Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Next Terrorist Attack

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 1:34:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Like it or not, global terrorism is the most pressing issue of this decade, the next one, and most likley the one after that (at least).

That, in combination with the recent failed attack on Northwest 253, to me signals that al Qaeda is currently "testing the waters" for a large scale terrorist attack, that will likley include airports and airplanes, in the United States.

I do not believe that Flight 253 was suppose to be a full-scale terrorist attack for a couple of reasons:
1) To me it seems kind of out of character for any terrorist organization bent on attacking the U.S. to limit itself to only ONE airplane. Attacking the U.S. home land for a terrorist is probably the equvilent to the exuberance a scientist feels for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That being said, if this terrorist attack was suppose to be "the real deal", it would have involved multiple airplanes/airlines (at least 3).

So, now that al Qaeda has tested the waters and seen the government's reaction, it is very likley that they will try something similar in the near future. In a couple of weeks, the restrictions put on international air travel will probably be laxed to the level that they were before the incident occured. "Passenger Right's Groups" and the airlines will probably be responsible for that.

This is welcoming a terrorist attack to our country.

It will probably happen in this kind of manner:

Terrorists with explosives (most likley sewed into their clothing) will board both domestic and international flights to the United States. They will then, most likley, be blown up as they come into land or right after taking-off (as that is when the airplane is above heavily populated areas). This alone will kill hundreds of people. Another possible target will probably be airports themselves. Of all of the security in airports, check-in and baggage claim areas are relativley unprotected. These attacks will probably also include explosives and Columbine-like attacks on the nation's largest airports. All of this will lead to the shut-down of U.S. air travel for a couple of days, but the public outcry will not be as large as it was after 9/11.

This is happening and it is happening soon. By this time next year, American blood will be shed on American land by terrorists.

So, what should be done to prevent this (if anything can be done at all)?

What added measures at airports will prevent such attacks in the future?

What targets are likley to be attacked? When are they likley going to be attacked?

If these attacks do happen, what will the public reaction be like? What will the government's reaction be like?

Brain food.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 1:34:01 PM, Republican95 wrote:
Like it or not, global terrorism is the most pressing issue of this decade, the next one, and most likley the one after that (at least).
Oh, it is? I thought it was global war- oh wait, no it isn't. I forgot, they changed it to "climate change".

That, in combination with the recent failed attack on Northwest 253, to me signals that al Qaeda is currently "testing the waters" for a large scale terrorist attack, that will likley include airports and airplanes, in the United States.

I do not believe that Flight 253 was suppose to be a full-scale terrorist attack for a couple of reasons:
1) To me it seems kind of out of character for any terrorist organization bent on attacking the U.S. to limit itself to only ONE airplane. Attacking the U.S. home land for a terrorist is probably the equvilent to the exuberance a scientist feels for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. That being said, if this terrorist attack was suppose to be "the real deal", it would have involved multiple airplanes/airlines (at least 3).
And that's the reason why I think Al Qaeda isn't actually behind it.

So, now that al Qaeda has tested the waters and seen the government's reaction, it is very likley that they will try something similar in the near future. In a couple of weeks, the restrictions put on international air travel will probably be laxed to the level that they were before the incident occured. "Passenger Right's Groups" and the airlines will probably be responsible for that.

This is welcoming a terrorist attack to our country.
.......passengers rights groups are welcoming a terrorist attack into our country. by making passengers more free and allowing them to do what they want within legal and consensual limits, it is welcoming a terrorist attack into our country. Because if we put more TSA and other restrictions in, we'll prevent a terrorist attack. How many have we prevented through the TSA, the US-Visit, and other systems, exactly? Well I dunno, but they stopped Flight 253- OH WAIT NO THEY DIDN'T.

It will probably happen in this kind of manner:

Terrorists with explosives (most likley sewed into their clothing) will board both domestic and international flights to the United States. They will then, most likley, be blown up as they come into land or right after taking-off (as that is when the airplane is above heavily populated areas). This alone will kill hundreds of people.
I don't think you know what airports look like.
Another possible target will probably be airports themselves. Of all of the security in airports, check-in and baggage claim areas are relativley unprotected.These attacks will probably also include explosives and Columbine-like attacks on the nation's largest airports. All of this will lead to the shut-down of U.S. air travel for a couple of days, but the public outcry will not be as large as it was after 9/11.
Probably because they've been experiencing similar stuff for the past several years.

This is happening and it is happening soon. By this time next year, American blood will be shed on American land by terrorists.
Are you an Al-Qaeda public relations officer?

So, what should be done to prevent this (if anything can be done at all)?
Well let's see. Flight 253's attack was perpetrated by a guy trained in Yemen, and it happened on Dec25, 7 days after a US airstrike over Yemen on Dec18. Perhaps we should stop bombing people? I mean, maybe that'll stop the terrorist attacks.

What added measures at airports will prevent such attacks in the future?
I like how you suggest that only added measures can prevent such attacks.

What targets are likley to be attacked? When are they likley going to be attacked?
Your house. Your birthday.

If these attacks do happen, what will the public reaction be like?
Dunno.
What will the government's reaction be like?
Either a) more speeches and no change in regulations or b) more speeches and a temporary increase in regulations.

Brain food.
Thanks for the meal~
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:12:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The US always claims Al Queda is behind the attacks, but what people fail to mention is that Al Queda if not still, but at one point in time were minions for the US government.

Sad thing is, most people are totally oblivious to this stuff. If they wanted to find Bin Laden they would have done so. So ironic how he pops up with tapes every election cycle.

There is nothing that the average Joe can do if World War breaks out.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:12:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

I like how you suggest that only added measures can prevent such attacks.

Well, it would only make sense. The current mesaures in place didn't prevent the attack. The passengers and crew of Flight 253 and an extreme amount of luck did. So, to me it seems that airport security should be increased to combat such attacks. These measures would probably include x-ray machines that see through clothing at the security check-in.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:17:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

.......passengers rights groups are welcoming a terrorist attack into our country. by making passengers more free and allowing them to do what they want within legal and consensual limits, it is welcoming a terrorist attack into our country. Because if we put more TSA and other restrictions in, we'll prevent a terrorist attack. How many have we prevented through the TSA, the US-Visit, and other systems, exactly? Well I dunno, but they stopped Flight 253- OH WAIT NO THEY DIDN'T.

If you have a problem with airport security, than choose another mode of transportation. No one is forcing to fly.

Secondly, the TSA has prevented numerous attacks. The very existence of the TSA discourages terrorists from attacking air travel. You can't get a gun, a knife, hair-spray, or peaut butter on a plane. That's pretty discouraging to a terrorist. Prior to the existence of the TSA, private security companies controlled airport security via contracts with the airport. The TSA, since it has government oversight, is held to a higher standard than private companies. It's part of the Department of Justic and FBI, but I think it would be better off paried with the DHS.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:18:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:12:41 PM, kelly224 wrote:
The US always claims Al Queda is behind the attacks, but what people fail to mention is that Al Queda if not still, but at one point in time were minions for the US government.

Everyone knows this.

Sad thing is, most people are totally oblivious to this stuff. If they wanted to find Bin Laden they would have done so.

How? After the CIA left Afghanistan, Bin Laden was completely freelance. They kept track, but only barely so, and for intelligence gathering purposes as to be in-the-know of what was going on in Afghanistan, due to its geopolitical status. After 9/11 and the invasion, they lost that tracking because Bin Laden stepped up his ability to go underground, an ability that wasn't needed before.

So, again, tell me how they could have found him if the man doesn't want to be found?

So ironic how he pops up with tapes every election cycle.

Not ironic, planned; Bin Laden wants to send a message to the West, so he sends tapes in order to freak people out. During elections is the best time for this to occur, because people are (kind of) paying attention. It's called piggybacking.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:22:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

I don't think you know what airports look like.

I do know that a large, international airport will not be found in rural Idaho. Instead, most large airports are found in or around large CITIES. The airports are most likley on the fringe of the city, but still within the metro area.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:31:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:17:54 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

.......passengers rights groups are welcoming a terrorist attack into our country. by making passengers more free and allowing them to do what they want within legal and consensual limits, it is welcoming a terrorist attack into our country. Because if we put more TSA and other restrictions in, we'll prevent a terrorist attack. How many have we prevented through the TSA, the US-Visit, and other systems, exactly? Well I dunno, but they stopped Flight 253- OH WAIT NO THEY DIDN'T.

If you have a problem with airport security, than choose another mode of transportation. No one is forcing to fly.
You have a credit card, an ATM card, and some cash. I steal your credit card. You don't like it? You can use your ATM and cash. No one is forcing you to try and take it back from me.

Secondly, the TSA has prevented numerous attacks.
Source it.
The very existence of the TSA discourages terrorists from attacking air travel. You can't get a gun, a knife, hair-spray, or peaut butter on a plane. That's pretty discouraging to a terrorist.
Oh, is it? That's probably why you're not a terrorist (you're probably not a business owner either). If people want something, they will get creative.
Prior to the existence of the TSA, private security companies controlled airport security via contracts with the airport. The TSA, since it has government oversight, is held to a higher standard than private companies.
I didn't know republicans thought like this. I learned something new today.
It's part of the Department of Justic and FBI, but I think it would be better off paried with the DHS.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:33:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:22:24 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

I don't think you know what airports look like.

I do know that a large, international airport will not be found in rural Idaho. Instead, most large airports are found in or around large CITIES. The airports are most likley on the fringe of the city, but still within the metro area.

Even 500lb military grade bombs need to physically hit their target in order to do some damage. And you're suggesting that clothing bombs can kill more than the people on the plane.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 2:59:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

You have a credit card, an ATM card, and some cash. I steal your credit card. You don't like it? You can use your ATM and cash. No one is forcing you to try and take it back from me.
That is quite different. You took something that was mine. It was my right. I bought it with my money. You do not own the airport's security measures. By buying a ticket, under the PATRIOT ACT you give up all your constitutional rights when flying. Don't like it. Take the bus.

Secondly, the TSA has prevented numerous attacks.
Source it.

No need. The very existence of the TSA discourges attacks, its prevented many attacks because its existence stopped many terrorists from even planning attacks that involved air travel. Now, if there was no TSA, I think the situation would be vastly different. Don't you agree?

The very existence of the TSA discourages terrorists from attacking air travel. You can't get a gun, a knife, hair-spray, or peaut butter on a plane. That's pretty discouraging to a terrorist.
Oh, is it? That's probably why you're not a terrorist (you're probably not a business owner either). If people want something, they will get creative.

The TSA will get creative too. People will always try to attack America, but the TSA will always put a check on what they can do withing the realms of feasibility.

Prior to the existence of the TSA, private security companies controlled airport security via contracts with the airport. The TSA, since it has government oversight, is held to a higher standard than private companies.
I didn't know republicans thought like this. I learned something new today.

I love how you put every Republican into this little box, and you believe we all think and act the same thing. Since you Asian, you must be a nerdy, anti-social kid who plays violin and won the Scripps National Spelling Bee twice. I'm a moderate. Republican is not a ideology, it's a voting tendency.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 3:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:00:25 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:

Even 500lb military grade bombs need to physically hit their target in order to do some damage. And you're suggesting that clothing bombs can kill more than the people on the plane.

The chemical agent that the terrorist had sewed into his underwear was powerful enough to bring down the plane. This is how it looks like when a plane hits the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think that would kill some people.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 3:13:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 3:04:59 PM, Republican95 wrote:
The chemical agent that the terrorist had sewed into his underwear was powerful enough to bring down the plane. This is how it looks like when a plane hits the ground.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think that would kill some people.

Tsk, such blatant use of shock value photography.

I counter that with this photo: http://www.cbc.ca...

Doesn't that look like it might kill someone? It didn't kill anyone.

And given that the bomb was thought to have been able to only blow a hole in the plane, there is a chance that it would have been serviceable enough to land safely (well, as safe as you can with a hole in the plane).
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2009 3:54:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1) This wasn't a test. Al-Qaeda plan things well in advance, including the likelihood of materials exploding if chemicals are injected into it.

2) The U.S. will probably make the security systems more interconnected overall.

3) Well, in comparison to what they do in Afghanistan, how is thsi all that terrible? Because Americans are mainly white people?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
dogparktom
Posts: 112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 1:01:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 3:54:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
1) This wasn't a test. Al-Qaeda plan things well in advance, including the likelihood of materials exploding if chemicals are injected into it.

2) The U.S. will probably make the security systems more interconnected overall.

3) Well, in comparison to what they do in Afghanistan, how is thsi all that terrible? Because Americans are mainly white people?
_________________________________________________________
"3) Well, in comparison to what they do in Afghanistan, how is thsi all that terrible? Because Americans are mainly white people?"

In 1976 I went to London to attend a comparative criminal law conference. We carried briefcases. When we entered most buildings (and every pub), we were searched. The problem was the Irish, the IRA I believe. If I recall correctly Irish terrorists were setting off bombs around London.

With your country's rich history of internal and external terrorism, I can see why you want to minimize an incident of Islamic extremist terrorism.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 1:13:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Apperently the US embassy was warned ahead of time about this guy, but they ignored it. Funny how people who do absolutely nothing wrong are being monitored while real threats are ignored.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 1:26:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/29/2009 2:18:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/29/2009 2:12:41 PM, kelly224 wrote:
The US always claims Al Queda is behind the attacks, but what people fail to mention is that Al Queda if not still, but at one point in time were minions for the US government.

Everyone knows this.

Sad thing is, most people are totally oblivious to this stuff. If they wanted to find Bin Laden they would have done so.

How? After the CIA left Afghanistan, Bin Laden was completely freelance. They kept track, but only barely so, and for intelligence gathering purposes as to be in-the-know of what was going on in Afghanistan, due to its geopolitical status. After 9/11 and the invasion, they lost that tracking because Bin Laden stepped up his ability to go underground, an ability that wasn't needed before.

So, again, tell me how they could have found him if the man doesn't want to be found?

So ironic how he pops up with tapes every election cycle.

Not ironic, planned; Bin Laden wants to send a message to the West, so he sends tapes in order to freak people out. During elections is the best time for this to occur, because people are (kind of) paying attention. It's called piggybacking.

The American people, and the world body for that matter is falling right in line with the New World Order. Scare people, and tell them to shop.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2009 3:03:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/30/2009 1:01:53 PM, dogparktom wrote:
At 12/29/2009 3:54:21 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
1) This wasn't a test. Al-Qaeda plan things well in advance, including the likelihood of materials exploding if chemicals are injected into it.

2) The U.S. will probably make the security systems more interconnected overall.

3) Well, in comparison to what they do in Afghanistan, how is thsi all that terrible? Because Americans are mainly white people?
_________________________________________________________
"3) Well, in comparison to what they do in Afghanistan, how is thsi all that terrible? Because Americans are mainly white people?"

In 1976 I went to London to attend a comparative criminal law conference. We carried briefcases. When we entered most buildings (and every pub), we were searched. The problem was the Irish, the IRA I believe. If I recall correctly Irish terrorists were setting off bombs around London.

With your country's rich history of internal and external terrorism, I can see why you want to minimize an incident of Islamic extremist terrorism.

Sorry what? The IRA, like Al-Qaeda, are a small fanatical, patriotic section of a ethnicity, namely the Irish. I do not associate myself with the IRA, in fact, a condone every act of terrorism they committed once Ireland gained it's freedom. So don't even think about jumping to such a conclusion. It's an insult to me.

The function of point 3 was the fact a lot of Americans view America a superior nation to all others and think the death of an American is 1000x worse than that of someone in a rural Afghani village.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.