An attack on DC- Do you believe it's coming?

[Vagrant0]

Besides, there are other factors into why there wouldn't be attack on DC besides security as you so nicely put it but the question was "do you believe an attack on DC is coming?" to which I replied no.

DC really isn't all that good of a target all things considered. Sure, it might put the nation on edge, but pretty much anything that would be worth causing damage there would have to make it through several security checkpoints and be limited to authorized personnel. So not really worth the complications, even with something wide reaching like a dirty bomb.

 

A terrorist group doesn't care so much about damage, but is generally just looking to attack a way of life or disrupt a section of society. Even from a fear standpoint, there are likely better targets. From a disruption standpoint there are certainly better targets.

 

An enemy country... well... won't happen any time soon. As much of a threat as you might want to think NK or parts of the Middle East are, they really aren't. NK is entirely dependent on foreign aid to keep from starving, and their only export (weapons) would dry up rather quickly from their country being carpet bombed back to the stone age either by us, or by one of the hundreds of other countries or powers whose economies are dependent on American markets. In the case of the Middle East the ruling groups pretty much only retain power because of the money from oil. Losing their biggest consumer would not be anything in their favor.

[Ihoe]

Whether through a terrorist attack, or some sort of civil disturbance (say a civilian uprising of some sort), the odds of Washington suffering an 'attack', is probably no higher or lower, than a similar attack on any other US city, in all likelihood a terrorist attack would probably prefer a 'softer target' such as Dallas or Miami. In any case, the odds are staggeringly low, which to my mind means, any attack on Washington DC is a probable NO but it's not completely impossible.

 

Just as a rough guide to the likely odds, I quote the following vaguely related though not identical statistics.

 

'So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in 1,000,000 or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.'

 

The odds against dying in a terrorist attack on DC, due to being in a specific location, would be increased to roughly one in 275,000, which means there is next to no chance at all of any individual dying in a Washington DC attack (although this doesn't allow for non-terrorist attacks).

 

And quoting the same statistic site, the odds of dying in an asteroid impact is roughly one in 200,000, (which means you are more likely to killed by an asteroid, then killed by a terrorist attack on a specific city). I think I'll take my chances of not worrying to much.

 

Those odds only appeal to the theorem of all people having equal chances of being under any of those terms, which is certainly not the Same as different chances of happening taken into account ergo IRL. a mix of intuitive and inductive reasoning instead of a solid deductive one is what it is if you ask me, and certainly not quite accurate, better for fooling purposes. So worry! a lot! vote for Mit Romney and bombard the middle east to keep world peace!

 

 

How is bombing the middle east going to bring peace? Iran has flatly stated they have ballistic missiles that could cause a ruckus for most of our bases in the area, not to mention our allies. I fail to see how starting yet another war is going to bring about peace. ESPECIALLY when a war in that area would cause energy prices to SPIKE in a major way.

 

Well said, but The Bush Diiick and Colon Administration certainly, absolutely positively protected world peace by waging war on terror, which is not even a noun. so go figure...

Plus, Ole' Mit has already stated that provided he be president of USA, he Will attack Iran for some reason which I have no knowledge about. Maybe for the nuclear programme?

or Maybe because Iran has ballistic missiles. but So does SD Arabia, So does North Korea (with nuke hats on them), so Does Pakistan (with nuke hats and taqiyahs on them), so I don't see what an economically crippled country like Iran could pose a threat to world security (LOL), Mit's argument has a big 12inch flaw.

[eodx9000]

Well said, but The Bush Diiick and Colon Administration certainly, absolutely positively protected world peace by waging war on terror, which is not even a noun. so go figure...

Plus, Ole' Mit has already stated that provided he be president of USA, he Will attack Iran for some reason which I have no knowledge about. Maybe for the nuclear programme?

or Maybe because Iran has ballistic missiles. but So does SD Arabia, So does North Korea (with nuke hats on them), so Does Pakistan (with nuke hats and taqiyahs on them), so I don't see what an economically crippled country like Iran could pose a threat to world security (LOL), Mit's argument has a big 12inch flaw.

 

Going to war with Iran doesn't require Romney, it's just as likely to happen under Obama (just like in 2008 ~ Obama never was going to close Guantanamo nor end the Iraq war, but since he's a "progressive", people on the left almost automatically put their trust in him, just like with neocons and the right). Whoever's president, the economy cannot support all of those soldiers becoming unemployed at once. Not to mention, the U.S. is in a manner of speaking, investing in the Iranian nuclear regime (albeit maybe indirectly) through an Iranian front in Russia.

Edited July 5, 2012 by eodx9000

[HeyYou]

Well said, but The Bush Diiick and Colon Administration certainly, absolutely positively protected world peace by waging war on terror, which is not even a noun. so go figure...

Plus, Ole' Mit has already stated that provided he be president of USA, he Will attack Iran for some reason which I have no knowledge about. Maybe for the nuclear programme?

or Maybe because Iran has ballistic missiles. but So does SD Arabia, So does North Korea (with nuke hats on them), so Does Pakistan (with nuke hats and taqiyahs on them), so I don't see what an economically crippled country like Iran could pose a threat to world security (LOL), Mit's argument has a big 12inch flaw.

 

Going to war with Iran doesn't require Romney, it's just as likely to happen under Obama (just like in 2008 ~ Obama never was going to close Guantanamo nor end the Iraq war, but since he's a "progressive", people on the left almost automatically put their trust in him, just like with neocons and the right). Whoever's president, the economy cannot support all of those soldiers becoming unemployed at once. Not to mention, the U.S. is in a manner of speaking, investing in the Iranian nuclear regime (albeit maybe indirectly) through an Iranian front in Russia.

 

The soldiers won't become unemployed, they will be stationed elsewhere. We keep a standing army, unfortunately, right now, it is standing in several foreign countries..... that would like nothing better than to kill americans.

 

I am REAL curious how the invasion of Iraq made any difference in terrorism, aside from giving them this nice new training ground where they can hone their skills with live fire at american soldiers.... There are more terrorists in Iraq NOW, than there were when Saddam was in power. That one, from a 'war on terror' standpoint, backfired spectacularly. Not to mention it was a war based on lies. And Afghanistan? We went in there ostensibly to get one man. Took us better than ten years to do it. The mere fact of americans being there has been a major recruiting tool for terrorists, and is yet another excellent training ground with americans to shoot at, blow up, etc.

 

We are spending trillions supporting wars that never should have happened in the first place. Even should there be a flood of unemployed soldiers hitting the job market, the cost there pales in comparison to the millions per day we spend trying to kill folks.

 

I do agree though, that it doesn't really matter who gets elected in November. We are on the path to war with Iran. If it isn't us that starts the fire, it will be one of our allies, and we will get dragged into it by default. Just what we need. You think oil prices were bad before? Just wait until the middle east is burning. That should have a wonderful affect on our economy.....

[Ihoe]

Well said, but The Bush Diiick and Colon Administration certainly, absolutely positively protected world peace by waging war on terror, which is not even a noun. so go figure...

Plus, Ole' Mit has already stated that provided he be president of USA, he Will attack Iran for some reason which I have no knowledge about. Maybe for the nuclear programme?

or Maybe because Iran has ballistic missiles. but So does SD Arabia, So does North Korea (with nuke hats on them), so Does Pakistan (with nuke hats and taqiyahs on them), so I don't see what an economically crippled country like Iran could pose a threat to world security (LOL), Mit's argument has a big 12inch flaw.

 

Going to war with Iran doesn't require Romney, it's just as likely to happen under Obama (just like in 2008 ~ Obama never was going to close Guantanamo nor end the Iraq war, but since he's a "progressive", people on the left almost automatically put their trust in him, just like with neocons and the right). Whoever president, the economy cannot support all of those soldiers becoming unemployed at once. Not to mention, the U.S. is in a manner of speaking, investing in the Iranian nuclear regime (albeit maybe indirectly) through an Iranian front in Russia.

 

The soldiers won't become unemployed, they will be stationed elsewhere. We keep a standing army, unfortunately, right now, it is standing in several foreign countries..... that would like nothing better than to kill Americans.

 

I am REAL curious how the invasion of Iraq made any difference in terrorism, aside from giving them this nice new training ground where they can hone their skills with live fire at American soldiers.... There are more terrorists in Iraq NOW, than there were when Saddam was in power. That one, from a 'war on terror' standpoint, backfired spectacularly. Not to mention it was a war based on lies. And Afghanistan? We went in there ostensibly to get one man. Took us better than ten years to do it. The mere fact of Americans being there has been a major recruiting tool for terrorists, and is yet another excellent training ground with Americans to shoot at, blow up, etc.

 

We are spending trillions supporting wars that never should have happened in the first place. Even should there be a flood of unemployed soldiers hitting the job market, the cost there pales in comparison to the millions per day we spend trying to kill folks.

 

I do agree though, that it doesn't really matter who gets elected in November. We are on the path to war with Iran. If it isn't us that starts the fire, it will be one of our allies, and we will get dragged into it by default. Just what we need. You think oil prices were bad before? Just wait until the middle east is burning. That should have a wonderful affect on our economy.....

 

Not to mention, in the semi decisive war with Iraq cost somewhere in the range of ~$1.8+ trillion.

I also think we need a solid definition on the word terrorist, because it seems as if everybody is referring to "some people" as terrorists with extemporization.

[eodx9000]

Not to mention, in the semi decisive war with Iraq cost somewhere in the range of ~$1.8+ trillion.

I also think we need a solid definition on the word terrorist, because it seems as if everybody is referring to "some people" as terrorists with extemporization.

 

Oh the DHS had defined terrorism and terrorists since it was created. Pretty much anyone that disagrees with the government by now, the DHS can call a terrorist; even the founding fathers themselves have been called terrorists. I even know a few people who have been and are on the watch list.

 

But hey, if we were to go by the classical definition of what a terrorist is, then that'd just convict the government itself for all the terrorist acts it performs (like the TSA itself).

[Ihoe]

Oh the DHS had defined terrorism and terrorists since it was created. Pretty much anyone that disagrees with the government by now, the DHS can call a terrorist; even the founding fathers themselves have been called terrorists. I even know a few people who have been and are on the watch list.

 

But hey, if we were to go by the classical definition of what a terrorist is, then that'd just convict the government itself for all the terrorist acts it performs (like the TSA itself).

 

Well, that's quite an easy way for a government to semi legally and solidly antagonize their enemies, don't you think? Doesn't seem too different from how infidels came to be infidels by Muslim and Christian way of definition.

Edited July 6, 2012 by Ihoe

[Nintii]

I just got through watching the "Final Days of Osama Ben Laden" on National Geographic and the entire tone of his messages that the Seals recovered in which he communicated

to his cadres wherever they were ... was one of still staying relevant and in the News.

He was trying to RA RA RA his followers to get them motivated and was planning and plotting and at the same time also jealously guarding his so-called right as the big leader

of the evil terrorists the world over and also regularly dyed his beard as it was mostly grey, so that when he made videos he would still look vibrant and young.

Terrorism has suffered a major blow in the West.

 

These days they only attack those targets that don't protect themselves, the easy ones, like in Africa or holiday destinations.

I wouldn't say they're irrelevant but they are not on the cutting edge any longer.

And I'm also not saying that his ilk have disappeared but rather that they have by and large lost their ability to penetrate the US of A because of the tight security ... so as for them

attacking DC, I think the only thing that's going to go off in DC is the fallout from the Mutton curry they've just eaten on the plane as it eats through their underwear when they pass

through customs and get frisked by the eager and armed airport security.