With the new reports of possible terrorist cell in the US preparing to launch an attack this summer, I'm concerned that the terrorists learned a bad lesson in Spain. It is bad because: 1) The obvious and oft-stated: aq thinks they can change the outcome of a Democratic election, thus motivating them to action; 2) They think the change will always be in their favor. IMHO, an attack on the US to coincide with an election would have the opposite effect of what aq wants; i.e. Americans would react with defiance. I also think the subsequent Administration would have much more leeway in it's anti-terror activities (yikes) as Americans become steeled for an all-out war on terror both here and abroad. Many may consider this a secondary issue to a terrorist attack, and maybe rightly so. But if terrorist actions can alter a Presidential election, in either way, it deserves mentioning.
This may sound a harsh but IMO the size and nature of a possible attack would also be a factor. This morning on my SUBWAY ride to work I was reading an article that stated that AQ may try an attack that could kill an estimated 4 MILLION people. But if there was an attack on a subway or commuter train that kills 5 or 6 hundred, would that have the same effect. Just thinking out loud on a message board and not really trying to make a point. thoughts?
Actually, I think the 4 million number was an overall 'target' to define an Islamic (fundamentalist) victory. Of course, they don't mention how many others may die if 4 million Americans were killed. I cannot even speculate what the outcome would be. But then again, such verbal theatrics are part of the Arab culture.
Actually, I think this is exactly what AQ wanted to achieve. They are trying to help Bush win because Bush is their greatest recruiter.
According to most Spanish observers, what changed the election was not so much the attack itself but the government's attempts to lie about it and/or obfuscate the truth. I wonder if that could happen here.
Er... are you going to nuke whole Arab wolrd if Al Quada blow one in US? That's scary, man. Even more scary, knowing Bush and the people around him, this may actually happen. As for Al Quada, it's sure as hell they will do it if they have one.
I am not going to do anything, but if 4 million Americans were killed or a huge number, you can bet that the blood of the most powerful nation on earth would be boiling, and would cause a massive war, and invasion of the middle east. Not sure if we would Nuke it....there is no winner in a nuclear war, just that the human race gets wiped out in a nuclear winter. The ironic thing is that Al Queda is a world problem not a US one, and should be dealt with on a world stage. They are fanatics and want to return the world to stone age values..... DD
It is bad because: 1) The obvious and oft-stated: aq thinks they can change the outcome of a Democratic election, thus motivating them to action; 2) They think the change will always be in their favor. The unfortunate thing is, I'm not sure they are wrong in either case. They clearly can affect elections - if we get a terrorist act in September or October, the voting pattern in the U.S. will change in some way. Now, whether it will be in their favor depends on your views. Personally, I believe they would rather have Bush in power. During the last two years, a ton of relationships have been fractured, allies alienated, and resources expended inefficiently - we 've stubbed our toes many times, and its seriously slowed the international effort against terrorism. That plays right into AQ's hands - the only way to stop them is a true global coalition of military, intelligence, and diplomatic effort, but while we're messing around in Iraq and pissing off Europe, we can't create that coalition. I am not going to do anything, but if 4 million Americans were killed or a huge number, you can bet that the blood of the most powerful nation on earth would be boiling, and would cause a massive war, and invasion of the middle east. I agree that this is what would happen... The problem is that I don't think, at the end of the day, Al Queda would really be any weaker and I don't think the terrorism problem would be any better. Al Queda would just go underground, let the world go to war, and be waiting in the end to face much weaker enemies. AQ would love for us to take out these corrupt Arab governments and alienate what little Muslim support we might have right now. Then they can come in and say "see, we were right - the U.S. hates you. Join our fight!" The ironic thing is that Al Queda is a world problem not a US one, and should be dealt with on a world stage. It was being done that way... until we started telling Germany and France that they were irrelevent, old Europe, and telling other countries we didn't need them, etc.
See, that is where we part, I think that statement is just political rhetoric. A lot of hullaballuh. Nothing but business as usual. France and Germany are still our allies, we just disagree on how to handle Iraq. Truthfully, I don't think the US solution, nor the Franco German one would have worked. DD
See, that is where we part, I think that statement is just political rhetoric. A lot of hullaballuh. Nothing but business as usual. France and Germany are still our allies, we just disagree on how to handle Iraq. Except that France and Germany are democracies, and as such have to respond to some extent to their people's whims. We already lost an ally government in Spain. And as a result of the Iraq war, the <I>people</I> of Europe are starting to clamor for less-strong ties with the U.S. That will ultimately be reflected in the composition of those countries' governments, and that will affect our ability to partner with them. <img src=http://people-press.org/reports/images/206-1.gif> When 60% of Germans supported the U.S., it was far easier for Germany to acquiese to American requests... Today, with 38% support, the German government may get booted if it works too closely with the U.S. There's a political opportunity for leaders who run on the platform of getting away from U.S.-dominance, etc. All of that will only hurt us in the long-run. Will these countries become enemies? Of course not. Will they be less eager to put their own soldiers in harm's way to help us? Absolutely. Spain is our first casualty in that arena. If Tony Blair gets kicked out in the next election, that may be the next one.
I agree this might be what will happen. But this strategy will never work, as for defeating Al Quada: 1. Al Quada is all over the world, not just in Middle East; 2. US can't control Iraq, what make you think it can control whole Midlle East? 3. War-teared, destablized country is the breeding bed of terrorism. See Afghanistan, Palestine and now Iraq. Now imagine whole ME become war zone. If Israel/Palestine conflict is any indication, be prepared this war would last for hundred years. Again agreed. Unfortunatedly, Bush and company don't think so.
Trying to stomp out Al Qaida, or any non-centralized terrorist group, with traditional aggressive military actions against a geographic location is like trying to punch water. As to Cohen's fear; I have long feared our fear. We have gotten soft, and have been so far removed from the reality of freedom that we have come to assume it has no cost. So much that, as we saw after the last attack, when we are threatened, we sacrifice freedom for comfort and security. I fully believe that, should there be another serious attack, we will go even farther in that direction. Bush will try and trumpet it either way; as is his supporters are pointing out the fact that no major attacks have happened in the US since 9/11, overlooking the fact that 9-11 was years in the planning and excecution, and calling that proof that Bush was right in what he did. If there's another major attack, they will point to his being right about how evil they are, and how we have to address them head on, etc. I'm not blaiming him for this; politicians will try and spin anything in their favor, but what I do blame him for is repeatedly using and exploiting our fear to further his own agenda.
That's an interesting piece of data. Do you have any info that shows "Old Europe's" foreign policy leanings prior to 9/11? I'd be interested to see if the US was getting an artificial bounce in support from these countries due to sympathy and if the current levels approximate pre-9/11 views. As for repercussions from a *major* terrorist attack (i.e. millions killed), I fully expect we will lose our freedoms. Life as we know it (especially for the non-American looking people) will be frighteningly difficult. At some point the majority will decide they are willing to forgo the freedoms of others for their own security.
