Breaking News
 

State Department warns of "increased indications" that al Qaeda is preparing attacks on U.S. interests to coincide with 9/11 anniversary. Details soon.

www.cnn.com

Joe,

Do you believe them or do you think US Gov is blowing smoke up the US public's asses? ;-) ;-)

Right now, I wouldn't have a clue.

Right now you reached post 500, congrats :-)

He'll be back ;-)

Just got the breaking news email through also..

Bit worrying, but I dont think the US goverment should release info like this. there is making sure people are prepared..
BUT
there this sort of stuff creates more terror in people.


my :2 cents:

Thanks!

Although I'd be about 4400 posts about now if I was still Joe Sixpack.!

:glugglug

I figured. It must be pretty difficult for you. Trying to balance your hope that someone smuggles a suitcase bomb into the US vs. your belief that the US government is involved in a constant and unrelenting propaganda campaign.

If they didn't and there was an attack, people would complain they weren't warned.

That is also true

:glugglug

The US government IS involved in a constant and unrelenting propaganda campaign. I seem to remember something about weapons of mass destruction...

And the suitcase nuke thing is inevitable. Next twenty years for sure.

You believe it? Bush also says there are WMD in Iraq(still he says that)

Andre

:glugglug

Cheers bro.

Question...what do you think the US response would be if a nuke is ever detonated in a US city?

If bush is still president the response is, I need abother $689 Billion right now, we need to take over this island and that will solve all problems.

Depends on if they really knew who detonated it or if they simply use it as an excuse to wage war on a country for economic or other reasons.

I think any country is entitled to retaliate after a direct attack however I don't like knee-jerk military responses.

I don't think that answered your question but I suspect they would respond in kind.

Won't matter who is president. Americans would be so bloodthirsty that total war against the nations of the Middle East would not be out of the question. "For us or against us" Redux.

I think there would be massive escalation.

did it really take the state dept. to figure this out??

cummon now

First they will claim its not the work of terrorist but rather a sewer system thats backed up, and the fact that people are dieing all over the place its simply because they cant take a shit.

Thats the fuckin problem, we are always lied to!

No it took a early morning call from Bush that said "look what if something happens the homeland security dep. said there is no threat? Lets have the State Dep. say there is a threat so we have it all covered"

and bang CNN reports it,

Since it is just speculation...lets assume that it was linked to muslim terrorists...I personally believe that the response would be to turn a major portion of the muslim world to glass...and I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans would demand this of our government. My point is this...it will not pay for anyone to keep fucking around with the USA...at some point we will become pissed.

If that happens then the terrorists will have won.

How do you think that will affect your stockmarket and subsequently the world economy? How would it ever recover with the threat of another attack. You can't kill every fanaticial muslim on the planet - they're in every country.

Muslim terrorists have nothing to lose. They want to die. Always be afraid of those with absolutely nothing to lose... especially if you are someone that does.

I believe this too. Rather, it might be more like 60-70% that demand it but they will be much louder than the voices against. Of course, any leader has a great influence on how the people of a nation respond and react to a crisis so it's possible that someone could moderate the bloodthirsty.

Osama has already caused the unity of the western world to erode. You are a part of it too.

How would you want Australia to respond to a suitcase nuke activated in Brisbane, Joe?

Well perhaps we should have been a little more altruistic and a little less greedy. Maybe we have brought it all on ourselves after all... just like the Romans.

I live ten minutes drive from the centre of the city. I'd be dead or dying. I suspect under those circumstances I wouldn't care.

Make it Melbourne then.

How do you think "less greed" would appease the Osama Bin Laden's of the world; people that believe that if you are an infidel you should be killed?

I guess it would depend on who did it and why.

Osama and you learn he's in Sudan.

I think economic imperialism and the exploitation of the third world has a lot to do with why this is happening. That and US support, economically and otherwise, of Israel. And I've gotta admit if I was a muslim that would piss me off.

Americans are not afraid to die and this has been proven through out the history of America...and Americans will gladly oblige those that want to die. As for the stockmarket and world economy...if you recall there has been a few major conflicts that the US has been involved in and the economy recovered. As an example.

And yet the years after the war the economy boomed and the '50's (even with another war) were very good years.

I would probably want him dead. I know you want me to say I'd want to nuke Sudan... and who knows, I might.

But Australia doesn't have any nukes. :Graucho

Many Americans are afraid to die. Maybe some aren't... but do they think they're going to get 40 virgins when they die and go to paradise as a martyr? Probably not.

Suicide attacks are not really part of the culture of the Western world. Fanatical muslims REALLY want to die for their religion.

yep

Americans are willing to die for their country (and this has been proven throught out the history of the country)...and may be even as fanatical about their country as the muslims are about their religion.

The Japanese were just as fanatical as the muslims and just as willing to die and we obliged them.

In addition some US military operations have been deemed "sucide missions" and the boys did their duty. There have been military units ordered to stand and fight knowing that they would be overwhelmed...and they stood and fought.

The bottom line is that you would want Australia to meet such an action with an incredibly strong response; just the same as any American, Russian, or German would.

So here's the deal. You want Osama dead? Sudan would say that it would be a violation of their national sovereignty for Australia to act on their territory. What next? Go to the UN? One of the security council members will veto claiming that there must be a peaceful resolution possible with Sudan. Sudan doesn't budge.

That's the way the world works. Read the history of the UN Security Council. How many times has it managed not to veto on military action? Gulf War is the only one I know of and that was right after Russia was collapsing and everyone was feeling pretty united for once. That is the way the world works.

I don't agree. I think you're being somewhat idealistic.

I think people these days understand that wars are fought largely for economic reasons not for principles or ideology.

Who wants to die so some rich bastard can get even richer?