What are the chances of another terrorist attack?

Ya know, i keep reading on ATS 3 weeks until war or terrorist attack in the works, and when you turn on the news every TV station says something different. So lets go beyond all the hype for a second because it's making me dizzy.How many of you really think another terrorist attack on the United States is really in the works and if so what do you think is their most likely target? for those of you that don't i would appreciate it if you could explain why it is that you hold that view point. i'm not saying im totally lost on this whole subject but i would like to just go beyond what people's fears are and get to the facts at hand and discuss them with all of you. Thanks a bunch ahead of time for contributing!


CHERRIO!
DIGITALGRL

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]

[edit on 10/01/2004 by DigitalGrl]
Mod Edit: title fixed

[edit on 3/26/2006 by Gools]

posted by DigitalGrl: “Ya know, I keep reading on ATS 3 weeks until war or terrorist attack in the works, and when you turn on the news every TV station says something different. So lets go beyond all the hype for a second because it's making me dizzy. How many of you really think another terrorist attack on the United States is really in the works and if so what do you think is their most likely target? for those of you that don't I would appreciate it if you could explain why it is that you hold that view point.

On Nine Twelve I asked for and expected to hear a national debate WHY had America been attacked? The best our Supreme Court designated leader could provide was “they hate our freedoms.” Which I rate intellectually as equal to a seventh grader. There are 3 or 4 reasons for Nine Eleven. I offer, America’s backing of Israel. American (infidel) forces on the Arabian peninsula (holy ground.) America’s long time support of autocrats or dictators in Middle Eastern countries. Flip side, same coin, America’s involvement in thwarting Islamic regimes in Algeria and Egypt.

Geo W’s advisers instantly recognized the value of Nine Eleven to his new presidency. Geo W was already in serious trouble. He had reversed the projected surplus into a huge tax cut mostly for the R&Fs, (rich and famous) and the stock market had nose dived. America was losing manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate but Bush’s primary supporters were the root cause of that.. It is a political truism that WAR Trumps ECONOMY. Whereas Clinton had defined the first WTC bombing as a CRIME, and successfully pursued and brought to justice and trial the chief perpetrator, who is now in prison. I think America and the world will regret - is already regretting - that Geo W did not do likewise.

Geo W decided his definition would be to MAKE WAR which would give him and the GOP party the needed impetus to survive the 2002 election. Plus, it might give an AWOL National Guard lieutenant some real “hands on” experience as Commander-in-Chief. Hey, that job is either next to GOD or next to a KING. The Republicans CO-OPTED the Nine Eleven Event and rode it to electoral success in 2002 and 2004. I’m sure they are behind the hyping of the IRAN “thing” with an eye on 2006.

I’m not saying I’m totally lost on this whole subject but I would like to just go beyond what people's fears are and get to the facts at hand and discuss them with all of you. Thanks a bunch ahead of time for contributing! CHEERIO! DIGITALGRL [Edited by Don W]

The American people are being whipsawed by dubious LEAKS timed by the Oval Office to keep people distracted and to keep the FEAR level high enough to make the voters feel they need to STAY THE COURSE even if the leader himself does not know or constantly changes the “course!” Because of the leverage the terrorists have over America - a small threat equals a big and expensive response - we cannot afford to continue on this course. We cannot spend all our wealth on SECURITY. That is what is known elsewhere as a POLICE STATE.

[edit on 3/26/2006 by donwhite]

I think the world is being lulled by a false sense of security. What if I told you that terrorists just blew up a dirty bomb in London, just blew up the National Court building in Madrid, Spain, destroyed dozens of polling stations during the March 28th Israeli elections, terrorists blew up the Eiffel Tower and a large Paris shopping mall, and several major energy facilities worldwide just blew up.

Sound far fetched?

Dirty Bomb in London foiled:
www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.sky.com...

Terrorist National Court Plot Foiled:
news.yahoo.com...

Plot to disrupt Israeli Elections Foiled:
www.nytimes.com...

Foiled Eiffel Tower and Shopping Mall Plot:
www.expatica.com...

Energy Facilities Targeted, Attacks Foiled in Multiple Countries:
www.washingtontimes.com...
www.gulf-times.com...
www.adnki.com...

Success in defense against terrorists plots don't get much attention, which creates a false sense of security not just in the states, but worldwide.

Originally posted by darksided

Dirty Bomb in London foiled:
www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.sky.com...

How can you use the above as an example? It's an ongoing case and the defence haven't even taken to the stand. Nothing was foiled as they didn't get their hands on any dirty bomb from the russian mafia.

Most of the other evidence seems to consist of insane ramblings.

Originally posted by donwhite
On Nine Twelve I asked for and expected to hear a national debate WHY had America been attacked? The best our Supreme Court designated leader could provide was “they hate our freedoms.” Which I rate intellectually as equal to a seventh grader. There are 3 or 4 reasons for Nine Eleven. I offer, America’s backing of Israel. American (infidel) forces on the Arabian peninsula (holy ground.) America’s long time support of autocrats or dictators in Middle Eastern countries. Flip side, same coin, America’s involvement in thwarting Islamic regimes in Algeria and Egypt.

You know, I never could understand why, when asked why we had been attacked, GWB didn't just say "Because we sent our infidel forces to pollute their holy lands", or, "Because we support Mideast dictatorships and autocrats so that we can steal their oil".

Instead, he said something to the effect that it's because we won't bow to their demands that we abandon Israel, etc., etc.

Back to the topic, chances are we'll be attacked again. I won't offer any guesses as to when where or how, because I don't want to give them any ideas they don't already have.

I think an attack on the scale of 9/11 is highly unlikely to happen while GWB remains President.

The 9/11 attacks occured because terrorist thought the United States was weak. They had a right to think that after 8 years of the Clinton Administration. Clinton did nothing after the 1st WTC attack, did nothing when several US embassies where bombed, and did nothing when they bombed the USS Cole.

GWB surprised the terrorist by declaring war on them. Terrorist prey on weakness, which is why Spain was attacked.

I think the terrorist are waiting to see if America makes a mistake and elects another weak democrat, before another major attack.

America is currently being whipsawed by the BORDERS thing. Of course, this relates primarily to the Mexico border and the Mexicans who cross it sans paperwork. ASIDE: I got an HD from the USAF in 1956, and I can tell you people were complairiing about illegal Mexicans then.

It is claimed today there are more than 11 million undocumented persons in the US. Mostly of Hispanic origins from South of the Border, Down Mexico Way, to paraphrase Gene Autry.

AND NOT ONE ARRESTED FOR TERRORISM IN ALL THESE YEARS!

And some demagogues are calling for a BERLIN WALL WEST to be built the 1800 miles along the Mexican border. A Halliburton boondoggle in the making. And I suppose to be staffed by old, retired East German Vopos?



[edit on 3/26/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by uknumpty

Originally posted by darksided

Dirty Bomb in London foiled:
www.timesonline.co.uk...
www.sky.com...

How can you use the above as an example? It's an ongoing case and the defence haven't even taken to the stand. Nothing was foiled as they didn't get their hands on any dirty bomb from the russian mafia.

Most of the other evidence seems to consist of insane ramblings.

Maybe those aren't the best sources for you, but there is a lot of info out on that case. There was an attempt to buy nuclear material from Russia in Belgium, there are links between that case and the folks in London who were plotting a terrorists attacks.

Whether they get convicted or not in courts these days are entirely different matter, but the fact there is evidence of things happening, enough evidence in fact people have been arrested and law enforcement seems to think it is worth a trial indicates something nefarious was happening.

dailytelegraph.news.com.au...
www.townhall.com...
www.mosnews.com...
news.scotsman.com...

My point was to show how law enforcement successes can allow people to be lulled into a false sense of security, when there is clearly evidence those who commit terrorist acts are still active.

hate to say it but there will always be attacks on American interests both here and abroad.On fox news there was a F.B.I. raid on a truck driver training school in missouri(couldn't find link) could this be the next way terrorist attacks us by using a semi full of gas as a big bomb.

Imo,The next terroist attack will come when the powers that be deem it necessary.By the time people realise that the government that protects them, are just as much to blame for the terroisum as the religious extrmeists are,it will already be to late.I actually think there will be a "terroist" attack not long before the U.S wants to pull the trigger on a war with Iran.

I've been considering this question myself. I started by wondering; why hasn't the U.S. experienced the types of relatively small, highly visible, terrorist actions that London, Madrid, or Bali have?

I think the geography of the U.S. is the primary reason.

If causing 'terror' is the primary reason for terrorism, it follows that terrorists would want to initiate their actions in a location with the most likely chance of causing the greatest amount of fear. Hence, crowded trains, buses, and resorts are targeted.

But, the U.S. has plenty of locations that fit the bill...true, but what the U.S. also has is immense physical size. Frankly, what happens on the East Coast is far enough away from the Other Coast, that the impact of the terror is diminished, if not lost. Sure, as citizens we are outraged and upset. But truly fearful? Terrified? I don't think so, despite what the guv'mint shills would have us believe. I think that's why the most recent actions have been small and in countries with relatively small size. When the other side of the country is less than a daytrip away; that's close....that's in the neighborhood. It takes over 3 days to travel the width of the U.S. Consider Canada and Australia, both immense countries, and no known, small scale terrorist actions.

So, I think future terrorist acts will be very big and located in a place calculated to cause the greatest impact. And, I'm not terribly confident in this country's security apparatus; so my confidence level in the occurence is high.

Someplace that can have some international impact like the World Trade Center. Someplace that has a large number of international visitors. Disney World? If I were head of security at a venue like this, I would have already chewed my fingernails down to the first knuckle.

NC

EDIT: I hate rewrites!!

[edit on 26-3-2006 by NotClever]

[edit on 26-3-2006 by NotClever]

'Riddle me this' Rakan Bin Williams threats must be taken seriously. A few months back I remember reading about the remnants of wooden crates with Arabic writing on them having been found near the US-Mexico border. What do you suppose was once in the crates?

Yes, maybe it all seems a little too convenient, but then again, the remnants may have been left there intentionally for our border agents to find.

According to this rubber-room riddler, the first attack is to be the smaller of the two and will occur in a state, or states far away from Washington, DC. Either that or the attack will take place elsewhere and yet affect most a state or states far from DC.

Al Qaeda did not specify a state or states 'farthest' from DC, but rather a state or states 'far from.' Do you think this rules out Hawaii and Alaska the states farthest from DC? Or, do you think he meant 'farthest from' instead of 'far from' and that Hawaii and Alaska will be the targets?

Further, if Al Qaeda did mean 'far from' rather than 'farthest from' -- as say in the mid-west -- do nuclear missile sites exist there that might be in the crosshairs? Will the terrorist attacks be nuclear attacks? Dirty bombs? Biological weapons? Planes towing huge speakers behind that are blaring 'Tiptoe Through the Tulips' by Tiny Tim? What?

posted by NotClever: “I've been considering this question myself. I wondered why the U.S. has not experienced the types of relatively small, highly visible, terrorist actions that London, Madrid, or Bali have? I think U.S. geography is the primary reason . . its immense physical size. I think that's why most recent [terrorist] acts have been in relatively small countries. When the other side of the country is less than a day’s drive away, that's close . . that's in the neighborhood. It takes over 3 days to drive the width of the U.S. Consider also Canada and Australia, both immense countries, and no known, small scale terrorist actions.

Canada has gumption, and Australia is too far from anyplace to count in the terror scheme. I love Aussies, but they are still remote. As to Canada, for the same effort you could hit the U.S. which is your “to the death” enemy. We are told 25,000 cargo containers come into the U.S. every day. That only 5,000 are examined. The others are “screened” by shipper and port of origin. We also have a GREAT COMPUTER IN THE SKY that lists all the crewmen on each ship transporting containers and so on. We are told 300,000 to 500,000 people cross the southern border every year. That 11 million of them stay here. (Not ONE Mexican has ever been arrested for an act of terrorism.) Let’s not loose our heads over the phoney border issue. You could stop illegal immigrants in one day if you wanted, by imposing a fine of $25,000 a day per worker on any employer AND granting amnesty to the alien provided he turns himself in to the ICE and we split the fines with him.

I think a future terrorist act will be big and located in a place calculated to cause the greatest impact. I'm not terribly confident in this country's security apparatus; so my confidence level in the occurrence is high. Someplace that has a large number of international visitors. Disney World? If I were head of security at a venue like this, I would have already chewed my fingernails down to the first knuckle. NC [Edited by Don W]

I agree. Not on another occurrence but that any terrorist worth his salt would plan an event at Disney World. It is the highest visibility site and a successful “kill” or “hit” there would get the word’s attaint for days and days.

So here’s my problem. How much to you think the U.S., Florida, Orlando and Disney spend a year on security? Do you think it is unreasonable to guess there are 1,000 people involved exclusively with anti terror security? Remember cops only work 40 hours and there are 168 hours in a week, which means you need 4.2 cops on the PAYROLL to have ONE cop on duty. If cops are paid on avenge $55,000 a year, then we spend $55 million a year on security at Disney.

So Osama may be doing nothing - he did say once he’d watch America bankrupt itself - letting us spend ourselves crazy. Remember in 2004, Geo W huckstered a phoney CD on the U.S. which caused $75 million in overtime in NYC and W-DC.

Cost to al Qaeda? A couple bucks for a CD. This was the one where the hype was it was recently captured in Pakistan, but the owner of a building shown on the CD revealed he had remodeled one of the buildings shown 3 years earlier. The GOP or CIA was hustling the country with a old CD. But hey, you do anything to win an election, right? Do you think Geo W would have revealed his error if not for the CITIZEN? Yeah, like Rodney King would not have been charged with assault on officers if not for the tape.

I believe that there is a major attack, possibly nuclear (for shock to gain public support) imminent either on Israeli soil or the in US and it will be blamed on Iran as a pretext for war. 29th March is my bet. The US administration need an excuse to attack and gain control of the country's money and oil (kerching!) before Iran changes its Forex Reserve Fund fully to Euros. (IHMO)

Euro vs Dollar


Today, the world's central banks prefer to hold euros - especially countries on bad terms with the US.

The dollar has stayed just above a record low against the euro pressured by news that Russia may consider boosting the share of euros in its $100 billion-plus foreign currency reserves.
A recent rebound in oil prices has also raised concerns about the US growth outlook, burdening the dollar already reeling from a market view that Washington may want the dollar to fall to help cap the huge US current account deficit.
Euro versus dollar is a war between the world's major currencies.
Although the dollar has been trading sideways for most of 2004, many say there is no chance for it to resume the heights it occupied during the late 1990s and up until January 2002.
Since then, the date of introduction of the euro in its physical cash form, the dollar has been locked in a downtrend that even the recent sideways movement has not interrupted.
But the truth is that the dollar keeps dropping, and as prices move higher, the dollar is buying less, and less.
The euro was designed to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency, and that's exactly what is now happening! The dollar has in fact lost international support.
In the past, the dollar was supported by all of the world's central banks because there was no alternative reserve currency. The greenback was literally the only game in town. They needed the dollar.
That has now changed.
Today, the world's central banks prefer to hold euros - especially countries on bad terms with the US. This euro vs. dollar trend has drastically reduced worldwide demand for dollars, and the greenback's forex value has dropped. A lower dollar will make imported goods more expensive for consumer countries. For example, OPEC has cut production quotas to raise oil prices, because the falling dollar makes them lose money. They have even threatened to sell their oil for euros instead of dollars!

Right Move
More than half of Iran's assets in the Forex Reserve Fund have been converted to euro. It is believed that higher parity rate of euro against the US dollar will give the Asian countries, particularly oil exporters, a chance to usher in a new chapter in ties with European Union member countries.
The United States has dominated other countries through its currency. The superiority of the dollar against other hard currencies enabled the US to monopolize global trade.
World trade was a game in which the US produced dollars and the rest of the world produced things that dollars could buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture a comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies.
Now, the competition between euro and dollar is hoped to eliminate the US monopoly in global trade.
Iran, from the beginning approved the euro, which some observers believe could allow the country to free itself from the US dollar, which it uses for international business and transactions.
For long, the dollar has been used extensively in Iran, notably for its international deals as the number two exporter in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), despite the severed relations between Tehran and Washington.
Many experts have called for adoption of the euro as the currency of the OPEC and for Iran itself in oil and non-oil deals.
Experts say if the euro is uniformly adopted in Europe and makes substantial gains on the dollar, Iran must capitalize on the opportunity to utilize this new single currency for its financial dealings on the oil market as well as for non-oil exports.
The euro could pave the way for an international financial unit and universal monetary union in the long-term, regardless of political issues.
Oil revenue is the backbone of the Iranian economy and parliamentary approval remains key to any decisions surrounding the politically sensitive energy sector.
Iranian sources say the Central Bank of Iran has been putting increasing pressure on the Oil Ministry to implement the currency change so as to avoid losses as the value of the dollar declines.
US Nightmare
The US Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has stood to gain considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro.
The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq - or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq - is that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way. The administration is also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum for the switch from Iran and other OPEC members including Saudi Arabia.

Thanks for replying guys. you all made some really good points. I have to say that NOTCLEVER is the one that fits my current perspective on this whole thing. i like how you mentioned our geography playing a part in all of this.

i do find it puzzling as most of you have mentioned, that we haven't had any little scare attacks. to me that would be alot more scary. i mean look at israel. everyday they have to fear going to the mall or to a coffee shop because some sort of fear attack happens everyday. and same goes for the good citizens in iraq. They have to worry about being in the wrong place at the wrong time every single day because someone is always being killed, or a building is always being destroyed. and if there are really all these sleeper cells here or at least taliban and bin laden sympathizers why did they change their tactics? they have to see that it is working at scaring people in these other two counties? and i agree with america's geography playing a part in this, but if these cells are already here like our government says they are, what are they being so quiet for? its kinda creepy. i mean if they attacked us from the inside like have been with israel every day our geography wouldnt be the greatest advantage would it?
this is why the border situation seems like a no brainer to me. close it off. not that hispanics are all in these sleepers cells, (which some of them could be some not) but we have to know who is coming over here dont you think?

well i dont want the my topic to get derailed by us debating the borders,so what about the other things? im a big skeptic when it comes to conspiracy theories, or maybe it would be better to say that im not always paranoid or anything. but this just seems creepy to me. anyone else feel that way?

thanks again for all your opinons!
Digitalgrl