Will their be a terrorist attack before our Elections

Sourdoughman · Mar 15, 2004

Will there be a terrorist attack before our Elections

I know its hard for some of you to believe but I did some hard thinking while I was working today.
As everyone knows Al-Qaida likes to do things in a pattern such as 9-11-01 then 911 days after that they attacked Madrid, Spain at election time and it
sent the country into kaos and the country overwelmingly voted by emotion
and voted an opposing government in power.

I'm really a little worried that people are not paying attention and not worried
that their could be another 911 here before long, a lot of people seem to be
comfortable living their lives and don't give a flying flip about the war on terror.

I think on 9-11 or I actually think 11-11 is a more appropriate date that something could happen on because that is right before the election.
Theres nothing better Al-Qaida would love than to get Bush out of the presidency and have a "soft" person there so that they will no longer be on
the run and can re-organize and become a more creditble organization once
again.
The people of Spain "caved in" and voted out their government, IMO this is a
bad thing because the terrorist will now think they can get the Americans the
same way, they know about Vietnam too.

Before you vote this year some questions we should ask ourselves

All I've heard Kerry talk about is getting Bush out of office, has anyone heard him say what he would do in Iraq or the war on terror?

Should we just pull out of Iraq since alot of Americans are opposed to this and
blame Bush saying we didn't need to go there in the first place?

Should we do away with the war on terror, 9-11 was along time ago and it won't happen where I live?

I'm looking for feedback from those against Bush and against the war on terror mostly but of course everyone is Welcome.

Those that oppose Bush and the war on terror, what would you do to fix
things?

Should we not do anything?

Jetstorm · Mar 16, 2004

No doubt, terrorist groups were taking notes as the events in Spain unfolded.

They now see that in U.S. Allied countries where opinion is divided, all they have to do is set off a bomb, or tell the local Muslim population "Burn, baby, burn!", and that will be enough to get a pro-appeasement group or leader into power.

Watch for what happens as election dates approach for other key U.S. allies, such as Poland and Italy. The UK might be targeted, but the majority of British folk are probably going to react by digging in their heels even harder and refusing to concede a single inch, much as we would. But we'll see soon enough.

dallastigers · Mar 16, 2004

link

(Washington, D.C.): The war on terror suffered a body blow Sunday as Spanish voters responded to last Thursday's murderous attacks in Madrid by repudiating the party and counterterrorism policies of Prime Minister José Maria Aznar. Thus, with four synchronized bombs, the perpetrators - whether members of the Basque separatist ETA or operatives tied to Al Qaeda or some combination - have accomplished a surgical strike with potentially very far-reaching repercussions.

The Profits of Terror

For one, the Socialist leader and incipient premier, José Luis Rogríguez Zapatero, has made clear that he intends to honor his campaign pledge to withdraw Spain's 1,300-man contingent currently helping to stabilize Iraq. While Mr. Zapatero has left himself some wiggle-room (saying he might reconsider if the situation in Iraq changes or if there is a new UN mandate), if he goes ahead with this retreat, terrorists the world over will interpret the attack as a tangible reward for their bloodletting.

Of particular concern for democratic nations would be the reasonable conclusion that the timing of this terrorist assault - on the eve of closely contested elections - will result in the rejection of governments seen as determined to fight, rather than appease, the terrorists. If such an impression takes hold, it strains credulity that polling in any democracy will be allowed to proceed unscathed.

Counter-Counterterrorism

To be sure, Mr. Zapatero swears his top priority will be "to combat all forms of terrorism." Yet, it is hard to imagine that he will be able to be more effective than was Prime Minister Aznar, whose government is credited with having essentially eradicated the ETA. That is especially true if he adopts policies at home as well as abroad that deviate sharply from Mr. Aznar's, for example by treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem, rather than a strategic threat, and by promising to "understand the needs of the Basque country."

The terrorists would be especially gratified if, as Mr. Zapatero suggests, their attack will have the effect of denying President Bush a key partner not only on Iraq, but in the war on terror more generally. The incoming prime minister has pledged that he will "return Spain to its rightful place in Europe" and distance his country from Mr. Bush and the U.S. strategy of offensively and, if necessary, preemptively engaging terrorist cadres, networks and state sponsors.

The Free World will also suffer to the extent that the attitude of some Spanish voters is reflected in other governments' policies. As the New York Times reported Monday, "A 26-year-old window frame maker, who identified himself only as David, said he had changed his vote from [Aznar's] Popular Party to Socialist because of the bombings and the war in Iraq. 'Maybe the Socialists will get our troops out of Iraq, and Al Qaeda will forget about Spain, so we will be less frightened,' he said." (Emphasis added.)

The possibility that such naivete could prove infectious is all the more troubling since even some European leaders who have preferred accommodation to confrontation when it came to terrorism and its sponsors appeared jarred by the Madrid bombings. For example, the Associate Press reports that French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin "says no country should consider itself safe from terrorism. He says they must be mobilized and that 'vigilance is essential.'"

This is arguably especially true of Spain. As national security analyst Steven Daskel has observed: "Spain was a prominent and beloved piece of the dar al-Islam [Muslim world] for 600 years, and the Islamists' long-term goal is the establishment of an Islamist regime in what was once the heart of the Moorish empire. It is interesting to note that several of the attackers were not Middle Eastern Arabs, but rather Moroccans (the direct successor of the Moorish state) and Indians (another country which is claimed as 'rightfully' part of the dar al-Islam). Spain's upcoming retreat may save it for a while, but in the long run, Spain's decision in favor of a pro-appeasement government may...result in far greater threats to its security."

José Luis Kerry?

Finally, the Spanish vote may have important implications for our own election less than eight months away. John Kerry has assailed George W. Bush's war on terror in much the same way José Luis Rogríguez Zapatero has criticized José Maria Aznar's supporting role in that war. Sen. Kerry has said that the threat of terror has been "exaggerated" and that it should be treated more as an "intelligence and law enforcement operation." And the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate has promised to make policy changes similar to those embraced by the incipient Spanish premier - notably, by pledging that his policy will give greater weight to relations with allies and cooperation with the UN.

On March 8, John Kerry announced that unnamed "foreign leaders" were telling him "You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy." It is unclear at this writing exactly who told this to the Massachusetts Senator. One thing is clear, though. "Foreign leaders" of terrorist organizations and their state-sponsors who are doubtless thrilled with their team's take-down of the Spanish government, would be even more pleased to see the United States get an administration committed to a "new policy" towards terror.

The Bottom Line

To the extent Mr. Kerry continues to promise the sort of evisceration of U.S. counterterrorism policy now afoot in the wake of the Spanish elections, he may not only enjoy the support of such "foreign leaders." He may also invite them - however unintentionally - to express that support here in an even more murderous way than they did in Spain.
Click to expand...

Vincent4Heisman · Mar 16, 2004

The only thing I can see that is against Bush, from the general public that is, is that he is fighting two wars. We weren't even on the ground a year and a half in Afghanistan and we went to war in Iraq. I'm not big on wars, I have a lot of friends who are fighting in Irag and Afghanistan. I'd like to see them home right now, but they are soldiers and they are doing what they are supposed to do. They are doing their jobs.

It scares me as to what Kerry will do if he gets elected. I'd like to think that he would have a competent staff around him to help him make decisions, but you never know.

While I said that I don't support the war 100%, I do know that it is necessary. We have rid the world of a menace (Sadaam) and we are trying to rid the world of another menace (Bin Laden). Kerry's soft approach to war will only get this country in more trouble. It wouldn't surprise me if Kerry wins, that he let Sadaam go and call off the war on terror.

At that point, I think this country better be prepared for hell, because it will come and it will come fast. I'm not saying that if Bush wins nothing will happen, I'm just saying that if Kerry wants to play the nice guy, we better be prepared.

I've just talked myself in circles.

G_MAN113 · Mar 16, 2004

Right now, anybody who's ever thought that what's going on in Iraq is a separate issue from the war on terror is kidding themselves...and always has been.

Sourdoughman · Mar 16, 2004

Sen. Kerry has said that the threat of terror has been "exaggerated" and that it should be treated more as an "intelligence and law enforcement operation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is the threat of terror exaggerated?
How many people died on 9-11-01?
then the USS Cole?
Americans at embasseys oversea?

martin · Mar 16, 2004

i have never heard the quote, but if senator kerry said the threat of terror is "exaggerated", i not only do i not want him elected to anything, i also would be amused if he were punched in the nose.

red55 · Mar 16, 2004

There probably won't be another US terrorist attack before the elections. Bin Ladin is no idiot. Unlike Spain, an attack before the election would probably get George Bush re-elected. They don't want that. I think the attack will come after the election to test Kerry . . . or to retaliate against Bush.

Ectopic Tiger · Mar 16, 2004

Have the attacks in Spain been positively linked to Al Queda, or any Muslim terrorist for that matter? I'm just asking because the last I heard, the tapes that were found didn't appear to be authentic.

Log in or Sign up

Will their be a terrorist attack before our Elections

Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

Jetstorm Founding Member

dallastigers Founding Member

Vincent4Heisman Freshman

G_MAN113 Founding Member

Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

martin Banned Forever

red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Ectopic Tiger Founding Member

Share This Page