Right now there is a big comotion about terrorists since 9/11. US has made many rules like checking toothpaste containers and liquids on plains to be safe. UK has had some suicide bombings in London from Islamic countries. However now that the UK has basiacally stationed itself out of combat, but it still enforcing government in certain countries might not be such a big target for future terrorists attacks. The USA however with Busch will not pull back until a democratiac president wins the president title. Does this make us more targeted for this group to come after us. Please post what you think about the situation like do you think their will be an event like 9/11 again? Please post what you think will happen in the future.
if they were gonna do something real big (i.e. plane into building) i think they would have done it by now, im not sure why they haven’t (possibly lack of organization?)
Anything is possible, no matter who is the President. But I wouldnt worry too much about it, because that wont change anything, and as long as there is an America,regardless of which party holds the whitehouse, there will be leaky little cowards hiding in the shadows trying to prove how tough they are.
There may be something planned who can tell,and as another has said, if they wanted to try something it would have been attempted by now. Be it Jimmy Carter, (Democrat) and Iran, or GW Bush, (Republican) and Iraq, those same leaky cowards will want to try their luck.
I do not think it would repeat somewhere : now or later.
Just remember - whatever they officials tells - the main aim of terrorist ( and forces behind them) was to involve the USA in fight against arabs ( Iraq and Afganistan).
Bet they planned the scanario that lated has been realised by the American gov - the beginning of wide anti-arab operation.
So while "all is OK’ i.e while the USA is fighting the islamists - there is no needed the other Great Terrorist attack.
Coz the terrorist have already finally reached his aims and repeating the Attack is unlikely.
All that they could to do is just the to something to provoke the USA to attack the Iran. But this is whole other story that could not be commited via the simple terrorist attack in USA .
I think its gone way past the time when US citizens should realise that they are not the be all and end all in the world. Sometimes I am bemused by the centric outlook that most US citizens seem to display in most subjects that include the US outside of it borders. Now we have many many US members here who clearly understand that the US does not exist in a vacuum and that is good, but there are people out there that still need to realise that terrorism did not start on 1 Sep 2001. I seem to remember someone blowing up something in Kansass a few years before this and I dont think the perpetrator was a Muslim?
Other countries have lived with terrorism for many years. The UK obviously had various Irish groups to contend with, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and a host of others including obviously Israel have deal with these for up to 40 years. So the US has just recently had to come to terms with whats been happening all over the Western world for a long time.
You make an allusion to the UK being safe as they are not involved in Iraq any more. Last time I looked I thought we still were, though thats not the point, the point is the UK is drawing down in Iraq because we believe that the mission that we set out to accomplish is being accomplished, namely that the Iraqi national armed forces are able to look after the security of their own country.
Which leads to me to a second point. That being, Iraq wasnt involved in the events of 01/09/2001 and the reasons for taking action in Iraq were entirely different from the reasons for taking action in Afghanistan, namely 9-1-1.
So the question is, did the war on terror lead to the war in Iraq, did the war in Iraq escalate the war on terror? If the Iraqis can look after themselves and their own security, why are we still there as they are Allies [or supposed to be]. At some stage you change from a liberation force to an occupation force and those that initially welcome you start to resent your presence.
So to answer your question. Yes the potential for a Terror attack, from outside and inside the US remains, just as it has done and continues to do so for any Western country and many many countries around the world. Just the other day another 20 people were blown up in Pakistan for example. I would say that we need to be vigilant, but not to the point of paranoia about the whole thing and realise that the US position is not unique in the world when it comes to terror.
What’s wrong with attacking Americans in America, when America attacks other people in their own countries?
Why shouldn’t, for example, Iraqis attack America (and all other members of the laughably titled Coalition of the Willing) by any means they can? I know what I’d be doing if I was an Iraqi whose family had been wiped out in the last American bombing assault on my country.
Why is it okay for America and its allies to attack Iraq on a pretext, but not fair for the victim to retaliate?
If America and its allies can go into other countries in search of their enemies, why isn’t the reverse acceptable?
It’s not necessarily the case that because American policy dictates things to the rest of the world, that that policy is correct, or just, or that its execution should be accepted by the victims without resistance or retaliation.
There’s too much of a tendency in America, and its allies, to view people who disagree with it and who resist it as best they can as terrorists. People of the same outlook and conduct in America, in 1776, were called patriots. It’s a pity that many Americans who extol those virtues in their own patriotic history can’t see it and won’t allow it in other peoples.
Thread disclaimer…
Please feel free to convey your OWN opinions here, however, make sure they are your OWN and they are backed up by some lucid thoughts, I will not allow this to degenerate into a flame thread, if in my opinion it even hints at moving in this direction then the old delete button will be deployed.
My advice is just to employ the old brain before you start typing
The problem is that what some of us see as discussing controversial issues is seen by others as daring to challenge America and all some Americans think it stands for.
If lucid thought is a prerequisite for discussion, then the OP is stuffed for a start. Also, the current US President is Bush, not Busch.
P. S.
As it seems that my post generated that comment, they are my OWN questions and opinions.
Questions invite discussion.
I don’t see how there’s any flaming involved in my questions or comments, unless it’s not permitted to put oneself in the position of the victim of what America and my country, among others, did to Iraq.
No your post didnt generate that comment. Your post is valid. Its there for the others that will come along, instantly assume you/we are criticising the US and start laying in with simple abuse instead of reading the posts and making valid comments.
Sorry of you feel it was aimed at you, but I’m thinking of how these conversations usually degenerate and giving fair warning.
Off the cuff insults wont be tolerated to make myself more clear…
Reinstate the British Empire. That’s what I say. Then we’ll all know who to blame for the world going down the pan.
I’m going to PM this to PK! 
No wuckin furreys, mate. 
I refrained from pointing out that you’d had a bit of a go in that direction. I thought you were being a bit inconsistent in trying to rein me in, but all is now clear.
I mistakenly thought I’d hit a hot Pict button somewhere north of Hardrian’s wall, but all is well.
Fair enough.
I think we’re of one mind on this.
As far as a Scot and an Antipodean diluted Mick can be.
That shows just how narrow and out of date you are.
Pan is terlet in America, gurgler in Australia, and yet to be discovered in most of the rest of the Empire.
Could I get away with a deeply considered insult?
No.
It’s so obvious to anyone with any functioning neurone that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, whatever the latter vague term means.
No.
But it sure as hell became a focus for increased Islamic hatred of America and its allies, increasing the war against the nations which supposedly were waging a war on terror.
Footnote. WTF does war on terror mean? Like the war on drugs, or drink driving, or speeding in cars? Just a meaningless slogan for something that has no clear object and can never produce anything like a clear win, but which will continue indefinitely as long as the clowns running it believe it exists.
Terlet is used only in some of the Eastern Seaboard states. Elsewhere it may be called just about anything,“John” being predominant. and “little room”, “boys/girls room”, etc. bringing up the uh, rear.
Well, in a civilised country like America, I’d rather hope that it was used in all the other states, regardless of what it’s called.
Hopefully people will not take offence with RS’s comments, as many people do share his views, especially outside of the USA. I think part of the problem began when Bush said,“You are with us or against us.”
This immediately put a lot of people offside. We live in a democracy, and we have a choice and if that disagrees with America or any other power so be it. It does not mean we want to destroy America or her people.
I think the majority of Australians went along with the WMD theme as a starting point with war on Iraq. The problem was once it was proven the whole question of WMD’s was dodgy, we were too deeply emeshed in Iraq and this has led to the massive decline in support of the war. Because it was all based on dodgy proof, if not outright lies.
Will America be attacked again? I hope not, but who knows what will the future hold?
digger
That’s about it, at best.
I and many other didn’t believe the Yanks at the beginning, notably with Colin Powell’s definitive but embarrassingly exaggerated attempt to demonstrate why Iraq was the greatest threat to civilisation since Hitler grew horns.
Many others worked out later that they’d been duped.
Either way, it’s not worth the 4,000 or so Americans who’ve died and countless more Americans injured, and most of all the probably hundreds of thousands of poor bloody Iraqis killed and injured in the disaster that Bush visited on their nation.
Not to mention the focus that Bush created for people of a certain Islamic outlook that mimics Spain in the 1930’s as a different cause worth dying for, to destroy a nation in pursuit of wider goals outside the nation.
Maybe if the West hadn’t been so determined to support Israel in its displacement of the Palestinians and all the problems in the Middle East which flowed from that, we wouldn’t have the current problems. Which are still based on blind Western support for Israel, no matter how outrageous its actions might be.
Well for me I would have to say that we went in to Iraq not to save it, but for the oil fields that are located there. After 9/11 Busch made a speech that we would go into Iraq and get Sadam for what he had done. After in Iraq and looking for information about him planning the attacks they had no information of any interests in to it. So basiacally USA hanged Sadam for punishments in his own country even though he was a dictator and did have control of it. If USA is truthful about going to Iraq to get the rights of others then why dont we go to Kenya to help the cause their or other severe countries that have civil wars. So basiacally Busch used 9/11 as a excuse to go to Iraq to get the oil fields. So I feel that the americans working at these oil fields in Iraq and neighboring countries will targeted because they do not have that much protocetion against these attacks. In the religion of islamic they believe in the holy month ramada to overcome evil always. 80% of muslims believe to get rid of the evil inside of them, but for the other 20% they believe to get rid of evil is to kill evil everywhere through the world (Religions that dont follow their beliefs).