Will Al-Quaida attack the US this month?

[eseid]

Everyone knows that Al Quaida learned lessons and gained boldness from their recent attacks in Spain which turned the election. The big question is whether they think that a similar strike would work in their favor in the US? I personally don't think it would be a good strategy on their part just prior to the election. I think the kneejerk reaction of most Americans would be to re-elect Bush. However, an attack in NYC just prior to the Republican Convention would probably result in the defeat of George Bush. Here's why:

1) The Republicans would be forced to have a muted, respectful, somber tone in contrast to the Democratic Convention with its upbeat, forward looking, victorious tone. The Democrats would be quick on the draw to set up Republicans as "opportunists" if they even so much as tried to refer to such an attack as reason for voting for Bush. With the swing vote being comprised more of "feelers" than "thinkers", the images of Kerry celebrating with the throngs contrasted with Bush addressing a more quiet crowd would dramatically impact these voters.

2) If, as I heard reported today, such an attack is aimed at the NYC financial district, even a small bomb could effectively stall the economic recovery. And it would be early enough for "fresh economic data" to roll in the few weeks leading up to the election which would point to a new economic "down-turn". Bush would once again be cast as a "liar" propping up false data to try and convince people the economy is recovering.

3) The Democrats would blame the Republican Party and the Bush administration for "diverting" normal security measures in the financial district to help protect the area around the Convention, even if it is not true. Thus, many frustrated, grieving Americans would vent their anger on the Bush administration, particularly the surviving family members of victims (NYC is mostly democtratic territory).

One thing is sure, Al Quaida is not a bunch of dummies. I'm sure they have carefully thought through if an attack, and what kind of attack, would help bring about the defeat of George Bush. And one thing I know for sure: They want to be able to take credit for his defeat!! This would do more than a hundred car bombs in Baghdad to demonstrate their power of influence in world affairs.

The only way that we can beat them at their own game would be to put forth this theory ahead of time so that people can see it coming. In making such an attack strategy known ahead of time, if they do succeed, the fact that it was so predictable might well cause the exact opposite reaction and cause people to see that there is a reason why they want George Bush defeated. In the end, it might even be the very thing that swings the election in his favor.

 

[krisy]

Good post and welcome! It sounds like you put a lot of thought into this. I don't know if I beleive it will be this month for sure,but I believe it is a definite possibility. After all going on today,I'm not sure it won't happen tomorrow. Whatever the case,I believe the media were the ones to blame Bush for the economic downfall,not the American people. Any "thinkers" would realize that the recession was inherited and only made worse by 9-11.If something were to happen to a financial institution,Bush is covered because of the fact that there was a warning about it. Everyone now knows that AQ is looking to ruin the economy. As far as the Republican convention,I think the Republicans would come off as strong as ever and be able to be powerful and loud at their convention,because this is what helped the country unite after 9-11. The strength of America,Republican or Democrat and what we can accomplish together when we have too. I think the Republicans would be fine to not have a solem convention,that would hurt them worse.

 

[eseid]

Thanks for the nice welcome Krisy.

Maybe I've overanalyzed this but I just think that it makes sense from the terrorists' perspective. I agree with you that an attack between now and the election would most likely cause the nation to rally behind Bush....except for the scenario that I just described. Interestingly, yesterday Kerry was hammering home the message that Bush hasn't done enough to make us safer, thus setting Bush up to be blamed if something happens.

Remember, all Al Qaeda needs to do is impact the swing voters, the majority of whom rely heavily on emotions, visual images, etc... That is why Michael Moore's film and Spielberg's mellodramatic filmette of Kerry the War Hero is so important to the democratic strategy. These voters would be greatly affected by an onslaught of interviews of victims' families angrily blaming the President, calling for his removal, etc... Can't you just see Diane Sawyer in a fallen victim's living room joined by a dozen or so relatives of victims? Each one holding a picture in their lap, crying uncontrollably, and blaming the failure of homeland security on the Bush administration, "If our President wasn't so obsessed with conquering Saddam, and instead would have spent 1/2 the amount of energy on protecting us here at home, I'd still have my beautiful wife of 20 years." Oh, they'll probably have one person who, for the sake of "fairness" will say, "I don't personally blame Bush. I believe that he was decieved by bad intelligence. But it doesn't do anything to bring back my dead brother."

If this does happen, I guarantee that this kind of program will be seen nightly at primetime on all of the networks in the week before the election. And this coupled with the inevitable cooling effect on the economy will be enough to convince the swing voters to vote Bush out, thinking (or better, feeling) that this will resolve all the problems, and terrorism, death, and destruction will all go away and the prosperity of the 90's will return. Kerry will win by 3%. And there will be an all-night party in some remote cave in Pakistan.

That's my prediction. I hope I am way off. Someone convince me that I am.

 

[krisy]

You do make a good arguement and I hope you are wrong. I see your point about blaming the Bush adm. if another attack happens. In that case,Bush would have to really drive home the fact that so many terrorists have been captured or killed. At the same time,I think a lot of American people may be scared to take on someone new,because the Bush adm has the most experience dealing with terrorism. Kerry isn't an expert on terrorism just because he was in Vietnam and I hope people can see that.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, how much can you learn in 4 monthys and 12 days, while shooting 8mm movies and collecting purple hearts?

 

[eseid]

It's been interesting to watch the events unfold in the past week, with more and more specificity of the intelligence coming to light. Now, it is being reported (how accurately, who knows??) that an attack might be being planned to coincide with Bush's acceptance speech at the convention. If that is true, then Al Qaeda really has done its homework. Just picture what that would look like....right in the middle of his speech intending to reassure voters of his capacity to lead us into a better and brighter future, suddenly our TVs switch to a split screen showing breaking news of a major bomb blast on a NY subway in the financial district. Smoke pouring out of the subway stairs, people running in utter panic, dozens of emergency vehicles flashing red lights, unedited raw images of bloodied bodies being pulled from the blast site. Suddenly, a second, larger explosion happens, now with the entire country watching live, evoking the same desperate "terror" that we felt watching that second plane hit the World Trade Center.

Within seconds Bush is alerted to what is happening, his prepared speech is scrapped and he switches to his backup speech that has been prepared just for such an event. Maybe he shines, maybe he falters, who can predict? The convention goes on lockdown while the President, Cheney, and other top leaders are wisked away to begin to deal with the situation. It is a long sleepless night for most of America as the drama unfolds and more is learned of the extent of the devastation....by morning we learn that at least 100 people have been killed, including 20 emergency workers killed by the second blast.

The NYSE must decide to close trading for the day or not. Oversees the dollar has dropped by as much as 10% against most currencies. By noon analysts on every cable and network station begin to apologetically address the political question: what impact the last 24 hours will mean for the election?

Before the day is over, the political question begins to dominate the coverage. The unity experienced after 9/11 is nowhere to be found. Rumors begin to circulate that Homeland Security may have had specific intelligence pointing to a subway attack but decided NOT to go public with it in order to keep the public focused on the Republican Convention. Then, accusations begin to surface that security forces were pulled out of the subway system in order to beef up security for the convention. Victims' surviving family members begin to go on camera angrily accusing the Bush administration for leaving them vulnerable in order to carry on his big bash. Kerry and Edwards wisely remain silent accept for expressions of sorrow and grief for victims and their families. But simultaneously Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean start to vocalize "their concerns" over some of these reports.

By the following morning, the accusations have escalated to the point of Bush being accused of allowing the bombing to take place in a desperate attempt to have the nation rally behind him. Such an accusation is immediately dismissed by all....but the doubt has been created...the average swing voters thinking: "Is he REALLY capable of such an act? Well, after all, this is the guy who went golfing while sending 18 year olds to be killed in order to help out his oil buddies and protect the legacy of his daddy, right Mr. Moore? Maybe he DID do this! Yes, I think that he did!! He IS more evil than Saddam! Canada, Europe, the entire world is right! We must get rid of him!"

Everywhere he goes Bush is asked to respond to these accusations. He does his best to deflect them, but finds himself having to defend his actions and inactions. By week's end, ABC Pollsters show that Kerry finally got the bounce that he needed, now leading Bush 55% - 45%. And more importantly, they include a question in the poll: Do you think that the Bush Administration is partially responsible for the attack in NY? And over 60% answer yes. It's over.

 

[CSM]

Good analysis. I would submit however, that a terrorist act occuring during GWB's acceptance speech could also might also foster the thought that if the terrorists fear his election that much, then GWB is exactly the guy we need to fight them!

 

[dilloduck]

IMHO AQ would be wiser to do what is neccessary to ensure a Bush victory. If he is re-elected our country will be split more than ever and the democrats will do everything and everything to bring Bush down. Why attack Bush when the Dems will do that for you. If Kerry is elected, he will immediately feel the need to prove what a "hero" he is (since he knows he's not) and escalate miltary activity against terrorist.
just a thought---not sure the terrorists are really all that coordinated or controlled to make decisions like this.

 

[Comrade]

It's been interesting to watch the events unfold in the past week, with more and more specificity of the intelligence coming to light. Now, it is being reported (how accurately, who knows??) that an attack might be being planned to coincide with Bush's acceptance speech at the convention. If that is true, then Al Qaeda really has done its homework. Just picture what that would look like....right in the middle of his speech intending to reassure voters of his capacity to lead us into a better and brighter future, suddenly our TVs switch to a split screen showing breaking news of a major bomb blast on a NY subway in the financial district. Smoke pouring out of the subway stairs, people running in utter panic, dozens of emergency vehicles flashing red lights, unedited raw images of bloodied bodies being pulled from the blast site. Suddenly, a second, larger explosion happens, now with the entire country watching live, evoking the same desperate "terror" that we felt watching that second plane hit the World Trade Center.

Within seconds Bush is alerted to what is happening, his prepared speech is scrapped and he switches to his backup speech that has been prepared just for such an event. Maybe he shines, maybe he falters, who can predict? The convention goes on lockdown while the President, Cheney, and other top leaders are wisked away to begin to deal with the situation. It is a long sleepless night for most of America as the drama unfolds and more is learned of the extent of the devastation....by morning we learn that at least 100 people have been killed, including 20 emergency workers killed by the second blast.

The NYSE must decide to close trading for the day or not. Oversees the dollar has dropped by as much as 10% against most currencies. By noon analysts on every cable and network station begin to apologetically address the political question: what impact the last 24 hours will mean for the election?

Before the day is over, the political question begins to dominate the coverage. The unity experienced after 9/11 is nowhere to be found. Rumors begin to circulate that Homeland Security may have had specific intelligence pointing to a subway attack but decided NOT to go public with it in order to keep the public focused on the Republican Convention. Then, accusations begin to surface that security forces were pulled out of the subway system in order to beef up security for the convention. Victims' surviving family members begin to go on camera angrily accusing the Bush administration for leaving them vulnerable in order to carry on his big bash. Kerry and Edwards wisely remain silent accept for expressions of sorrow and grief for victims and their families. But simultaneously Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean start to vocalize "their concerns" over some of these reports.

By the following morning, the accusations have escalated to the point of Bush being accused of allowing the bombing to take place in a desperate attempt to have the nation rally behind him. Such an accusation is immediately dismissed by all....but the doubt has been created...the average swing voters thinking: "Is he REALLY capable of such an act? Well, after all, this is the guy who went golfing while sending 18 year olds to be killed in order to help out his oil buddies and protect the legacy of his daddy, right Mr. Moore? Maybe he DID do this! Yes, I think that he did!! He IS more evil than Saddam! Canada, Europe, the entire world is right! We must get rid of him!"

Everywhere he goes Bush is asked to respond to these accusations. He does his best to deflect them, but finds himself having to defend his actions and inactions. By week's end, ABC Pollsters show that Kerry finally got the bounce that he needed, now leading Bush 55% - 45%. And more importantly, they include a question in the poll: Do you think that the Bush Administration is partially responsible for the attack in NY? And over 60% answer yes. It's over.

I think if A.Q. could have attack the US earlier, especially when it played up the threat, it would have. Now more than ever, that possibility is not as likely.


I also understand the Kerry campaign will continue to insinuate the various allegations of hyped-up terror alerts and over emphasis on the threat, clearly what they have done, right up to such an attack. Following a day or two of "unity" they will then proceed to portray Bush as failing to take the threat seriously enough as per post 9/11 strategy.

Flip-flop!!!

 

[nycflasher]

No way to predict this sort of thing.
Anything is possible.
I look at it this way: There have been no attacks on the US by terrorists since 9-11. That's a good sign. On the other hand, there could be some sleeper cell here that has been here since '99...just waiting for their moment.

Let's just hope that Bush loses and it doesn't take another terrorist attack to show the people of the U.S. that he is unfit for the job.

 

[Comrade]

No way to predict this sort of thing.
Anything is possible.
I look at it this way: There have been no attacks on the US by terrorists since 9-11. That's a good sign. On the other hand, there could be some sleeper cell here that has been here since '99...just waiting for their moment.

Let's just hope that Bush loses and it doesn't take another terrorist attack to show the people of the U.S. that he is unfit for the job.

Why is he unfit if there are no terrorist attacks?

 

[nycflasher]

Beginner's luck.

 

[Said1]

Let's just hope that Bush loses and it doesn't take another terrorist attack to show the people of the U.S. that he is unfit for the job.

Win or lose, terrorism is still a problem any future president will need to deal with, the wheels are already in motion.

 

[freeandfun1]

Beginner's luck.

Such an intellect you are (not).

 

[smirkinjesus]

I have to laugh when I hear crap like this. Look, Al Qaida does not share your obsession with Bush or his bid for reelection. They hate America. They hate America if Clinton is running it, they hate America if Bush is running it and they'll hate America just as much if Kerry is running it. They don't care. And if they even bother to think about the internal politics of the United States, you can bet they are absolutely thrilled that we have engaged them in the Middle East. They spent a decade trying to get our attention, they want War with America more then anything else. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, Bush has given them exactly what they want, a declaration of War. That is a fact.

Everyone knows that Al Quaida learned lessons and gained boldness from their recent attacks in Spain which turned the election. The big question is whether they think that a similar strike would work in their favor in the US? I personally don't think it would be a good strategy on their part just prior to the election. I think the kneejerk reaction of most Americans would be to re-elect Bush. However, an attack in NYC just prior to the Republican Convention would probably result in the defeat of George Bush. Here's why:

1) The Republicans would be forced to have a muted, respectful, somber tone in contrast to the Democratic Convention with its upbeat, forward looking, victorious tone. The Democrats would be quick on the draw to set up Republicans as "opportunists" if they even so much as tried to refer to such an attack as reason for voting for Bush. With the swing vote being comprised more of "feelers" than "thinkers", the images of Kerry celebrating with the throngs contrasted with Bush addressing a more quiet crowd would dramatically impact these voters.

2) If, as I heard reported today, such an attack is aimed at the NYC financial district, even a small bomb could effectively stall the economic recovery. And it would be early enough for "fresh economic data" to roll in the few weeks leading up to the election which would point to a new economic "down-turn". Bush would once again be cast as a "liar" propping up false data to try and convince people the economy is recovering.

3) The Democrats would blame the Republican Party and the Bush administration for "diverting" normal security measures in the financial district to help protect the area around the Convention, even if it is not true. Thus, many frustrated, grieving Americans would vent their anger on the Bush administration, particularly the surviving family members of victims (NYC is mostly democtratic territory).

One thing is sure, Al Quaida is not a bunch of dummies. I'm sure they have carefully thought through if an attack, and what kind of attack, would help bring about the defeat of George Bush. And one thing I know for sure: They want to be able to take credit for his defeat!! This would do more than a hundred car bombs in Baghdad to demonstrate their power of influence in world affairs.

The only way that we can beat them at their own game would be to put forth this theory ahead of time so that people can see it coming. In making such an attack strategy known ahead of time, if they do succeed, the fact that it was so predictable might well cause the exact opposite reaction and cause people to see that there is a reason why they want George Bush defeated. In the end, it might even be the very thing that swings the election in his favor.

 

[dilloduck]

I have to laugh when I hear crap like this. Look, Al Qaida does not share your obsession with Bush or his bid for reelection. They hate America. They hate America if Clinton is running it, they hate America if Bush is running it and they'll hate America just as much if Kerry is running it. They don't care. And if they even bother to think about the internal politics of the United States, you can bet they are absolutely thrilled that we have engaged them in the Middle East. They spent a decade trying to get our attention, they want War with America more then anything else. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, Bush has given them exactly what they want, a declaration of War. That is a fact.

Laugh away if you like but AQ is far from stupid . If upsetting the US election process will assist thier cause in any way, they will do it. Don't underestimate them again.

 

[drac]

Laugh away if you like but AQ is far from stupid . If upsetting the US election process will assist thier cause in any way, they will do it. Don't underestimate them again.

yep, they probably will, looking at spain example. the question i have is would it be in AQ interest to keep bush or get kerry elected? :scratch:

 

[smirkinjesus]

Laugh away if you like but AQ is far from stupid . If upsetting the US election process will assist thier cause in any way, they will do it. Don't underestimate them again.

Maybe the best thing to do is vote for whoever you are going to vote for, obviously Bush for you, and not try to figure out who Al Qaida wants us to vote for? I'll vote for Kerry regardless of whether or not there is a terrorist attack. That way Al Qaida can't have any impact on my vote or your vote. Feel better now?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Maybe the best thing to do is vote for whoever you are going to vote for, obviously Bush for you, and not try to figure out who Al Qaida wants us to vote for? I'll vote for Kerry regardless of whether or not there is a terrorist attack. That way Al Qaida can't have any impact on my vote or your vote. Feel better now?

AQ doesnt care who you vote for. AQ wants you to be afraid, that is all. oh, and dead as well.

 

[Annie]

AQ doesnt care who you vote for. AQ wants you to be afraid, that is all. oh, and dead as well.

It looks like that and more. Interesting article in the Atlantic this month, on the goal being the expansion of Islam. Is it working?