View Full Version : What are the chances of a 9/11 style attack?
2003-Oct-23, 04:48 PM
How likely is a 9/11 style attack; say within the next 2 years and what effect do you think it will have on the US economy? :o :o :o
2003-Oct-23, 05:10 PM
The options for questions here are a bit skewed since they don't reflect varying combinations of probability and effect. Really there ought to be two polls here - one is how likely is another terrorist attack, the second would be how damaging to the economy.
I believe the probability of another major terrorist attack within the next two years is so high that it reaches certainty. It's quite possible (again reaching certainty) that there have been such attacks attempted and the parties making the attempt are now no longer with us.
Its possible that a relatively minor attack could have a major financial impact; also that an apparently massive and damaging assault could have much less. Just too many variables to judge.
But, there will be another attack; my guess is probably biological. Get your smallpox shots up to date.
2003-Oct-23, 05:20 PM
I agree that another attack is a virtual certainty. The psychogical affect alone will be devasting, (IMHO).
2003-Oct-23, 05:24 PM
I think it is a given that there are many terrorist orginizations currently engaged in plots against the US and other western nations. The best we can hope to do is make it difficult for them, and mitigate any damage they do. We have come a long way, and learned a few hard lessons, but we still have a long way to go.
2003-Oct-23, 06:13 PM
Yeah I would have to say damn near a sure thing but I don't know how much damage it would cost. Heck the peron or persons who do it could even be citizens, Tim M. anyone. All you can do is live your life and not let it ruin your life.
2003-Oct-23, 07:38 PM
It really depends on several factors. One being who wins in 2004. No one would like to see another democrat in office more than bin laden. It worked out so well for him last time.
Essentially none of the dem hopefuls have anything to offer national security except Lieberman and Clark. Clark has no qualification for president and having seen him flip flop on issues so often makes me doubt his commitment to any one agenda. Lieberman is a jew. Not only a jew but very vocal about it. Can you see the ramifications for the middle east if America is run by a jew? How can we even pretend to be honest brokers of peace when our own leadership would be one of 'the enemy' to the palestinians? The election of Lieberman would all but guarantee an all out jihad against us. We do such a poor job of hiding our preference for Israel now that our 'road map' is barely more than terms of surrender for the palestinians. Putting Joe in charge would deal a death blow to any hope of a US brokered peace. There is just no getting around his religion when it comes to islamic fundamentalism.
Bush needs to knock off his clinging to superstition because quite frankly it comes across as another Crusade anytime we have to get tough with arabs.
Then comes the issue of passing real laws that take serious action to protect the US. But you see how much love people have for the Patriot Act. So again, even given the tools to fight terror, it's politically incorrect, and that's what most Americans care about. They want to stop terror, but not offend anyone in the process. Idiocy. Exactly the same thinking that made the INS completely useless and sponsors stupid ideas like prop 187 in CA.
I mean look, we have a serious problem when people can come here, stay without bothering with the law and even use our own institutions (like flight school) against us. Yet there are still dopes like Davis that want to give illegals a free pass. Now Mass wants to do the same asinine thing.
We're fighting ourselves as much as the bad guys.
So I say the chances of successful attack go strait back to who is in office and where. If the dems gain any power at all, you might as well paint a big target on some buildings. History has already proven that a dem in office is a breeding ground for terror against us.
Being safe means we can't always be nice anymore. We can't live in an idealogical Never Never Land anymore. If you try it, reality will come slamming into our buildings at 450 mph and set us strait.
2003-Oct-23, 07:50 PM
sollylama wrote: Being safe means we can't always be nice anymore. We can't live in an idealogical Never Never Land anymore. If you try it, reality will come slamming into our buildings at 450 mph and set us strait.
That's exactly the case. We need to look no further than the recent bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq to see the effects of linguini spined fantasy land thinking. Gee, they thought they'd be safer if they disassociated themselves from the United States Military.
"Yes, we're the UN. We're nice. They won't hurt us because we're here to help. Its the "evil" Americans they're after. We'll be safe as long as we stay away from the Americans." :roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.