It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What happens, after the next terrorist attack?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Mate your not READING my question..

IF ALQAEDA.. not the IRA, or some fundamentalist group, but ALQAEDA attacked the USA again, where exactly would we strike at them?

WE Cant strike iran or syria, because we simply cant say, boom this operation came out of them.

alqaeda being nothing more than cells around the place, where would we chose to retaliate??
they wont be able to say it was this faction in iraq, or this faction on the border of aghan / pakistan...
because it will be a surprise, and more than liekly something not able to be investigated.
even more so, where would Europe or Britian retaliate against?

say the ricin plot came off, and they killed thousands...
what would britan of done?

if we cant locate binladen or zarqawi, how can we strike them?




posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
WE Cant strike iran or syria, because we simply cant say, boom this operation came out of them.


Sure we could. We just said Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was responsible, didn't we? Were you presented with any evidence of that? I wasn't. They don't need to show America evidence of anything. There's no evidence that Saddam had WMD, or was even trying to build them, yet we attacked Iraq no problem, right? They scared everyone with empty claims, and that was all the justification they needed to attack anyone they wanted to blame.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Why not the IRA?
They are very powerful and a serios threat.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Personally I think that we are gearing up to see a terrorist plot in England... I live in London and plan to move the hell out of here cause I can see which way the wind is blowing....

The easiest way to do a terrorist action in London is to poison the water supplies with some fatal substance... that is what I think terrorists are attempting....

Well I'm not staying around to see it happen..

NeoN_HaZe



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Why would they want to attack Europe, though? How exactly have you guys screwed them over? I'm under the impression that the US has done alot more rotten, two faced things to the middle east. Am I wrong?



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I can see Duba going into full National Emergency lockdown. I fear that he will go on and inact Marshel Law and life as we know it.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moe Foe
Why would they want to attack Europe, though? How exactly have you guys screwed them over? I'm under the impression that the US has done alot more rotten, two faced things to the middle east. Am I wrong?


The whole problem in the ME is Europes fault (just like in Africa). They were the ones that invaded and took over, then left leaving unnatural boarders drawn. The US has never occupied any of their countries untill now, Europe was at it over a hundred years ago.

Plus, it isn't the nationality that Islamic extremists hate, it is western culture. That includes Europe. Europe has been dealing with Islamic terrorists MUCH longer then the US ever has.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by American Mad Man]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Speaking as a citzen of the UK I can say thats a load of cow manure.
Once you have respect for the person you dont like come back and discuss things.


Excuse me but who is the person I don't like according to you?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Speaking as a citzen of the UK I can say thats a load of cow manure.
Once you have respect for the person you dont like come back and discuss things.


Is it just me or does anyone else not understand exactly what devilwasp meant here?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Moe Foe
Why would they want to attack Europe, though? How exactly have you guys screwed them over? I'm under the impression that the US has done a lot more rotten, two faced things to the middle east. Am I wrong?


The whole problem in the ME is Europes fault (just like in Africa). They were the ones that invaded and took over, then left leaving unnatural boarders drawn. The US has never occupied any of their countries until now, Europe was at it over a hundred years ago.

Plus, it isn't the nationality that Islamic extremists hate, it is western culture. That includes Europe. Europe has been dealing with Islamic terrorists MUCH longer then the US ever has.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by American Mad Man]


Are you insane? The gulf war was ours. We were the most predominate force there. The United States set a deadline, January 15, 1991 for all Iraq forces to be out of Kuwait. Then we started Desert Shield, which led to Desert Storm. Where were you?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Still it isn't right to blame United States for what is going on down there... Europe and their empires made things difficult and complicated in the Middle East... And when you are actually leaving some territories you must organize them first, and not just run away...



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by khruschev
First of all EU doesn't have the strenght nor the courage to attack anyone. They will just hide behind NATO and ask for help, they will continue their current anti counter terrorism policy, and anti-global war against terrorism policy... Western European countries always surrendered before the war even started, except for Great Britain.


This is what I am saying is a load of bull S.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]
Also you seem not to like the rest of europe, I find that rather offensive..

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I am sorry, something went wrong with my internet... Erase this post.

[edit on 22/4/2005 by khruschev]



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Mate your not READING my question..

IF ALQAEDA.. not the IRA, or some fundamentalist group, but ALQAEDA attacked the USA again, where exactly would we strike at them?

WE Cant strike iran or syria, because we simply cant say, boom this operation came out of them.

alqaeda being nothing more than cells around the place, where would we chose to retaliate??
they wont be able to say it was this faction in iraq, or this faction on the border of aghan / pakistan...
because it will be a surprise, and more than liekly something not able to be investigated.
even more so, where would Europe or Britian retaliate against?

say the ricin plot came off, and they killed thousands...
what would britan of done?

if we cant locate binladen or zarqawi, how can we strike them?


Maybe we would not retaliate. Ever thought of that one?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I never said that the secret services plotted the 9/11 attack.

What you wrote would make people assume that's what you meant

BE:


If any attack happened in the western world, it would be orchestrated by the powers that be.IE, our secret services.
If they feel they need an excuse to attack/invade any country, then what better excuse do they need to do it?

The scenario would probably be ' hand over the terrorist's or face the repercussions etc etc'.

Terrorism has been around for years. The only reason we seem to hear more of it, is because of 9/11 which lead to the excuse to bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, which then went on to the invasion of Iraq and the so called War against terrorism.


1. 9/11 wasn't an excuse to bomb Afghanistan, it was the reason. We gained nothing from bombing them except killing off a few terrorsist and distrupting their network there.

2. We didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq. That was probably going to happen anyway. Besides if the "secret services" were going to use a terrorist attack to gain support for an invasion, I'm pretty sure the invasion would occur soon after the attack when support would be high. Support for an attack against Iraq was in the 80s% right after 9/11. It wasn't nearly that high when we actually went.

3. What do the terrorists gain when the cooperate with our "secret services" in attacking us, knowing it's only so we can invade their country?



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by khruschev
Still it isn't right to blame United States for what is going on down there... Europe and their empires made things difficult and complicated in the Middle East... And when you are actually leaving some territories you must organize them first, and not just run away...

Why? If they're our enemies, why in the hell would we want to organize them after demolishing their country? That doesn't make much sense. Either they're enemies, or they're not. If they're not, then why did we attack them? America doesn't even know who their enemies are anymore.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Hi All,

Having Moved from LONDON to Lincolnshire North England 6 weeks ago I know now I was correct in my feelings of my last post in this thread.....

It was more than obvious that something was going to happen and frankly anyone who chooses to live in London I have to say that They have BIG Cahoonies!!!

Seriously though, I give my greatest sympathies for the victims and their families... Trust me it is hard enough to live and work in the rat race that is London without all this madness going on....

What I will say though is that without a doubt this attack was NOT designed to kill hurt the most people cause if they wanted that they could have attacked Hyde Park at the Live 8 Concert....

If you ask me the London bombings has the feeling of a SS Black Op... My question is but why??

I can think of many many many reasons but we can't know unless someone leaks something and of course if they do they will go the way of Dr. David Kelly....

Anyway.....

I'm out of the situation but the situation is not out of me........

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Neon Haze]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by verfed



Don't forget Neville Chamberlains antics prior to the war. Neville's weak anti-war dealings with Hitler were not appreciated

The handwriting was on the wall. Chamberlain's own party rebelled against him, forcing his resignation after British forces suffered defeat in Norway. Churchill was named prime minister in May of 1940. Chamberlain joined his cabinet briefly, resigned in October and died on 9 November 1940.




Documents were released last year that showed Chamberlain was stringing Hitler alnog to try and get the appeasment to last longer. From the end of WWI Britain had been rebuilding its armed forces in order to defeat the nazi threat once and for all. Chamberlain was giving a public show that he wanted peace while behind the scenes he was getting ready for war.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
I have the feeling that this was more of a "Because we can" strike in London. If they really wanted massive casualties, they said there were 10,000 people in Trafalgar Park with minimal security for the Olympic announcement. I don't think we'll see a retaliation from this one. Hopefully, they'll catch the guys that did it, but I don't think there will be a massive retaliation like there was after 9/11. No offense intended, and this may sound wrong, but this attack was just too small. If they wanted to set up a big retaliation, it would have had to be bigger. Something like hitting Live 8 or the Olympic announcement. This has the feeling of a test run, or a warning, designed to create a lot of chaos and fear.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
just too small. If they wanted to set up a big retaliation, it would have had to be bigger. Something like hitting Live 8 or the Olympic announcement. This has the feeling of a test run, or a warning, designed to create a lot of chaos and fear.


I quite Agree with you. However something on this scale could be used as a way to coerce the public into feeling a certain way.

for example it would be easier to argue from a governments point of view that ID cards are a good idea as we would be able to account for peoples where abouts in such circumstances....

That argument is perfect for ringing in the toll bell for ID cards and therefore let's raise tax to pay for the cards....

Not to mention the main reason people do not want ID cards... The fact that the information collected from such a move could/would be misused and abused.

Personally having lived in London for 9 years of my life I would say that life will resume as normal.. I remember the Bishopsgate Bomb that destroyed a whole street in the financial district and yep people carried on as normal the very next day....

So why do terrorist do terrorism if it simply doesn't work?????????

Well the only effect yesterday had was the tragic loss of life and the financial knock-on effect through loss of business hours. However that said the London Underground has suffered so many industrial action in the form of strikes recently that we are kind of used to not having a transport system every now and then.

All the best people.

NeoN HaZe


[edit on 8-7-2005 by Neon Haze]

[edit on 8-7-2005 by Neon Haze]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join