What if terrorists REALLY hurt us.

Senario: Terrorists do something that causes mass casualties, destruction and fear. Ex: Timed delayed bombs on lots of power lines during peak demand time in several areas. Multiple major blackouts that last for days, in the summer. Power hard to restore because the transmission towers have been toppled. Other charges planted on the lines cause repeat blackouts. After two weeks without power the economic damage would be extremely severe, and casualties would be in the 100Ks. // They spray poison gas on a city. Gas is easy to make. It was used in WWI so it isn't cutting edge technology. Simultaneous attacks on different cities. Casualties in the high 10Ks.

Either, or both, of those secenarios could be accomplish with less then 20 operatives and their activities would be below the radar of law enforcement, unless there was a very lucky break.

Place in scenario: It is a week after power/order has been fully restored. TV is shots of arabs in various ME countries dancing in the streets. Al Qada is claiming credit. (Never mind the blame game of Rep vs. Dem. for this discussion.)

Discussion question: What would be the mood of Joe Average? What percentage of the population would share that view? What happens now? What would you do if you were president?

n/t

nuke a few countries that might think of doing something like that in 5 or 10 years. But, of course, the tax cuts would be mandatory.

Seriously, we'd better wise up and negate the reasons anyone would want to do such a thing. If I were president, I'd start right now by becoming a "good neighbor" to the rest of the world. I'd put the welfare of the world's population at the top before oil and corporate profits. And, not least, I would keep promises made that are still unfulfilled. I would be extremely thorough and honest in determining the likely consequences of any actions considered. In addition, and very importantly, I would throw more resources into prevention of such attacks.

investigation and find out who was responsible. I would not attack the "hated" country of the day first and ask questions later. It wouldn't be a problem for me to delay action, because my job is not as important to me as is justice, and I would make very certain I knew who the real culprits were and could prove it. Then I would bring them to justice or annihilate them, whichever was the most feasible.

P.S. I once quit a job in management because the owner of the company required me to routinely lie to customers. Told him I would not do it, it was dishonest, and I walked out. Power is not something to be desired over integrity. Many years later, that businessman requested I work for him again. I guess he respected integrity too. I've said all this, I guess, to illustrate that honesty and integrity are very important to whole groups of people and even countries and it is respected. No doubt, terrorism would not be the problem it is today if the United States were truly respected.

the reason the Islamic fundamentalist hate us has nothing to do with our international integrity or lack thereof. It's religion, therefore non rational. We represent the greatest danger to any religion of self-denial that there is - materialism. Very poor people are more religious than wealthier people, in most cases. There are exceptions, of course, but they are exceptions. They see western goodies and lifestyles as corrupting their people.

Saudi Arbia doesn't allow women to drive. The Taliban would not allow ANY education for women, nor any medical care either. In most Arab countries, honor killings of women are expected to be done by the men of the family if the woman is even suspected of dishonor.

It is more than the U.S. that they hate. It is the entire western civilization and it's materialism that lures their youth away from such super-strict interpretations of Islam.

They are a minority, just as American super fundamentalists are a minority, but it doesn't take many to make a lot of trouble. For example, the American militias produced Timothy McVeigh, who in turn was responding to Waco. (I hope you see Waco as an extreme wrong by the U.S. gov't. Not even saying that the Branch Dividians were right - they weren't. But the FBI & BATF were even more wrong, especially as they represented the gov't.)

Acting better overseas would be a definate help, but the extreme sects would still hate us just as much.

The rift between the West and the Islamic countries is firmly rooted in colonialism going back to 1492, when the Moors (and Jews) were kicked out of Spain. It is not about religion so much as it is about geopolitics. The US, like its colonialist forebears in Europe, has been more than ready to incite religious fervor among the poor in the Islamic world, all the better to discourage the spread of communism. The al-Qaeda and Taliban-breeding madrassas in Pakistan, according to Tariq Ali, were funded by the same flow of dollars that paid for stinger missiles and other jihad materiele in the 1980s. Our brilliant Reaganauts and PNACers have created a monster that has come back to bite us hard on the ass.

Never mind.

my thoughts exactly. Tax cuts are the solution for what ails us.

we only have to look at what the last attack caused..an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with it.

Even tonight I vowed to never speak again to a friend who accused me of giving succor to terrorists because I oppose Bush.

Bush and his tribe have done all the groundwork..an attack as you describe would have Americans at each others throats and anyone else they could lash out at, no matter how innocent they were.

think about what happened on Sept. 11, it was only two years ago.

Listen to Kucinich. We need to address the grievences of the Arab world. We have been controlling their natural treasure for years and setting up puppet regiemes for our benifit. We have been selfish and greedy in dealing with them and they want us to stop supporting Isreal who is terrorizing the Palistiniens and vice-versa. It will take years to gain their trust. We should always work for Peace. I would bring every leader to the table, all leaders of all groups, freedom fighters, terrorists etc... and discuss until an agreement is reached. It beats blowing people up.

Look at the questions at the bottom of the original post. Those are the ones I am trying to get discussed.

It is called simulation gaming, and you can come up with some pretty good insights when you do it. But first you have to put yourself in the scenario.

A couple of claymore mines in backpacks at the Mall of the America's two days before Christmas would do much better.

The bodies would be piled shoulder high, mostly women and small children. America would be rocked.

I was in the Mall in November of 2001 and the security was laughable even then.

What is wrong with the Homeland Security clowns that soft targets like that aren't protected?

Afterwards? The least that would happen would be Bush turned out of office. The worst? The search for a savior, a "man on a white horse" who would lead America to safety, and an abject willingness to pass Patriot III, also known as the "temporary bill to protect the Constitution", which would eliminate those pesky Bill of Rights stuff for the duration.

Or forever, whichever came later.

would be the one with the Bush family on their way to their friend's palace in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

An attack like that would not be personally felt by Joe Average. It would be on the news, make him angry on the surface, like an attack on the Cole, or something like that. I am talking about a really big hit. A few dozen in a mall is minor compared to 9-11. I am talking about a bigger than 9-11 hit. Thankfully, terrorists think in terms of sympolic targets instead of actual damage.

How can you possibly minimize what happened then? Before Sept. 11, did you ever in a million years think something like that would ever happen in a millino years?

What is the purpose of this exercise anyway?

Can I say that?

Well, in any case, I just did.

And I won't.

It is something that is possible. All that has to happen is for terrorists to stop thinking in symbolic terms, and then something like that can happen. So a discussion on what we should do, in the real world, if something like that happens is a fair question.

The reaction of most Americans, after the dust settles, will be shaped by the approach of whatever administration is in office. They are the ones with access to the entire population -- not any of us.

Personally, I will seek to continue the spirit that is certain to arise in such a crisis -- the spirit of mutual cooperation and support. Of course, I will only have access to the people in my immediate vicinity, so I will have to be content with whatever impact I can make rather than expect to impact the entire population of the country.

I served nine years in the military, so I know what can actually be done by a small group of determined people who are not blinded by symbolism. Believe me, the 9-11 attack was minor in comparison to what they could have done.

National Security IS going to be an issue in the next campaign. I predict that it will be THE major issue, no matter what happens to the economy. If we don't think the unthinkable, then we will not have answers when the Reps ask, "So what would you do?" Slamming Bush v.2 isn't enough - we have to have ANSWERS of our own. Good answers, not just "We will make nice and it will all go away."

We have a huge country that is easy to slip into. Even the best security will not stop all attempts.

You said: "What is wrong with the Homeland Security clowns that soft targets like that aren't protected?"

The only problem with that is that the only way to fully protect us from everything that the terrarists could do is to have the military walking the streets, harrassing ordinary citizens, until all we did was sit in our houses.

We can't protect everything all the time.

We could start with the porous borders though.

Or maybe catching the bad guys for once.

You say, "Al Queda is claiming credit".

That's a sticky wicket, as Al Queda doesn't have anything like an official representitive, does it? It's not even clear *what* 'Al Queda' IS in reality.

Perhaps the investigation that never happened for the attacks on 9/11 would be wise the 'next time', before we get fooled into invading another defenseless country for no purpose.

(How many Afghans died who had never even HEARD of the attacks on Sept 11? )

Powell told us that the Bush administration would present evidence proving that Osama bin Laden was behind Sept 11th. That proof was never revealed, and questions are raised to this day (and will be for the next few decades, no doubt).

I think it would be wise to do a little detective work next time before our military is asked to risk their lives (not to mention the lives of countless innocent civilians) just because 'Joe Average' is pissed off.

Joe Average votes, especially when he is angry about something. It seems you would set up an investigation committee. Joe would see that as doing nothing. What happens to your party at the next general election?

A safe and secure world is more important than any political party. Any politician who worries about the next election isn't really the best, now is he?

Edit: By safe and secure, I certainly don't mean Patriot Act safe and secure - I'm talking about really safe and secure because no one sees any point in causing harm.

Let's say that you appear to do nothing, and your party is kicked out in mass in the next election. Joe Average absolutely will precieve an investigation committe as doing nothing. The "nuk'em all" party then wins 73% of seats at all levels. How have you helped the situation?

When we are weighing one election against getting us into the WRONG conflict that will affect us (and the world) for decades, basing one's decision on short-term political pandering is the height of irresponsibility.

In fact, it's downright BUSH league...

I'm not talking about setting up an investigation committee. I'm talking about doing an investigation, and presenting the evidence as a case for the international community to act upon (you know, in a legal manner).

They will actually help us if we conduct ourselves rationally and responsibly -- who do you think is trying to hold down the fort in Afghanistan right now after the Bush administration decided it would rather attack Iraq? And the Afghanistan invasion wasn't even up to my standards of 'responsible' -- given the knee jerk nature of it. Yet the international community was still willing to help.

The terrorists will strike the US again and again. There is no conceivable way to protect every school, every apartment complex, every shopping mall, every government building, etc., etc. It is going to happen. We can't stop it. Making nice with the terrorists won't stop it. Invading Iraq won't stop it. Nothing can stop it.

What would be the mood of Joe Average? What percentage of the population would share that view?

The mood of "Joe Average" would be the same as it is during any type of crisis over the past several years -- 9/11, blackout, etc. People would band together and help each other out, to get through it. And this would be a view shared by an overwhelming majority of people.

Truth is, at their heart most Americans really aren't bad people. Most are actually good people -- it's just that their passions have been twisted by their "leaders". Which brings me to the next question....

What happens now? What would you do if you were president?

This is where the real formation of "public opinion" comes in. The Bush administration would shamelessly exploit the situation for fear and use the opportunity to advance a self-serving agenda (as they did after 9/11). If I were President, I would go to the other nations of the world through the United Nations, and enlist their help in tracking down the individuals behind the attack.

But what I would NOT do is just start nuking somebody in retribution. I would emphasize over and over to people the positive aspects that they exhibited during the crisis. And I would say that we must all seek to work within the community of nations in a similar manner -- when times are tough, it is important that we all look to work together.

Of course, I wouldn't do things like refuse to sign Kyoto, back out of ABM, refuse to sign ICC or bio warfare or land mine treaties, etc. I also would seek to remove US military presence from areas outside of CONUS. And I would've looked to re-regulate the media before this time as well, so the photos of "Arabs dancing in the streets" would probably have been confirmed as isolated incidents rather than the norm throughout the Arab world. Remember -- moderate Arabs and Muslims also denounced the attacks on 9/11, even if they felt at the same time that it was a matter of "karmic justice". The shots of them celebrating were revealed to NOT reflect anywhere close to majority opinion, and in some cases were revealed as fraudulent.

Otherwise it's just a monologue. Since you're the one who asked the question, it only seems appropriate that you address the responses.

If I put up my thoughts now, people would respond to those. I want people to think the unthinkable and ask, "What if..."

nt

Busheviks can implemet any Soviet-style neighbors-spying-on-neighbors program, sweep anyone up off the streets they wish (except perhaps a celebrity or someone with other fame or a "media friendly story"). Media -controls track much further and much faster (than they are now) to a Soviet-style paste-pudding Pravda.

Gulags open across the West. Preventative Detention advances in a big way. Don't think that more than a few DUers won't wind up there.

Mood of the Imperial Subjects of Amerika -- murderous (I don't necessarily disagree with this, how could anyone be expected to feel under suhc circumstances) -- 99% of population in agreement

That isn't the problem -- it's to what nefarious ends the Busheviks would use it.

If we had a pResident who was like Clinton, only moderately corrupt (in the standrad fashion of the Old Republic)and generally respectful of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, it would be ok. But we have the lyingest bunch of thugs since the...well, maybe ever. And these peoiple clearly do NOT like democarcy or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Imperial Subjects they rule.

What would I do if I were President (assuming such an office still existed in Imperial Amerika in something more than name, rather than fading into history)?

That I cannot answer. But, whatever an "honest" pResident (relatively speaking--few if any politicians are honest by the strict definition) would do, rest assured that it would be something different than what the Busheviks would do.

Unfortunately, I fear that we may get to find out.

When any gov't make an attack on themselves to blame it on an enemy, it is always an attack that does little actual damage but has high "hot button" value. (BTW - I do not believe that Bush v.2 planned 9-11. That is too far flung for me. Remember - I place very low credence on that kind of conspiracy theory.) A gov't never deliberately does major damage to it's own country because they want the country to still be there to govern. A gov't may well do damage, even extreme damage, to their own country through gross supidity, but that is a different matter.

Hypotheticaly you mean if it happems before the '04 election? What would Dubya do? ...

1. Wrap himself in the flag.
2. Blame the treasonous Democrats
3. Blame Osama, Husein, and Iran.
4. Invade Iran/Syria
5. Kill thousands more of muslims.
6. Say its not a war against muslims.
7. Repeat same BS over and over till his poll numbers crush the treasonous democrats.
8. More tax cuts.


The scary thing is, it would probably work well considering the corporate media, pro-Isreal tilt nomatter what.