM |
| #27 Kudos to you all - this is an excellent (and needed, since it is a question of when, not if) discussion and I'm one of those who appreciates what I learn on RB - great stuff. ZF - I have a different take on what the "Arab World" would do in the case of an invasion of SA. I propose an very limited form - 40 (or Steve's 100!!!) km strip along the Eastern coast. I stand by my assessment of the incredible positive fallout it would have in a remarkably short time. As for the negatives, I think Iraq has demonstrated what we can actually expect from the Arab World: seething and bluster and paralysis - and eventually the letting loose of the fringe (as long as deniable) who have no life other than the jihad drilled into them by their imams. It would be more of the same, IMHO, not some sudden millions upon millions spilling out in retribution. After living among them for years I do not believe that is their psyche nor do I believe that more than a tiny fraction are True Believers - most action-oriented types are mercs and the vast vast majority are little more than social robots who do what they do because it is what they were taught, what they understand, what is approved of by their society / peers, and the typical human fear of ostracism and the unknown to abandon it. I want to hear where you differ and why. I respect your expertise and experience, but mine tells me something different here - so I want to understand where we part company! Thx, in advance, for your take if you see this before rollover! And anyone else, please chime in. This WILL happen TO us - they can't seem to help themselves, no matter how illogical or ill-serving it may be toward their "cause." What will we do about it and what will be the ramifications? Only one persion, brother flash91, has responded to the Wretched commentary - and I think he brushed it off a little too easily - Den Beste actually agrees substantially with much of Wretched's stuff and there is no escape from the logic boxes he builds - so try again, flash91! Can anything be more important than this, in fact? I don't think so. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to hear from everyone! Thx! |
| Posted by: .com 2003-12-23 8:41:54 PM |
| #26 ..we'll get to find out if the fear of wrongly interning someone temporarily makes up for mass death caused by a member of that community. Assuming that there's still a shread of common sense in the general public, if it ever comes to pass that political correctness played a pivotal role in any massive loss of American lives, there WILL be hell to pay. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-23 8:12:20 PM |
| #25 I'm more worried about the Enemy Within - two million or so Muslims with a chip on their shoulder about Uncle Sam. It's possible we're about to find out the practical reasons why a number of Japanese Americans were interned during WWII. I hope we don't, but it wouldn't surprise me if political correctness about Muslims leads to the deaths of tens of thousands - we'll get to find out if the fear of wrongly interning someone temporarily makes up for mass death caused by a member of that community. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 7:24:25 PM |
| #24 Close. The. Fucking. Borders. Won't make a difference. I'm more worried about the Enemy Within - two million or so Muslims with a chip on their shoulder about Uncle Sam. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 7:07:08 PM |
| #23 Skeptic: I still say we will not retaliate if we are attacked...our govt will not do it.....I say bomb the mother f***rs to dust.....THAT will send a message, but we wont do that.....and that pisses me off. I understand your frustration - on 9/11, my initial view when I emerged from a midtown subway stop was of a cloud of ashes where the towers used to stand. I fully expected the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. But it never happened. At the same time, I understand why GWB held back. The use of nukes would have really upped the ante. That's not to say that it won't happen if tens of thousands of Americans are killed this time around. I suspect that if an event surpassing September 11 occurs on American soil, a draft will be reinstated, and a number of other Muslim countries will be invaded. I don't see nukes being employed except against an existential threat - it's not the American way to kill large numbers of even hostile civilians in the absence of such a threat. (If GWB did use 'em, God bless him - I'm glad I'm not responsible for making these decisions. Nonetheless, I would support the use of nukes - not that he'll need anyone's permission to use them). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 7:04:36 PM |
| #22 Close. The. Fucking. Borders. No. Throw the bastards off our planet. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-23 5:34:12 PM |
| #21 Well put responses...and I am not left wing...I am just tired of seeing our country being attacked by the ROP and our govt seemingly evading the issue by dirrecting our attention elsewhere....I cant reply to each point that was made in response to my rant....some make sense, some dont....but I still say, we will NOT respond in kind if we are attacked....WHY NOT!!! I am all for turning the ME to glass, but we cant do that.....no little bird told me anything, I can see and read and comprehend on my own...and Zhang Fei, your first response made a lot of sense, but then you for some reason, go off the track.....my point is we have invaded Irag, we "occupy' Afghan, I know all of this...but we are not safer than we were are we? I still say we will not retaliate if we are attacked...our govt will not do it.....I say bomb the mother f***rs to dust.....THAT will send a message, but we wont do that.....and that pisses me off. Good holidays to you all....I'll go back to my head banging.....wall type, not music type. |
| Posted by: Skeptic 2003-12-23 4:52:40 PM |
| #20 Left wing skeptic: They know all the details, they already know this information....why wont they do something about it? Because its political...its not about revenge or justice or Islam or anything else. They arent going to nuke anybody, they arent going to do a damn thing about it if we are attacked.... And a little bird told left-wing skeptic all this. Right. Left-wing skeptic feels comfortable assuming moral equivalence between our leaders and the terrorists. I don't. End of story. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 4:39:10 PM |
| #19 Left wing skeptic: We have been attacked and what did we do? We invaded Iraq. Was Binny in Iraq? No, we acted like we were chasing him, but the govt decided to stop that and pull the troops into Iraq...why? Political.... If the US invades Saudi Arabia, the custodian of the Muslim holy sites, it might as well declare war on every Muslim country in the world - because they will certainly declare war on the US. Besides, invading Iraq was a huge diplomatic and political undertaking by itself - how the heck was the US going to justify invading Saudi Arabia? And was the whole Saudi Arabian government going against the US, or just rogue elements within Saudi society and the Saudi government? With Iraq, there was no question - Saddam was the state - he had the resources of the entire state working for him. Besides, Iraq is just a stepping stone. Just as the US worked its way up from the South Pacific en route to Tokyo, Afghanistan and Iraq are just waystations on the road to victory in the War on Terror. The key aspect of being in Iraq is that the US has 100,000 troops in-country and a number of air force bases, which means that it has the ability to inflict a lot of punishment on any terror-sponsoring country in the Gulf region, and leaders there know it. In a way, it would be better if no WMD's were found in Iraq - this will send a signal to Muslim countries that they can't get away with their usual game of sponsoring terrorists on the side, because the US will retaliate even if they've been successful in covering their tracks. There was no way the US could have chased bin Laden down short of invading Iran and/or Pakistan, both of which are tougher nuts to crack, since their defense installations haven't been under attack for a decade, and getting access is far harder. Why Iraq? It was the low-hanging fruit - it was unfinished business - something the US had to get out of the way before it could redeploy for action elsewhere. Afghanistan did not preclude Iraq, just as Iraq will not preclude another campaign. US troops only need to be in Iraq long enough to get basic governmental structures going - note that American troops did not stick around in North Africa or the South Pacific after German and Japanese positions were overrun. The Democrats love this nation-building stuff, but that's not the point of these two campaigns, which is to crush terrorists and deter terror-sponsoring governments. Ultimately, the objective is to wipe the stain of Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Mogadishu from Muslim minds - only then will deterrence be regained. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-12-23 4:29:26 PM |
| #18 Here is a hypothetical for you folks...lets say they drop a bomb in LA....and kill 10,000 people....what is the govt going to do? Hmm, try and stop it from occurring first off. Go after Binny? We've been after him for 2 years....what are they going to do? Invade Greenland? Liberate Grenada? Nice examples there. I think the countries I listed would be a little closer to the mark. As for Binny, if his brains aren't splattered on some cave in Tora Bora, I am sure the military would would have zero restrictions on hitting him again no matter the location. The govt knows who is behind it, they know where the funding comes from, they know who is supporting the terrorists, they know where the terrorists come from---Saudi Arabia? The Government isn't as all knowing as you think. They already know all of this and can they protect us? No, ...they cant....and why? Cause they wont. Maybe it has to do with the fact that the US has a open society, founded on freedom and liberty? They know all the details, they already know this information....why wont they do something about it? You make it sound like a light switch or something. Because its political...its not about revenge or justice or Islam or anything else. Actually all three things you listed are very much embedded in Arab society. They arent going to nuke anybody, they arent going to do a damn thing about it if we are attacked.... The US would never Nuke anyone unless it was to save the lives of its own citizens, the same reason it used them in World War II. As far as doing something about it, if anything the invasion of two Terrorist sponsoring States is far from not doing anything. Raising the threat level to orange actually cost allot of money to sustain and is a direct demonstration that the US Government is doing something to prevent a attack. We have been attacked and what did we do? We invaded Iraq. Was Binny in Iraq? Actually the US invaded Afghanistan, and continue to occupy it. No, we acted like we were chasing him, but the govt decided to stop that and pull the troops into Iraq...why? Political.... Tora Bora wasn't a act. Troops in Afghanistan continued to mount operations before, durring and after the invasion of Iraq, your living in a dream world. When we are attacked again and we probably will be...dont expect any grand retribution or revenge...there wont be any....there will be conferences and appeasement and investigations...but there will not be any strike at the ones responsible.....that wouldnt be prudent or PC....and meanwhile the enemy grows stronger and more confident...because they know we cant catch them and we are not going to bomb anyone.....we are at their mercy, no one wants to say it but thats the fact Jack!! That could actually be a true statement if made ten years ago. |
| Posted by: ZoGg 2003-12-23 4:05:38 PM |
| #17 Skeptic, You seem unclear on why the US invaded Iraq so I'll lay it out for you. The US invaded Iraq to send a message that any government that even thinks about supporting terrorists will be taken out no matter how much insurance they've purchased from France and Russia. Quadaffi got the hint, I think you can bet on the fact that others have taken the hint as well. Oh, and we stopped chasing Bin Laden because he's dead. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2003-12-23 4:05:14 PM |
| #16 Here is a hypothetical for you folks...lets say they drop a bomb in LA....and kill 10,000 people....what is the govt going to do? Go after Binny? We've been after him for 2 years....what are they going to do? Invade Greenland? Liberate Grenada? The govt knows who is behind it, they know where the funding comes from, they know who is supporting the terrorists, they know where the terrorists come from---Saudi Arabia? They already know all of this and can they protect us? No, ...they cant....and why? Cause they wont. They know all the details, they already know this information....why wont they do something about it? Because its political...its not about revenge or justice or Islam or anything else. They arent going to nuke anybody, they arent going to do a damn thing about it if we are attacked.... We have been attacked and what did we do? We invaded Iraq. Was Binny in Iraq? No, we acted like we were chasing him, but the govt decided to stop that and pull the troops into Iraq...why? Political.... When we are attacked again and we probably will be...dont expect any grand retribution or revenge...there wont be any....there will be conferences and appeasement and investigations...but there will not be any strike at the ones responsible.....that wouldnt be prudent or PC....and meanwhile the enemy grows stronger and more confident...because they know we cant catch them and we are not going to bomb anyone.....we are at their mercy, no one wants to say it but thats the fact Jack!! |
| Posted by: Skeptic 2003-12-23 3:24:17 PM |
| #15 If a attack is carried out successfully, the US has a free card to hit back at those states the harbor terrorist. This would include Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and Sudan. Also, Israel will probably get to do whatever it wants in the West Bank and Gaza and there won't be a thing that Korei or Arafart can do about it. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-23 3:15:29 PM |
| #14 The Arab world is only now feeling the true 'Shock and Awe' of seeing the former dictator of Iraq looking like the Rat that he is when he was captured. Many in the Arab world feel humiliated by his capture and Al-Qaeda hopes to capitalize on this with a revenge attack. If a attack is carried out successfully, the US has a free card to hit back at those states the harbor terrorist. This would include Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and Sudan. Perhaps Libya realized this and so decided to throw in the towel and get itself removed from this list. |
| Posted by: ZoGg 2003-12-23 2:51:40 PM |
| #13 Close. The. Fucking. Borders. |
| Posted by: Hyper 2003-12-23 2:50:41 PM |
| #12 Someone in Al-Q is getting expert advice from a sophisticated government with an excellent intelligence service. I make no assertions as to who that nation is - I have no idea. But what they're doing is "flooding the zone" - sending tons of information, 90% of which is bogus, in order to confuse the intelligence services of the opposition. The real problem with this kind of information overkill is you never know which is the "right" information, and which is the 'fluff', so you have to take ALL of it at face value. I do agree that a major attack on the United States should result in two things - the militarization of about 1/3 of our 18-36 year olds, and a huge hurting on everyone from Indonesia to Algeria that won't cooperate in eliminating Al-Q and all its subsidiaries. "Manifest Destiny" extended the US borders from New England to Los Angeles. The next round may see them extended from Jakarta to Dakar. The hayrabs have been warned enough. One more smack from Al-Q and it's time to take direct, PERMANENT action. And to rub salt into the wounds, we'll demand they all convert to Buddhism. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-12-23 1:06:51 PM |
| #11 I'm a regular belmontclub reader, and while I like the style and agree with the most conclusions, often he/she uses logic with whopping big holes in it. Like anything else on the internet, a grain of salt is advised... |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-12-23 12:24:28 PM |
| #10 Wretched over at Belmont Club seems to agree that at least one attack will likely succeed. He also speculates about why Dubya hasn't made threats of reprisal and that the scope of a response might well be extreme. Good! I think his logic is interesting and more sound than not, though nukes are farfetched without solid post-attack ties to a fixed high-value target -- a deep Iranian nuke facility perhaps? I especially find his reasoning sound regards Dubya's silence so far. Thoughts. anyone? IMHO, Wretched should be a regular read for Rantburgers, if he isn't already. He poses solid questions and his provocative analyses hold up surprisingly well - even against the recently frequent Den Beste Logic Assault™ - which normally leaves "adversaries" (victims?) looking like Don Knotts after a long round with Rocky Marciano. :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2003-12-23 11:04:19 AM |
| #9 I think Al-Q would be very stupid to do something like this just before the 04 election. Something like this will almost guarantee Bush the 04 election. On the other hand, pissing off the post powerful nation on earth wasn't very bright to begin with -- they have a record of biting off more then they can chew (let alone swallow). Ptah - Yes, we are a pack of wolves, not a herd of sheep. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2003-12-23 11:00:53 AM |
| #8 I'm probably going to be putting around the countryside during the holidays. If I see someone fiddling around an electricity transmission line tower, they're going to end up like the flies and mosquitos on my truck's front bumper. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-12-23 10:17:08 AM |
| #7 Ptah you in S. Georiga? I'm trying to place the Nuke plant. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-23 10:06:23 AM |
| #6 Heh, good luck here down south in Vidalia: The locals are damn tired of hunting deer, and would look forward to going after two footed varmints. Heck, more people would probably be hurt from friendly fire than the terrorists would hurt. And I wouldn't advise the nuclear power plant south of here: We have a large clump of state prisons in the area, the utility pays top dollar, and so has the pick of the best. Or so I hear. Hell, the Liberals and Greens would inflict more damage screaming about shutting down 20% of our electrical grid than any Jihadis would do just TRYING to attack a nuclear power plant, much less succeeding. The 9/11 hijackers had to attend US schools to learn how to fly the jet aircraft. THAT loophole has probably been plugged, so woe be the nation back to whom we trace any pilot training of terrorists. The last time I flew on business, I looked around as instructed by the pre-flight instruction. I locked eyes with several other male passengers, gave a slight nod, and they responded in kind: I knew I wouldn't be alone if I tackled a hijacker. A pack, not a herd. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2003-12-23 9:49:16 AM |
| #5 As we used to say, "Be Alert. America Needs More Lerts!" |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-12-23 9:03:15 AM |
| #4 Any attack, of any size against any US target, should unleash the most violent response we can muster against every identified and corroborated target of which we are certain. I am with you as long as it includes Mecca and Medina and the rest of the Arabian peninsula. |
| Posted by: ed 2003-12-23 3:19:20 AM |
| #3 PD, old buddy, (.com to the newbies), if al-Q and their Soddi financiers do something to hurt us in our homeland again, and I'll march with you -- we don't want 40 km, we want about 100 km or so. Have to give our new dependency some growing room, doncha think? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2003-12-23 1:35:45 AM |
#2 Any attack, of any size against any US target, should unleash the most violent response we can muster against every identified and corroborated target of which we are certain.I couldn't agree more! One car bomb should equal the detention of every muslim in the tri-state area. They blow up our federal buildings, we blow up their capitals. |
| Posted by: Islam Sucks 2003-12-23 1:29:00 AM |
| #1 Without the specifics, this is a very tough task - and I appreciate both the enormity of the problem and the efforts of the various agencies and their people attempting to safeguard us. I fully expect the bad guys to succeed in something. In fact, if they fail to pull something off before the end of the first week in January, it will be amazing - and due I'd bet to the efforts described here. When it happens, not if, I guess the scale will determine the response... and that qualification I do not agree with. Any attack, of any size against any US target, should unleash the most violent response we can muster against every identified and corroborated target of which we are certain. I hope against hope that we will be able to determine the state associations of as many of these terrorists as possible, too, for those are fixed targets -- and the enablers should pay the highest price - just as the direct perps. So, there's this stolen 40km wide strip along the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia that provides the funding for the vast majority of the terror in the world and removing it from the hands of turbans of any stripe would stop the insanity dead in its tracks in 90 days... |
| Posted by: .com 2003-12-23 12:45:50 AM |