Dream Spa

No Domestic Bombings - the reason:

aptenodytes

New member
Oct 11, 2003
142
0
0
On a cold rock near Antarctica
Someone mentioned Occam's Razor, and I'd agree but posit this: the reason there aren't more terrorist attacks is there just aren't that many terrorists.
It's not like they're hanging out on the street with the pushers, pimps, and pros.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
wollensak said:
Bin Laden's sole purpose for 911 was to involve the US directly in the middle east. The Americans make easy targets and their occupation angers the arabs. Eventually the "terrorists" feel that
the pro-western governments of the Arab states will be overthrown by popular uprisings and the US, alienated from it's allies, will be forced to pull out.

Guerilla warfare is cheap and devastating to the enemy. It's how the Americans won in 1776 and Israel won control of Palestine.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

The western world is hooked on cheap energy. In order to keep the Western economies humming, it's governments have constantly intervened in the middle east to keep the oil flowing.
This fight will go on for a long time.
Bin Laden’s purpose was to kill Americans, to paralyze them with fear and force them to re-think their position in the middle east and pull out. It was also to hurt their economy and destroy symbols of their power on the rest of the world. He went after symbols of power, WTC, Pentagon and the other target was probably either the white house or capital building.

911 was conceived at a time with Clinton in power. They knew they were dealing with a wimpy president more interested in self gratification than foreign policy. The figured Clinton would send a few “feel good” bombs to Afghanistan and go back to having his dick sucked.

Bin Laden didn’t count the response that they got, just as the Japanese didn’t expect the world of hurt they set themselves up for with Pearl Harbour.

It’s been 2 ½ years since 911 with no attacks on American soil since. My opinion as to why is that the central command of Al-Queada has been effectively crushed. I think that the majority of the higher ups have been killed, captured or are hiding in holes somewhere scattered throughout the mid east. Also, no nation on earth would dare play host to them anymore. If they do, the risk the same fate as the Taliban.

I believe that Bin Laden is probably dead. I don’t consider these scratchy audio tapes that he makes compelling evidence that he’s still alive regardless of what the CIA says. If he were alive, he would prove it unquestionably. He would show the world that he outsmarted the most powerful nation on earth with all their high tech means. He would make a video tape with reference to current events to prove that he’s alive. He hasn’t done that. It serves the US’s interest right now to pretend that he’s still alive because while he is still alive, they can continue to justify their occupation of Afghanistan.

We all know that Bin Laden was a clever man. I think it would’ve been very clever to get someone he trusts to kill him and dispose of the body in such a way that it never would be found. He probably did that when the US was getting close, probably in the Tora Bora area. That way, the US spends years searching for him, never finds him and never knows why. He would then do down in history as a legend as the guy who outsmarted the US. The worst thing for Bin Laden would be to get captured. I’m sure he would take measures to make sure that never happened.

We have only seen a few video tapes with no way to verify when they were made and a few poor quality audio tapes which would be easy to fake. This suggests to me that Bin Laden’s dead.

The remaining Al-Quaeda ops are scattered around the world, stirring up trouble. I’m sure many were in the Kashmir area causing trouble. Now many have moved to Iraq. Now that there is so much trouble in Iraq, there is now a cease fire in Kashmir. I suspect that’s because it was many of the same people who used to be in Kashmir who are now in Iraq.

BTW, wallensak, you’re right about Israel being terrorists themselves in British Palestine. They wanted to force the British out.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
booboobear said:
You see , that's your problem you ignore what people say. I said a suitcase of dynamite , who said 1 stick . If you can't get the basics right don't comment.
booboobear, I'm not always talking about *your* quotes - get over yourself. Please read back a few posts, and see where the quote "one stick of dynamite" is used by another user.

Criminy.

YOUR problem is you refuse to LISTEN TO PEOPLE TALKING TO YOU. (I felt I had to shout. ;) )
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
booboobear said:
Let me make it quite clear I live in Canada and I have no fear of terrorism in Canada, so let's stop with the paranoia remarks.

I don't care how long ago these events happened the fact is it is not as hard as you think to commit acts of terror in the U.S .

Another example , how " hard" would it be to sink the Staten Island ferry . Hard is a relative term , I don't think people who want to committ acts of terror stop to say gee this is hard so i won't do it.

AGAIN I DON'T FEAR THESE EVENTS ( I KNOW I'M YELLING ) but i have all along just replied to your comments that it is so hard to commit acts of terror.
I think you quite clearly ARE paranoid.

If these events weren't so hard, why aren't more of them happening, hmmm? Three over eleven years? Pshaw.

Please answer my question.
 

booboobear

New member
Aug 20, 2003
2,580
0
0
Re: Re: No Domestic Bombings - the reason:

Cinema Face said:
Bin Laden’s purpose was to kill Americans, to paralyze them with fear and force them to re-think their position in the middle east and pull out.
Bin Laden didn’t count the response that they got, just as the Japanese didn’t expect the world of hurt they set themselves up for with Pearl Harbour.

It’s been 2 ½ years since 911 with no attacks on American soil since. My opinion as to why is that the central command of Al-Queada has been effectively crushed. This suggests to me that Bin Laden’s dead.


.

Your theory sounds more plausible than Ranger 68's belief that it is because it is too hard.

As far as Bin Laden I agree that there really is no compelling proof that he is still alive.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
booboobear said:
You seem to be changing your tune , you made it sound like it wouldn't happen because it was hard. So now your viewpoint is it will happen so much for the fact that is hard.
booboobear, you just don't have a clue, do you?

It's hard. That's why there are so few.

The second statement is EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT - "That's why they happen so infrequently."

They're hard to pull off. It takes a long time to do these things, to find the right people, to not get caught (and lots of people ARE caught doing these things). I NEVER said these things won't ever happen again. What I've said ALL ALONG is that there aren't more of these because they're hard to do. Not impossible, mind you - hard.

Can you READ?!
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
aptenodytes said:
Someone mentioned Occam's Razor, and I'd agree but posit this: the reason there aren't more terrorist attacks is there just aren't that many terrorists.
It's not like they're hanging out on the street with the pushers, pimps, and pros.
That's certainly a possibility - however, there seem to be LOTS of terrorists striking against Israel, on a daily basis. I'd amend your statement thus: the reason there aren't more terrorist attacks in the U.S. is that there just aren't that many terrorists with the expertise and access to the necessary funds to pull it off.

How's that?

(Oh, BTW, booboobear - this is exactly what I've been saying - it's hard to do.)
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
As to Al Qaeda being crushed, I think you're dreaming.

There is plenty of supposition that Al Qaeda is now acting in Iraq against U.S. soldiers abroad and Iraqi citizens.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
booboobear, I guess I'm just not going to convince you, am I?

I'd ask you this, though. Please tell me _precisely_ how you'd pull off a terrorist attack in the United States. You're a good example, being a foreigner. Where would you get this gun you've talked about? What would you do with it? Where are these cases of dynamite? How would you obtain them? How would you evade the law in the interim? What would you do with the explosives? Please be precise.

The FACT is, it's far far harder than you can obviously imagine to do any ONE of these things. You seem to imagine yourself living in a world where all terrorists are highly trained espionage agents and people are oblivious to what's going on around them.

You really just don't understand.
 

littleboyblue

not your average John!
Feb 9, 2004
125
0
0
Toronto
Ranger68, you wouldn't have to obtain the weapons or explosives in the U.S.. It would be easier just to smuggle them in. The cartels have been doing it with cocaine for decades. The U.S. knows where it's shipped from(Columbia), and that it comes in regularly. Even with this knowledge they still can't stop it. Weapons and terrorists would be just as easy to smuggle.
 

joebear

New member
Aug 31, 2003
1,160
0
0
Toronto
You dont to buy dynamite, people steal that from worksites.

but there is enough info from the internet to make you own bomb.

Timothy McVeigh made their own home made bomb from fertilyzer.

making a pipe bomb and setting it off in public would not be hard at all.

it is just the terroritst know this and they want to make a bigger impression than just that. They are after bigger targets in the US.

there are numerous terrorists groups other than Al Queda and each has their way plan.

people have asked why didn't the IRA start domestic bombings in Britain and targeting ordinary people and "plain" targets ? why not target the Royal Family ?

the answer commonly thought it would turn the people who supported the IRA from donating funds to them. This would lead to increased support for hardlines policies and crackdowns on the IRA and Northern Ireland.

They was a handful of bombings in London and public reaction was swift even among the IRA supporters and they soon ceased.

The British had high ranking spies in the IRA and this did not stop the IRA and their terrorists campaign from having a significant effect on the peace process in Northern Ireland.


Ranger68 does not what he is talking about booboobear.
 
Last edited:

booboobear

New member
Aug 20, 2003
2,580
0
0
Ranger68 said:
booboobear, I guess I'm just not going to convince you, am I?

I'd ask you this, though. Please tell me _precisely_ how you'd pull off a terrorist attack in the United States. You're a good example, being a foreigner. Where would you get this gun you've talked about? .

You really just don't understand.

NO like joebear said you are wrong . You seem to be the only one on this board who thinks committing an act of terrorism is hard .
The fact that you suggested buying dynamite says it all.


Don't try to convince me ,you live in la la land.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
littleboyblue - It is EXTREMELY difficult to smuggle explosives into the United States - there are plenty of very effective methods that they employ regularly to ensure that this flow is very restricted. Unfortunately, it's much more difficult to detect drugs in cargo. Besides, the SMALLEST drug cartel is much more wealthy and organized than the LARGEST terrorist organization.

joebear - It's one thing to read about making explosives on the Internet, it's another thing entirely to do it. You know what? You can find out EXPLICITLY how to make an atomic bomb, too. Does that make it easy? A pipe bomb's a tiny weapon. That having been said, can you tell me how to make one? If so, enlighten me. "They are after bigger targets in the U.S." Who's they? *sigh* I'm not convincing you, either I see. Please read further down.

Oh, and what the hell does the IRA situation have to do with anything? How many US institutions are funding these guys in the Middle East that would stop funding them if they started acting up against US citizens? Gimme a break! LOL At least TRY to make sense.

booboobear - You noticeably didn't answer my question. I'll take that as a sign that you haven't the foggiest idea how one of these acts would take place. I really have no desire to try to convince you. Frankly, I couldn't care less if you think the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Good luck.

joebear and booboobear (If, in fact, you're different people, which I doubt) - You really don't have a clue. As I said, you seem to inhabit an imaginary land where terrorists can all blend into the woodwork at will, all have training in chemistry and foreign languages and cultures, all have weapons expertise - where you live at the mercy of these people.

The last significant terrorist act on U.S. soil was almost three years ago. There hasn't been one since. Infer what you will about some secretive society with a hidden agenda of evil. The obvious answer is that these things are hard, take time and money and resources and skilled individuals and lots of luck to pull off.

Enjoy your paranoia. I hope it works out for you. :)
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Ranger68

PM me and I will make you reconsider how difficult blowing up something is.
 

shasowmaster

New member
Dec 10, 2003
79
0
0
i keep wondering why isn't anyone go to a gas station while there is a trailer filling the station's storage, and pull out a pistol, and a stick of dynamite, set it off. and bam! I think that's easy, unless due to my lack of knowledge about gas station safety setup, that the event I mention above can't be done.

ps, of course the guy will die, but isn't he also expecting 72 virgins in the heaven?!
 

SirLickheralot

New member
Mar 23, 2002
121
0
0
Here
Ranger68 said:
booboobear, I guess I'm just not going to convince you, am I?

I'd ask you this, though. Please tell me _precisely_ how you'd pull off a terrorist attack in the United States. You're a good example, being a foreigner. Where would you get this gun you've talked about? What would you do with it? Where are these cases of dynamite? How would you obtain them? How would you evade the law in the interim? What would you do with the explosives? Please be precise.

The FACT is, it's far far harder than you can obviously imagine to do any ONE of these things. You seem to imagine yourself living in a world where all terrorists are highly trained espionage agents and people are oblivious to what's going on around them.

You really just don't understand.
It wouldn't be that hard if someone was motivated and had some time. There are dozens of different effective explosives and chemical weapons which can be created using common ingrediants including nitrates from fertilizer, ammonia, moth balls, acetone, ethyl alcohol, etc. Some of these explosives only require a few ingrediants to produce.

If someone was trying to be descrete they could buy the ingrediants in small amounts from lots of different suppliers over the course of several months or even years to avoid detection. Once your explosive was produced in sufficient quantities rent a cube van or U-haul truck load it up and drive down a busy street in a large city. Crash your truck into an office building, hotel, etc and detonate your cargo. You might not take down the building but you'll create lots of terror.
 

joebear

New member
Aug 31, 2003
1,160
0
0
Toronto
Ranger68 said:
joebear - Oh, and what the hell does the IRA situation have to do with anything? How many US institutions are funding these guys in the Middle East that would stop funding them if they started acting up against US citizens? Gimme a break! LOL At least TRY to make sense.

you obviously missed the point. The IRA did not resort to domestic bombings in London for a specific reason. The IRA did not want to lose the hardliners and the public support they enjoyed in Northern Ireland. The IRA had the means to bomb in London if they wanted to. The IRA and Sinn Fein work together and together they decided that domestic bombings were against their interests and they were better ways in achieving their goals.


Hey Booboo, Ranger68..........68 refers to his IQ.
 

AbyssApollyon

New member
Jan 16, 2004
53
0
0
I have to agree with the Mr Ranger 68. It is difficult and only someone who is willing to give up his life and freedom would attempt some of these stunts that are common overseas. If only these guys put as much effort into building up their homelands as they do into causing all this destruction, just imagine what they could accomplish.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
Ranger68 said:
As to Al Qaeda being crushed, I think you're dreaming.

There is plenty of supposition that Al Qaeda is now acting in Iraq against U.S. soldiers abroad and Iraqi citizens.
I said that the central command of Al Qaeda has been effectively crushed. I know that there are still Al Quada terrorists going around causing trouble. Right now, I believe many of them are in Iraq.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,664
0
0
joebear said:
Hey Booboo, Ranger68..........68 refers to his IQ.
Dude, you really shouldn't talk to yourself. People are starting to wonder. ......

OH, well, two more morons for the ignore list. Well, *one* really. ;)
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts