« What Democrats really think Part 3 | Main | Prof Brad Delong anticipates Democrat difficulties... »

July 28, 2004

Comments

Vicomte de Valmont

To: AdrianSpidle
But if they attack NY, wouldn't that help Bush win reelection -- assuming he was not a victim.

I feel Al Queda -- as moronic as they are -- may still realize that the US is not Spain or the Philippines. An attack here will result in popular support for reprisals and unity behind the current administration. Also, an attack on the Olympics may create the kind of coalition against terror that Kerry says doesn't exist. In other words, they'll multiply their troubles if the attack the Olympics or the GOP Convention.


Just a thought.

posted by Vicomte de Valmont

Hatteras

To: AdrianSpidle
Hmmm.... Your friend wrote:

1 - Boston has a substantial al Qaeda infrastructure, including bin Laden properties, because it is the perfect staging area for attacks on New York, only twenty minutes away by air.

2 - al Qaeda wants Kerry to win the election.

3 - Penn Station will be open during the convention in Madison Square Garden directly above it and it would be impossible to totally defend against a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb on a train in the station.

Why would anyone have thought that the terrorists would blow up the DNC. Even they know that the enemy of your enemy can be your best ally.

posted by Hatteras

BluH2o

To: AdrianSpidle
NYC during the Republican convention in late August, if there's a terrorist attack, would logically be the preferred target. Several reasons 1) it would show Bush had not vanquished terrorism ... they can attack at will; 2) NYC is the commerce capital of the U.S., and arguably the world ... a devastating attack could disrupt the economy.

posted by BluH2o

whattajoke

To: AdrianSpidle

Who cares. What about the WOD and gay marriage and millisecond booby flashes on TV? Isn't that what this election is all about?

posted by whattajoke

Cultural Jihad

To: whattajoke
In other words, moral-liberal crusades which destroy our society from within.

posted by Cultural Jihad

bushfamfan

To: AdrianSpidle
All the Republicans going to the GOP convention are BRAVE. Not only are Republicans a great target for Al Qaeda and the terrorist allies, but it is also in NY. They would look at being able to attempt to take out the people who are the greatest threat to them in the Republican target, if they could pull it off.

posted by bushfamfan

wndycndy

My thoughts are that the terrorists won't attack anywhere in the USA until AFTER the election and the sheeple have elected Kerry. THEN they will attack with another big one just to show the dumb sheeple that voted Kerry in how stupid they were. The Dems think they can appease the terrorists and the terrorists are going to laugh all the way to the bank with this one. JMHO.

posted by wndycndy

el_texicano

Your points are well taken. In addition, any attack on the GOP convention and not on the DNC convention will be a clear signal to everyone who is on the right side.
It would be incredibly stupid for them to attack the GOP convention. The backlash will be extremely lethal, short term and long term. The Dem's and all their agenda/message would get pushed to the background by the shear force of the reaction.

Further, if they do such a stupid thing as that, the Nixon, Reagan landslides I predict would pale in comparison to what the voters in the US would do come November. Moral of story, don't PISS off the American electorate, they don't take attacks like the Spaniards.


posted by el_texicano

mtbopfuyn

2 - al Qaeda wants Kerry to win the election.
It's not news AQ wants to attack or they want Kerry to win. Actually, it might be more that they want Bush out and a dufus on the opposing team luckily fell into their hands.


posted by mtbopfuyn

dead

They will try to bomb any Americans anywhere, if they think they can get away with it.
They don't give a crap about political parties. They just want to kill Americans.

posted by dead

mtbopfuyn

To: wndycndy
My thoughts are that the terrorists won't attack anywhere in the USA until AFTER the election and the sheeple have elected Kerry. THEN they will attack with another big one just to show the dumb sheeple that voted Kerry in how stupid they were. The Dems think they can appease the terrorists and the terrorists are going to laugh all the way to the bank with this one. JMHO.
Bingo!


posted by mtbopfuyn

TomGuy

I don't see al-Qaeda hitting either convention. That would not be of significant interest for them.

Hitting the DemConv would be like hitting their friend. So they wouldn't.

Hitting the PubConv would bring GWB and Rumsfeld to their doorstep, cave opening, and they know that. So they wouldn't.

But to influence the election in favor of their preferred candidate, John Kerry, they will probably try something spectacular. But it will be of a nature that causes great impact, in an attempt to reflect badly on the Bush Administration.

It would be associated with harming large gatherings, or children, or sizeable economic interests.

al-Qaeda wants to upset our economic system. They consider that as our strength. Thus, disrupting it does more 'damage'.

posted by TomGuy

ZULU

To: wndycndy
You may be right.

As long as it looks like Kerry may win, they have no reason to attack - it might help Bush.

If it appears Kerry is going to loose, they certainly will attack - they have nothing to loose at that point.

If Kerry wins, we can expect many major attacks on the U.S. homeland.

They know the Democratic mind and that most Dems are at heart cowards and can be intimiated, unlike Bush.

posted by ZULU

js1138

...and it would be impossible to totally defend against a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb on a train in the station.
It is impossible to defend against everything, but you are dreaming if you believe it is easy to get anything radioactive into Manhattan. People who have had medical exams involving radioactive isotopes are being stopped.

posted by js1138

Legion04

they want kerry to win...of course.
if they attacked NY, they would be hoping it would have the same impact as it did in Madrid. they're too stupid to realize it would only help Bush win, not deter voters from supporting him.

posted by Legion04

Salamander

"But if they attack NY, wouldn't that help Bush win reelection"

Never, ever forget that the "liberal" half the people in this country would [at least, secretly] think Bush and the Republicans
"deserve" to be attacked for "oppressing" the terrorists via a "fraudulent war".
So would much of "the world".

We are dealing with people who have no grasp on reality.
[and a tenuous grip on sanity, at best]

posted by Salamander

Dilbert56

Even if they thought Kerry would be just as tough, they would still want to bloody Bush's nose because he stood up to them. The message they'd send is: "If you mess with us, you'll pay."
Since attacking NYC might not hurt Bush, and it will be a doubly-hardened target, IMHO they will pass. If they can create a disaster in Irag, on the other hand, that flat out hurts the President.

Mitigating against that is that we Americans have a short attention span. If only Iraqis are killed, it would take an awfully big death toll before we'd notice. Also, by October Iraq will have taken over a great deal of its own security so a disaster there may not rub off on GWB.

posted by Dilbert56

mtbopfuyn

Their best bet would be right after the swearing ins at the inauguration. Hasert better call in sick that day or be housed in an undisclosed location. Of course that'll never happen because Bush WILL win.

posted by mtbopfuyn

Alberta's Child

The basic premise here is incorrect.
I don't believe for one moment that al-Qaeda wants John Kerry to win. The reason for this is really quite simple: A Democratic president will have far more latitude to deal with terrorism in an overwhelming, disproportionate manner than a Republican ever would.

Look at all the grief that this administration has received over the "mistreatment" of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. And yet if Al Gore were president, he could have responded to 9/11 by ordering the massive annihilation of 500 million Muslims in anuclear strikes across the Middle East, and @ssholes like Michael Moore would be standing up at the Democratic convention in Boston praising him for his "strong leadership."

posted by Alberta's Child

kabar

To: Vicomte de Valmont
I feel Al Queda -- as moronic as they are -- may still realize that the US is not Spain or the Philippines. An attack here will result in popular support for reprisals and unity behind the current administration. Also, an attack on the Olympics may create the kind of coalition against terror that Kerry says doesn't exist. In other words, they'll multiply their troubles if the attack the Olympics or the GOP Convention.
I think you give AQ too much credit for their intellect. Did AQ believe that the US would not react to the 9/11 attack by seeking them out and destroying them? History is replete with miscalculation. AQ may be watching Farenheit 9/11, reading the polls, and listening to the Dems at their convention.

posted by kabar

theFIRMbss

"It would be incredibly stupid for them to attack the GOP convention"

What if terrorists
blast a nuke in Hollywood?!
They would make their point,

and lots of people
here in the US wouldn't
really be too mad . . .

posted by theFIRMbss

Badeye

I expect an attack sometime after the conventions, most likely in mid October if I had to pick a date.

And I seriously doubt it will be on the east coast. An attack at a shopping mall here in "fly over country" is far more likely in my opinion.

Why go to areas with the highest concentration of security, when you can easily blow up targets in Branson or Indianapolis?

If you are a terrorist, your goal is to "terrorize" and thereby cause "We the People" to lose faith in the government being attacked.

It's never been sucessful to date, long term, btw.

posted by Badeye

kabar

I don't believe for one moment that al-Qaeda wants John Kerry to win. The reason for this is really quite simple: A Democratic president will have far more latitude to deal with terrorism in an overwhelming, disproportionate manner than a Republican ever would.

That sounds like the Michael Savage position. I think it is nonsense. Kerry and the Dems believe in negotioation and the use of international fora to resolve disputes. Force is virtually a non-option unless it is casualty free. Clinton ran from Somalia, tried to bribe North Korea, faild to confront AQ, launched a few missiles at Saddam and UBL. In Kosovo they bombed at 15,000 feet and had no boots on the ground.

Latitude is one thing, the decision to use force is another. If I were AQ, JFKerry would be a far more desireable foe than GWB. After all, Kerry has a track record beginning with Vietnam of cutting and running.

posted by kabar

Alberta's Child

Look at the left-wing response to the war Kosovo compared to their response to the war in Iraq.
Clinton could have ordered a nuclear strike on Belgrade, and Democrats still would have spent the rest of their lives fellating him (figuratively AND literally).

posted by Alberta's Child

kabar

To: Alberta's Child

Look at the left-wing response to the war Kosovo compared to their response to the war in Iraq.
There has always been a double standard. The Left supports the use of force when US national interests are not/not at stake. Kosovo was an example. We were preventing ethnic cleansing and protecting Muslims. As long as there were no US casualties, its ok.

posted by kabar

The comments to this entry are closed.

BlogAds