Is this stuff coming our way?

[Mickey]

Suicide bombers, on foot and in cars, have been concentrating on police recruiting facilities in Iraq:

 

In February they killed 47 in Baghdad at a recruiting center.

A few days later, another 53 killed just south of Baghdad.

In June, they killed 35 waiting to join the Iraqi military.

On July 28, they killed 68 at a police recruiting center in Baqouba.

They killed 20 at a police training facility in Kirkuk earlier this month.

Another 47 killed yesterday in Baghdad waiting to sign up with the Police.

 

That is 270 people we couldn't protect even at known, obvious targets like police and army recruiting centers. I am no expert on anti-suicide bomber tactics so I am not suggesting that there is some way to prevent these. Quite the contrary. How long is it before we start seeing these kinds of attacks here in the US? Do we really think that the reason we haven't so far is due to our vigilance rather than a decision by AQ to not use them here....yet?

 

Are we ready for life like this?

 

Amended, 9/14/04 10:09 pm:

 

12 killed in police van (11 officers and 1 civilian)in Baqouba, attacked by gunmen.

Oil pipeline junction was blown up today in Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad.

 

Make that 282 dead.

 

Amended 9/18/04:

 

20 people waiting in line to join the Iraqi Nat. Guard were in Kirkuk were killed by a suicide car bomber today. Meanwhile, 2 Americans and 1 Brit were recently kidnapped were shown on a video clip by Al-Jazeera. Captors say they will be killed in 48 hours if female Iraqi prisoners are not released.

 

Make that 302 dead.

[Rich in Ohio]

Suicide bombers, on foot and in cars, have been concentrating on police recruiting facilities in Iraq:

 

In February they killed 47 in Baghdad at a recruiting center.

A few days later, another 53 killed just south of Baghdad.

In June, they killed 35 waiting to join the Iraqi military.

On July 28, they killed 68 at a police recruiting center in Baqouba.

They killed 20 at a police training facility in Kirkuk earlier this month.

Another 47 killed yesterday in Baghdad waiting to sign up with the Police.

 

That is 270 people we couldn't protect even at known, obvious targets like police and army recruiting centers.  I am no expert on anti-suicide bomber tactics so I am not suggesting that there is some way to prevent these.  Quite the contrary.  How long is it before we start seeing these kinds of attacks here in the US?  Do we really think that the reason we haven't so far is due to our vigilance rather than a decision by AQ to not use them here....yet?

 

Are we ready for life like this?

30392[/snapback]

 

 

Do we have police recruiting facilities here in the USA? Just curious.

 

By the way, there is very little chance to stop an insane nutcase who is looking forward to being drapped in 72 virgins if he is simply willing to blow himself up in the proximity of innocent people. That makes this situation possible as long as these wack jobs are led by the insane part of thier faith to do so. Is this the least bit surprising?

[VABills]

Do we have police recruiting facilities here in the USA? Just curious.

 

By the way, there is very little chance to stop an insane nutcase who is looking forward to being drapped in 72 virgins if he is simply willing to blow himself up in the proximity of innocent people. That makes this situation possible as long as these wack jobs are led by the insane part of thier faith to do so. Is this the least bit surprising?

30456[/snapback]

I wouldn't mind 72 virgins in cheerleading outfits (oops), but I sure as hell will not kill myself to see if I could get them.

[SD Jarhead]

Unfortunatley Mick, I think we will see attacks of this nature sooner than later.

[Mickey]

Do we have police recruiting facilities here in the USA? Just curious.

 

By the way, there is very little chance to stop an insane nutcase who is looking forward to being drapped in 72 virgins if he is simply willing to blow himself up in the proximity of innocent people. That makes this situation possible as long as these wack jobs are led by the insane part of thier faith to do so. Is this the least bit surprising?

30456[/snapback]

 

What are you saying, idiot, that there are no targets in the United States? Just curious.

 

The question has to do with the vulnerability to suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles. We can't stop them in Iraq even against obvious, expected targets. Those attacks were not surprising, sneak attacks that could not be anticipated. Quite the contrary. Yet we could not stop them. How are we going to stop the same type of attacks against targets that can't be predicted here in the US? Hence the question/suggestion that this is all headed our way. Is America ready for this? Are we ready to wake up one morning to find that the local elementary school was just leveled? My oldest daughter started school this year and my youngest just started nursery school. The Russians just lost hundreds in an attack on a school. It has me worried and thinking that maybe we are not safer as I am so often told and even more often, have hoped.

 

It is not a partisan issue, it is a frank identification of our vulnerabilities.

[Mickey]

Unfortunatley Mick, I think we will see attacks of this nature sooner than later.

30570[/snapback]

 

Exactly why I expressed my concern, a nonpartisan one I thought until Richio chimed in with his usual ability to entirely miss the point while sniffing his own crotch for any hint of anything other than gushing praise for all things Bush.

[Alaska Darin]

What are you saying, idiot, that there are no targets in the United States? Just curious. 

 

The question has to do with the vulnerability to suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles.  We can't stop them in Iraq even against obvious, expected targets.  Those attacks were not surprising, sneak attacks that could not be anticipated.  Quite the contrary.  Yet we could not stop them.  How are we going to stop the same type of attacks against targets that can't be predicted here in the US?  Hence the question/suggestion that this is all headed our way.  Is America ready for this?  Are we ready to wake up one morning to find that the local elementary school was just leveled?  My oldest daughter started school this year and my youngest just started nursery school.  The Russians just lost hundreds in an attack on a school.  It has me worried and thinking that maybe we are not safer as I am so often told and even more often, have hoped.

 

It is not a partisan issue, it is a frank identification of our vulnerabilities.

30641[/snapback]

Do I actually speak English? I have stated numerous times that this is NOT something the government can protect against. 1700+ citizens for every police officer. You figure it out.

 

The government is never going to stop people bent on mayhem. They'll have successes and failures, but until they address the root causes (like the overwhelming size and scope of our foriegn intervention) it will continue. Has since the beginning of time.

 

Look at the bright side. Only criminals can carry weapons around your kid's schools. Because they care about gun laws.

[_BiB_]

What are you saying, idiot, that there are no targets in the United States? Just curious. 

 

The question has to do with the vulnerability to suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles.  We can't stop them in Iraq even against obvious, expected targets.  Those attacks were not surprising, sneak attacks that could not be anticipated.  Quite the contrary.  Yet we could not stop them.  How are we going to stop the same type of attacks against targets that can't be predicted here in the US?  Hence the question/suggestion that this is all headed our way.  Is America ready for this?  Are we ready to wake up one morning to find that the local elementary school was just leveled?  My oldest daughter started school this year and my youngest just started nursery school.  The Russians just lost hundreds in an attack on a school.  It has me worried and thinking that maybe we are not safer as I am so often told and even more often, have hoped.

 

It is not a partisan issue, it is a frank identification of our vulnerabilities.

30641[/snapback]

 

And, we are horribly, horribly vulnerable in many ways. This is a nation of soft targets.

 

It could happen, but I imagine a different approach here. It is not as easy to emplace and employ assets here as it is in Iraq. You may get one "spectacular" attack or series of attacks as a one shot deal-but a concentrated campaign in the US is more difficult than it appears. Not going to be much in the way of suicide attacks, as I've mentioned assets are too hard to get in place. Once they pull the trigger and do something, they are much more vulnerable and easier to find. There is a trail to trace. Suicide operators don't need to worry about it. Planning type operators do. This limits their operability and options. They'd almost have to recruit from within the US, and that mode just doesn't fit the US mentality, no matter how radical one is.

 

Don't know if that helps or not, but no we aren't "safe" and it will be a long, long time before we are. If you think about it, we never were. And no, it's not as bad as it appears.

[MichFan]

Suicide bombings have an impact in Israel because it is such a geographically small area that citizens fear they might actually be affected. A suicide bombing campaign in the U.S. just wouldn't have the same impact. They would need literally hundreds if not thousands of suicide bombers to produce any widespread fear across the nation. Arabs also can't blend in within America the way they can in Israel or the way Chechnyans can in Chechnya. Initiation of a suicide bombing campaign in America would probably be countered by regional internment of Arabs.

 

America is going to get much more catastrophic hits because that is the only way for terrorists to achieve their goals in this country.

[DC Tom]

Suicide bombers, on foot and in cars, have been concentrating on police recruiting facilities in Iraq:

 

In February they killed 47 in Baghdad at a recruiting center.

A few days later, another 53 killed just south of Baghdad.

In June, they killed 35 waiting to join the Iraqi military.

On July 28, they killed 68 at a police recruiting center in Baqouba.

They killed 20 at a police training facility in Kirkuk earlier this month.

Another 47 killed yesterday in Baghdad waiting to sign up with the Police.

 

That is 270 people we couldn't protect even at known, obvious targets like police and army recruiting centers.  I am no expert on anti-suicide bomber tactics so I am not suggesting that there is some way to prevent these.  Quite the contrary.  How long is it before we start seeing these kinds of attacks here in the US?  Do we really think that the reason we haven't so far is due to our vigilance rather than a decision by AQ to not use them here....yet?

 

Are we ready for life like this?

30392[/snapback]

 

In addition to BiB's observations, I might point out that al Qaeda's typical operational pattern is to go for the one big telegenic strike against the US directly rather than a bunch of little ones. Not, if I were in their shoes, the tactic I'd choose...but as long as they're sticking with that pattern, it makes swarms of smaller attacks that much less likely.

 

Doesn't mean they can change their operational pattern, of course...but that takes time. It can't be done overnight.

[Mickey]

And, we are horribly, horribly vulnerable in many ways. This is a nation of soft targets.

 

It could happen, but I imagine a different approach here. It is not as easy to emplace and employ assets here as it is in Iraq. You may get one "spectacular" attack or series of attacks as a one shot deal-but a concentrated campaign in the US is more difficult than it appears. Not going to be much in the way of suicide attacks, as I've mentioned assets are too hard to get in place. Once they pull the trigger and do something, they are much more vulnerable and easier to find. There is a trail to trace. Suicide operators don't need to worry about it. Planning type operators do. This limits their operability and options. They'd almost have to recruit from within the US, and that mode just doesn't fit the US mentality, no matter how radical one is.

 

Don't know if that helps or not, but no we aren't "safe" and it will be a long, long time before we are. If you think about it, we never were. And no, it's not as bad as it appears.

30685[/snapback]

 

Bib, drug dealers can smuggle drugs in by the boatload, how hard would it be for the enemy to do the same with explosives? They haven't done these kinds of attacks against us yet on our own soil but I don't believe it is because they can't, it is because, for whatever reason, they are holding off for now. Maybe they don't want to alienate potential recruits to their point of view now that we are on the moral defensive in so many places around the world as the result of the Iraq invasion. There is more sympathy for them and less for us now than anyone could have imagined so maybe they don't want to lose that with ugly attacks against innocents. Even France might change their tune if we were to get hit that bad.

 

It is all guess work. There could be a million reasons why they have been quiet in terms of attacks on US soil and not so quiet elsewhere.

 

What bothers me bib is that we seem to be fighting a war and yet, to me anyway, we don't seem to be acting like a nation at war. Drive down the street and look around, do we look like a society on a war footing? Take the issue of press leaks for example. Every time we capture a high profile target, it is in the papers within a day or two. Anything that might have been gained from keeping that knowledge from the enemy is lost. I don't blame the media, the media is as the media does as Mrs. Gump might have said. It is the leakers that drive me up a wall. In some cases it is the WH wanting the President to get credit for a win, in others I am sure, it is a democrat looking to some other agenda. I am not taking sides on that kind of thing. I don't think those leakers see themselves as traitors or are deliberately trying to help the enemy. In most cases they probably convince themselves that for some reason it doesn't matter. If, however, we were more on a war footing with the attitudes to match, I don't think those people would be so quick to leak nor the papers so eager to print the leaks.

 

I am not unaware that this is a somewhat unfocused rant. I just don't feel that we are a society that has been rallied to a purpose, a goal, and dedicated all our resources to accomplishing that goal. Our enemies, in the past and even now, have thought of us as being soft, unable to sustain too much punishment. They have thought that the American public will not support for long a war that yields large casualties. I don't claim to have any idea as to whether they are right on that score. I think though that our leaders from both sides of the aisle agree with them. I wonder if maybe thay believe that we, as a people, can not endure much hardship, sacrifice or death and what we can endure, we will for only a short time. Consequently, any military struggle we embark upon must be short and involve as little pain as possible. Even if that means that we have to stop short of actual victory and leave our enemy time to regroup and fight again. We defeated Saddam but not totally and so 12 years later we had to go back and do it again. We have invaded Afghanistan but been content only to drive the enemy from the cities rather than to take them on in the mountains and perhaps suffer higher casualties. Now AQ and the Taliban are re-emerging in Afghanistan.

 

Our leaders have not asked much sacrifice of us. We haven't been mobilized as a citizenry. We "endure" having to get to the airport earlier for a flight and running up a large deficit that we are apparently going to pass off to future generations. Military families have obviously been asked to sacrifice just about all there is to be sacrificed. Yellow ribbon stickers on our cars is about the extent of the average citizen's participation in this effort.

[Mickey]

In addition to BiB's observations, I might point out that al Qaeda's typical operational pattern is to go for the one big telegenic strike against the US directly rather than a bunch of little ones.  Not, if I were in their shoes, the tactic I'd choose...but as long as they're sticking with that pattern, it makes swarms of smaller attacks that much less likely.

 

Doesn't mean they can change their operational pattern, of course...but that takes time.  It can't be done overnight.

30745[/snapback]

 

Tom, here is a link to an interesting 2003 essay on suicide bombers which, in your obsessive erudition, you probably read long ago but on the impossibly remote chance that you haven't, here it is:

 

The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

 

One thing I found useful is the Appendix which has various tables and charts on suicidal terrorism going back to 1983 I believe. It includes AQ. Compare that to the list I ran last week taken from Imperial Hubris in terms of tactics. I think these guys are pretty flexible. I don't know what to hope for, that when they come after us here it will be with dozens of small, deadly and entirely unpredictable attacks or one large, just as deadly and just as unpredictable attack. Not good.

 

Do you think they have not attacked us on our soil because they have been unable to, are not ready to or have, for the time being, decided not to?

[_BiB_]

Mickey, I had written a much longer response and decided not to. I could outline a scenario. It wouldn't help.

 

When I refer to assets, I'm referring to human assets-operatives and planners. The materials are easy to obtain. Operational personnel are not.

 

And you're right, we can sometimes be our own worst enemy. And, we are in more danger than it appears, but we are also safer than it appears. As little sense as that makes, it's the reality.

[Mickey]

Mickey, I had written a much longer response and decided not to. I could outline a scenario. It wouldn't help.

 

When I refer to assets, I'm referring to human assets-operatives and planners. The materials are easy to obtain. Operational personnel are not.

 

And you're right, we can sometimes be our own worst enemy. And, we are in more danger than it appears, but we are also safer than it appears. As little sense as that makes, it's the reality.

30900[/snapback]

 

Well that makes me feel much better and much worse.

[GG]

Mickey, I had written a much longer response and decided not to. I could outline a scenario. It wouldn't help.

 

When I refer to assets, I'm referring to human assets-operatives and planners. The materials are easy to obtain. Operational personnel are not.

 

And you're right, we can sometimes be our own worst enemy. And, we are in more danger than it appears, but we are also safer than it appears. As little sense as that makes, it's the reality.

30900[/snapback]

 

I think that in trying to seek parallels between us & Israel and Russia, the primary difference is that he potential terrorists are more enmeshed in those countries than here. That's why I imagine the bad guys go for the spectacular attacks here because they don't have the human resources.

 

I would also disgaree with the point that small attacks won't damage the psyche of Americans. You should see how many people in NYC are petrified every time they get on the subway or go through a tunnel. These are all very soft targets.

[Paco]

Mickey, I had written a much longer response and decided not to. I could outline a scenario. It wouldn't help.

 

When I refer to assets, I'm referring to human assets-operatives and planners. The materials are easy to obtain. Operational personnel are not.

 

And you're right, we can sometimes be our own worst enemy. And, we are in more danger than it appears, but we are also safer than it appears. As little sense as that makes, it's the reality.

30900[/snapback]

That is absolutely the last thing I'd typically give thought to about this. But there's nothing like a good paradym shift, and man, you're right. It's not the lack of a mission. It's the lack of the resources required to accomplish the mission.

 

They'd have to recruit, and trying to recruit an American to their cause right now would be like Pats fans trying to convince us to join THEIR pussified fanbase.

[Mickey]

That is absolutely the last thing I'd typically give thought to about this. But there's nothing like a good paradym shift, and man, you're right. It's not the lack of a mission. It's the lack of the resources required to accomplish the mission.

 

They'd have to recruit, and trying to recruit an American to their cause right now would be like Pats fans trying to convince us to join THEIR pussified fanbase.

31673[/snapback]

 

Why would they have to recruit an American? We have a porous border, our record of failure in trying to curb illegal immigration is testament enough to that. We can't stop large amounts of drugs coming in either. Now, if we can't stop a Mexican laborer looking for work, how are we going to stop an AQ trained terrorist from crossing the border one night? Using Occam's Razor, I think the simplest explanation for AQ not attacking on US soil is that they don't want to for now for their own, no doubt nefarious, reasons.

[GG]

Why would they have to recruit an American?  We have a porous border, our record of failure in trying to curb illegal immigration is testament enough to that.  We can't stop large amounts of drugs coming in either.  Now, if we can't stop a Mexican laborer looking for work, how are we going to stop an AQ trained terrorist from crossing the border one night?  Using Occam's Razor, I think the simplest explanation for AQ not attacking on US soil is that they don't want to for now for their own, no doubt nefarious, reasons.

31701[/snapback]

 

You may be onto something. The concern is not so much AQ coming over, but AQ taking advantage and recruiting Mexicans for the job. I don't see it happening in the near future, but as long as we keep ignoring Mexico's problems, it could turn into a fertile recruiting ground.

[Paco]

Why would they have to recruit an American?  We have a porous border, our record of failure in trying to curb illegal immigration is testament enough to that.  We can't stop large amounts of drugs coming in either.  Now, if we can't stop a Mexican laborer looking for work, how are we going to stop an AQ trained terrorist from crossing the border one night?  Using Occam's Razor, I think the simplest explanation for AQ not attacking on US soil is that they don't want to for now for their own, no doubt nefarious, reasons.

31701[/snapback]

Because we don't have time to look for Mexicans anymore.

 

Let me tell you a quick something. Being Italian, I have dark skin and hair. I recently grew a goatee. When one of my friends saw it, the first thing out of his mouth was, "You should put on a trenchcoat and try to go through security at LAX."

 

We look harder now than we did before. I know I do. And certainly that woman from the Wall Street Journal does.

[_BiB_]

Why would they have to recruit an American?  We have a porous border, our record of failure in trying to curb illegal immigration is testament enough to that.  We can't stop large amounts of drugs coming in either.  Now, if we can't stop a Mexican laborer looking for work, how are we going to stop an AQ trained terrorist from crossing the border one night?  Using Occam's Razor, I think the simplest explanation for AQ not attacking on US soil is that they don't want to for now for their own, no doubt nefarious, reasons.

31701[/snapback]

 

Cause and effect, Mickey. You know I can't detail, but suffice to say that many of the same venues used by the drug smugglers and the alien smugglers are already intertwined with the terrorists. This is a double edged sword for them. They have alliances with some nefarious characters, but these are well know nefarious characters and sytems to us.

 

Whatever they intend to do, it's going to have to eclipse 9/11, or it loses much of it's perceived psychological effect. Also, whatever they are going to do takes time to set up. I was going to outline a possible scenario, but pulled it because I'm not going to get into some stupid argument with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

If you go back and look at my posts in the Bush is a Uniter thread, I tried to bring across two points applicable here. One, they did not expect the response they got from the 9/11 attacks. In essence, for all it's damage in so many ways it backfired.

 

The second-is who knows? Just my opinion, and it's only mine-they have got what they want to do figured out, but are having a difficult time gauging the outcome. The logical move to me would be a series of virtually simultaneous more "conventional" attacks across a broader area-from sea to shining sea be it may, to give the sense that no one anywhere is safe. Where I'm lost is whether they try this pre or post election, as that is probably the trigger point. I can come up with strong arguments for each.

 

Either way, I don't think AQ and their buddies are capable of a sustained campaign in the US. They blew it on 9/11 similarly to the way Japan blew it at Pearl Harbor. Admiral Isokuru Yamamoto, the brilliant and also pragmatic architect of the attack said "I'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant". AQ has not studied their history well enough. They got their initial victory, won a battle-but that will cost them the war.

 

I'd be stunned if we were lucky enough not to get whacked again. They have to maintain some type of credibility. People might die, horribly-and I can only imagine the media and this board as a microcosm if/when it happens. You said it so well yourself. This country is not on a "War Footing". It doesn't fit into our psyche. It did in 1942, doesn't play now. I'm in no way advocating building bomb shelters and running for the hills-but there needs to be at least a subtle mental adjustment that quite frankly, you are not going to see out of America "UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO THEM" and then, also quite frankly, a good 40% of those will get so wrapped up in how they weren't "protected" by whoever was in charge that they will lose vision on any clue as to why it happened.

 

I've been, I won't say bashed, but essentially called a fear mongerer and in some cases a coward for saying what I say. I'll say it anyway. I'm not trying to fear monger, and if you think I'm a coward-face me and call me that.

 

Mickey, this is way to complicated for this place. If it helps at all, Big Brother is doing a better job than it looks. It's not so much that it's Secret Squirrel, as it's too complicated to explain to what LA Bills calls the "Hot Pockets". It's not saying people are stupid (although T-Bone is out there somewhere) If they actually fuggin cared about the issues, they could learn-but they won't. That's been my frustration.

 

Sad.

 

Hey Mick, you think you worry about it? I do it for a living. End of Sermon.