Al-Qaeda attack in next 6 months

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203975.html

Obama's administration's top intellegence officials recently declared that an attack on the US home front by Al-Qaeda or its allies within the next 6 months is certain. In addition, "Al-Qaeda maintains its intent to attack the homeland-preferably with a large scale attack that would amass casaulties, harm the US economy, or both."

So assuming the Obama administration is right, what should be the repsonse of the US if such a thing occurs? Of course, I'm hoping the Obama administration is as correct about this as they were the stimulus package creating jobs, but you never know. 😛 I just thought it might be good to discuss now just in case some of are not around later to have a say....if ya know what I mean.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, I'm hoping the Obama administration is as correct about this as they were the stimulus package creating jobs, but you never know. I just thought it might be good to discuss now just in case some of are not around later to have a say....if ya know what I mean.

One thing that crosses my mind, speaking as a person who has lost friends in a terrorist attrocity, I think the sort of people who will find your facetiousness funny - if, God forbid, there is a deadly attack in the next 6 months - will be clinically obsessed unfunny misery guts like yourself.

A discussion about terrorism in the future or in the past is one thing, but throwing in the tedious asinine barb about your own country's president's economic policy - ontop of umpteen hundred other threads and posts droning on and on and on about exactly the same thing - is very revealing. If you lose someone close to you in the next 6 months, I wonder if you'll look back with pride at your "prescience".

What should be the repsonse of the US if such a thing occurs? Presumably you will blame Barack Obama, whatever happens, wherever it happens, and whoever does it. And presumably you will find fault with whatever the U.S. does. What will be your repsonse if such a thing doesn't occur? Well presumably you will find it to be Obama's fault that it almost happened.

Originally posted by FMF
One thing that crosses my mind, speaking as a person who has lost friends in a terrorist attrocity, I think the sort of people who will find your facetiousness funny - if, God forbid, there is a deadly attack in the next 6 months - will be clinically obsessed unfunny misery guts like yourself.

A discussion about terrorism in the future or in the past is one occur? Well presumably you will find it to be Obama's fault that it almost happened.[/b]

With your never ending derision aside, which I have become fond of incidently, I think it a fair question. For example, after 9/11 the US went to war in two different countries. However, now that they have done that, what is left to do that they are not already doing now? In addition, Obama will inevitably be blamed for such an attack whether it is his fault or not.

As for Obama, to say that things are "certain", whether they be employment numbers or a pending attack, I think it fair to hold him to his words. Otherwise it equates fear mongering, lying, or ineptitude. My only solace is that if an attack does occur and they are apprehended, they will be afforded the same rights as a US citizen being read their Miranda rights with the best lawyer money can buy. 😀

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203975.html

Obama's administration's top intellegence officials recently declared that an attack on the US home front by Al-Qaeda or its allies within the next 6 months is certain. In addition, "Al-Qaeda maintains its intent to attack the homeland-preferably with a large scale attack ...[text shortened]... cuss now just in case some of are not around later to have a say....if ya know what I mean.

The article's main points about al-Qaeda were:

1. al-Qaeda wants to attack the US or its allies as soon as they are able.
2. al-Qaeda wants to do something BIG.

So much for the theory that al-Qaeda had decided to become a peaceful tribe devoted to running a casino resort.

But with this in mind, I agree that the usual Miranda rights might need to be modified in cases where there is a clear and present terrorist threat.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
But with this in mind, I agree that the usual Miranda rights might need to be modified in cases where there is a clear and present terrorist threat.[/b]

You think? Be careful now, you are sounding like you have some common sense.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The article's main points about al-Qaeda were:

1. al-Qaeda wants to attack the US or its allies as soon as they are able.
2. al-Qaeda wants to do something BIG.

So much for the theory that al-Qaeda had decided to become a peaceful tribe devoted to running a casino resort.

But with this in mind, I agree that the usual Miranda rights might need to be modified in cases where there is a clear and present terrorist threat.

Why? Have you been watching 24 reruns?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]The article's main points about al-Qaeda were:

1. al-Qaeda wants to attack the US or its allies as soon as they are able.
2. al-Qaeda wants to do something BIG.

So much for the theory that al-Qaeda had decided to become a peaceful tribe devoted to running a casino resort.

Did anyone, or does anyone, think that Al-Qaeda desires to be peaceful?

Originally posted by whodey
Did anyone, or does anyone, think that Al-Qaeda desires to be peaceful?

If they could acheive their goals peacefully, they'd be peaceful.

Originally posted by whodey
With your never ending derision aside, which I have become fond of incidently, I think it a fair question. For example, after 9/11 the US went to war in two different countries. However, now that they have done that, what is left to do that they are not already doing now? In addition, Obama will inevitably be blamed for such an attack whether it is his fau ...[text shortened]... rights as a US citizen being read their Miranda rights with the best lawyer money can buy. 😀

The idea that being a US citizen gives you more rights than someone else is one the Framers would have emphatically rejected.

You fall victim to scaremongering so easily, whodey. Can't you see that this is just a diversion tactic by the Obama administration to distract people from domestic woes, much like the Bush administration handily used the terrorist threat?

Is there a terrorist threat? Yes, there has been one for many decades and it's going to stay. Get over the fact that you cannot be 100% safe - and even if you wanted to be, there are several dangers which are far more serious to U.S. citizens.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You fall victim to scaremongering so easily, whodey. Can't you see that this is just a diversion tactic by the Obama administration to distract people from domestic woes, much like the Bush administration handily used the terrorist threat?

Is there a terrorist threat? Yes, there has been one for many decades and it's going to stay. Get over the fact ...[text shortened]... en if you wanted to be, there are several dangers which are far more serious to U.S. citizens.

Perhaps you are right. In fact, such scaremongering has been attempted before by Rep. Tom Tancoredo in 2005 by suggesting that the US response to multiple attacks via WMD's might be to strike Mecca with a WMD.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162795,00html

Of course, it is hard to tell if he is bluffing. AFter all, how do you attack a group that has no uniform or state? He said that he was just throwing out some ideas regarding what to do regarding "the ultimate threat" with the "utlimate response".

My only point here is that the Obama adiministration has decreed this as immenent and should be held accountable for such words. Unfortunatly, for people like FMF, some hold Obama and company accountable for such predictions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The idea that being a US citizen gives you more rights than someone else is one the Framers would have emphatically rejected.

Then what is the point of being a US citizen?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If they could acheive their goals peacefully, they'd be peaceful.

You know, its hard to tell if you are being serious at times, but I suspect you are this time. To say that to achieve ones goals one must use violence is an outrage. In fact, history is ripe with such conquests that have come about without firing a single shot.

Make no mistake, if they somehow kill off all the Christians, securlarists, and Zionists, the next order of business would be to "purify" Islam. Perhaps it would emerge as a war between the Sunnis and Shiites? The bottom line is that these people are full of hate.

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is that the Obama adiministration has decreed this as immenent and should be held accountable for such words. Unfortunatly, for people like FMF, some hold Obama and company accountable for such predictions.

"Unfortunately for" me? What are you blathering on about?

Originally posted by whodey
Make no mistake, if they somehow kill off all the Christians, securlarists, and Zionists...

<<Beyond parody>>