Is this a reasonable fear?


carlimac
 Share

Recommended Posts

If it's reasonable really depends on the information to which he has access, if the country's intelligence gathering organizations are picking up credible information concerning such a plan then it'd be perfectly reasonable to be concerned about such. Are they picking up such information? I haven't the foggiest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm quickly becoming LDS.net's resident pessimist, but . . . I think it's an eminently reasonable fear.

The Russians just want us to butt out--and I've got enough isolationist in me that I'm not altogether convinced we shouldn't; so I'm disinclined to blame Obama for his apparent dithering over the Crimea.

But Islamic extremists, by contrast--across a spectrum of political affiliations, and quite possibly the Iranians as well--want us dead; and there is no foreign policy we could possibly adopt that would change that.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the formula:

1.) Control the Media.

2.) Rescind the Right to Bear Arms.

3.) Stage an act of Terrorism.

4.) Declare Martial Law.

Okay okay... so I might be going into Twilight Zone. But, I can't help but think of these things when I hear news like that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His statement makes no sense. Not from an intelligence standpoint or political advantage. It makes about as much sense as fearing that Wall Street is in danger of being taken over by the homeless of Brazil because a Brazilian was caught crossing the Mexican border to the US and this was their story?

I must be very stupid but for this to come out while the president is abroad? Beam me up Scotty – there is no sign of intelligent life on this planet.

the Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<grin>

JFF ;)

Laterally, Manhattan is really the scariest place for a sitting president to lose.

By any means.

Nuke in DC?

No worries. He'll be dead. Someone else's problem at that point.

Anywhere else has advantages over NYC.

Morbid advantages, but advantages none the less.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes its a reasonable fear. But if I recall right there are still more nukes out between Russia and china than anywhere else.

If a nuke went off in the US..... Most likely its going to be Russian or Chinese. Again even going by Obama's rhetoric, its still Russia that you have to be most wary of (followed closely by china). Currently the party that would be more likely to do that would be Russia. altho right now that's very slim.

If a dirty bomb gets set off (for instance using the large radioactive materials inventory that went missing not too long ago) then the group of possible parties able to pull that off get quite a bit bigger.

Edited by Blackmarch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm quickly becoming LDS.net's resident pessimist, but . . . I think it's an eminently reasonable fear.

The Russians just want us to butt out--and I've got enough isolationist in me that I'm not altogether convinced we shouldn't; so I'm disinclined to blame Obama for his apparent dithering over the Crimea.

But Islamic extremists, by contrast--across a spectrum of political affiliations, and quite possibly the Iranians as well--want us dead; and there is no foreign policy we could possibly adopt that would change that.

Isolationist policies right now look very tempting.. however there are a lot of similarities of whats going on now and what happened when hitler started "reclaiming" the rheinland.

Unfortunately I can't really think of something that would work or end up in a peaceful outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Wikipedia, back in the cold war the Russkies had a number of suitcase nukes cached all over the world (including in the US) ready to go at a moment's notice; and it doesn't seem at all clear that these bombs were ever completely accounted for after the USSR broke up. So while I agree that a nuke deployed on American soil would probably be of Russian origin; I'm not sure that the political entity of Russia is a greater threat to the US than the terrorist elements that would seek to co-opt Russian resources to hurt Americans.

As for the Rhineland comparisons: I fully agree; but I'm not sure it's clear Hitler ever had direct designs on the territorial integrity of the US, either. We ultimately stepped in because we felt what Hitler was doing in Europe was intolerable (and because an ally of theirs attacked our fleet--ironically, because they thought America would be interventionist enough to stop its planned takeover of formerly independent nations in the Pacific Rim); and no one seriously questions that decision today. But I'm not sure Nazi Germany could accurately be labeled an existential threat to the United States, which I believe was the question underlying the OP here.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two things going on with this article. (Well, three actually).

First, The U.S. president is playing geopolitics by characterizing the Russian president as a small, meaningless bully. He's doing this, because Putin is struggling for legitimacy, and his steps in the Ukraine are an attempt to solidify political power at home, and national power with his neighbors. Of course Russia wants it's Soviet Union back, and of course they're trying their best to get it. Obama's words are merely one aspect of the U.S. response to keep it from happening.

Second, yes indeed WMD's on U.S. soil is a valid threat. In case you're missing it - he's not saying we're worried about the Russians smuggling in a nuke. He's talking about grassroots or imported terror acts, like the anthrax killings or another 9/11 incident. I suppose Russia is on the list of people we think might try, but there are plenty of organizations and countries above them on the list. They were training me and other CERT responders on WMD's at least as far back as 2009. The biggest fear is NBC stuff, because they're the most effective at spreading fear and changing things on a global scale. Good ol' fashioned explosions (like the Boston Marathon bombing) don't have much of a national impact, and almost zero international impact.

I guess the third thing Pres Obama is doing, is helping shape the next election by talking smack about Romney. That's happening because he's a politician, and he has a microphone to speak into. They all do that.

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per So while I agree that a nuke deployed on American soil would probably be of Russian origin; I'm not sure that the political entity of Russia is a greater threat to the US than the terrorist elements that would seek to co-opt Russian resources to hurt Americans.

I agree, terrorists getting their hands on a nuke (probably Russian or Chinese) would be my fear and New York City seems a logical target along with D.C. and perhaps major shipping ports (a Nuke in Houston would cripple us as a nation due to it being both a major shipping port and also the major oil refineries)

I also worry if Iran or North Korea finally makes a nuke.

Do I live my life in fear? no, but it is a possibility.

I also do not know why our elected officials think we have to be the police of the world.

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes its a reasonable fear. But if I recall right there are still more nukes out between Russia and china than anywhere else.

If a nuke went off in the US..... Most likely its going to be Russian or Chinese. Again even going by Obama's rhetoric, its still Russia that you have to be most wary of (followed closely by china). Currently the party that would be more likely to do that would be Russia. altho right now that's very slim.

If a dirty bomb gets set off (for instance using the large radioactive materials inventory that went missing not too long ago) then the group of possible parties able to pull that off get quite a bit bigger.

I was about to amend my previous post when I noticed you mention a dirty bomb. This may have been what the president meant. If so he was not smart to bring it up and to call it nuclear because it is a foolish misuse of terms. There is a way to enrich radium (which is easy to get) that could be used without a lot of people knowing - but there is problems in getting the material, storing the material, enriching the material and then transporting the material without showing up on satellite surveillance. There are problems with a dirty bomb that cannot be solved without testing and testing would be a problem.

A few years ago I contacted the FBI about what I would call a security threat. I do not want to go into details but if someone wanted to take out 20 million people in NYC there is a very easy way to do it that is next to impossible to prevent. Thankfully terrorists are rather stupid but someday they could get a little smarter.

Personally I think the solution is very simple - just announce to the nation of Islam that if Islam cannot do something about terrorism and if a significant attack is launched against otherwise peaceful citizens of the USA that we will destroy the Ka'ba in Mecca to symbolically represent All-h's disappointment in Islam allowing false emams to corrupt the true concept of jihad. To the intelligent and informed members of Islam - they will become much more concerned with the terrorist problem and if we should have to carry out such a task - it is a fundamental belief of Islam that All-h will not allow something to happen that is not acceptable to him.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was about to amend my previous post when I noticed you mention a dirty bomb. This may have been what the president meant. If so he was not smart to bring it up and to call it nuclear because it is a foolish misuse of terms. There is a way to enrich radium (which is easy to get) that could be used without a lot of people knowing - but there is problems in getting the material, storing the material, enriching the material and then transporting the material without showing up on satellite surveillance. There are problems with a dirty bomb that cannot be solved without testing and testing would be a problem.

A few years ago I contacted the FBI about what I would call a security threat. I do not want to go into details but if someone wanted to take out 20 million people in NYC there is a very easy way to do it that is next to impossible to prevent. Thankfully terrorists are rather stupid but someday they could get a little smarter.

ya. I hate dwelling on it too much.

Personally I think the solution is very simple - just announce to the nation of Islam that if Islam cannot do something about terrorism and if a significant attack is launched against otherwise peaceful citizens of the USA that we will destroy the Ka'ba in Mecca to symbolically represent All-h's disappointment in Islam allowing false emams to corrupt the true concept of jihad. To the intelligent and informed members of Islam - they will become much more concerned with the terrorist problem and if we should have to carry out such a task - it is a fundamental belief of Islam that All-h will not allow something to happen that is not acceptable to him.

The Traveler

The extremists would be quite overjoyed at such an action- it would send thousands to swell their ranks;

the problem with that last part as tempting as it may be in revenge for many atrocities commited in the name of islam is that it does a great great disservice to those who are humble followers. That would firmly put every islam follower whos on our side or whos sittin on the fence who fights against said terrorist right over to the terrorist side.

Announcing such an action would almost be as bad, while the announcement may not thoroughly drive many muslim from our side it would cause the extremists increase their efforts till sooner or later a bomb will go off of some sort, then we'd be in a fix; we have to back up our word or lose credibility (tho that's been declining anyways).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think the solution is very simple - just announce to the nation of Islam

There is no "nation of Islam." Islam is far too decentralized for such a concept to exist. The caliphate hasn't existed for hundreds of years, and perhaps never will again.

that if Islam cannot do something about terrorism

As I've posted before, because of the decentralized nature of Islam (think of how the Church would be if the highest authority was a Bishop, and all wards were run independently), Islam as a religion cannot do something collectively about terrorism. While is is the responsibility of Muslims everywhere to oppose terrorism and extremism, this battle must necessarily be fought in individual mosques and by unofficial Muslim groups (like CAIR). Because there is no unified body of believers, there's nothing to excommunicate an extremist from, and thus there is no concept of excommunication (or anything of the sort) in Islam.

and if a significant attack is launched against otherwise peaceful citizens of the USA that we will destroy the Ka'ba in Mecca to symbolically represent All-h's disappointment in Islam allowing false emams to corrupt the true concept of jihad.

Not only is that terribly insensitive, it would do more to promote anti-Americanism and extremism in Islam than a million crazy imams ever could. The Ka'ba or Mecca is not the cause of extremism in Islam: it is ignorance and illiteracy. Think about it: if you were living in Pakistan, couldn't read Arabic, your brother was killed by a drone, and your imam told you that you must fight against those that killed your brother by suicide bombing yourself, what would you think?

Edited by LittleWyvern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know of some? Do tell!

Yes. Much of it I can not comment on. Some things I am willing to talk about in face to face conversations, but am uncomfortable in discussing on a forum. Suffice it to say, our people are doing good work.

I am comfortable sharing the following. Al Qaeda and other radical jihadists hate us and want to harm us. They actively seek ways to do so. Anyone who believes our southern border is not vulnerable and also thinks radical jihadists are not aware of this are beyond foolish.

Louie Gohmert says al Qaeda has camps with drug cartels in Mexico | PolitiFact Texas

FBI admits Al Queda terrorists are crossing mexican border

I can't find the articles I wanted, but these paint the picture I am talking about.

The other thing I will say is that American police officers are unlike any other LEO's in the world. We think different, we train different, we act different. We are a much different animal than our contemporaries in other countries and our enemies know this and we are a wild card in any plans they make.

The Beslan school takeover is something that I personally believe was a trial run for the US. In case you are unfamiliar with Beslan follow these links:

Beslan school hostage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terror at Beslan by John Giduck

You want a close examination of the horror of radical jihad, read this book:

Amazon.com: Terror at Beslan: A Russian Tragedy with Lessons for America's Schools eBook: John Giduck: Kindle Store

The Terror at Beslan « School Shootings

This last one is to photos. Some of them are disturbing, so you have been forewarned:

beslan school massacre - Bing Images

If a school takeover happened like this in the US, it would not play out as it did in Russia. We will enter that school in 1's, 2's and 3's (or more), flooding the school with officers as we arrive on scene in order to neutralize the terrorists. Columbine taught us some hard lessons, but we learned and have adapted. We won't wait like Russia did, we won't even wait for SWAT to be called out. We will flood that school as fast as we can get officers on scene. It will end much quicker. It took Russia three days to attack. We won't take 3 hours. Our tactic of rapid response is well known. We may have a school takeover someday in the US, but it would end much faster, and hopefully with fewer casualties to the good guys.

I am not downing the Russian Spetsnaz who responded. They were incredibly brave and 21 of them gave their lives to try and save hundreds of hostages. They did not have Columbine to learn from. This was their Columbine and I am sure they have learned from Beslan as we did Columbine.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those saying to strike @ Islam for the actions of a few terrorists....

The direct parallel is to nuke the Vatican the next time the IRA does something.

The vast majority of Muslims are both moderate and NOT terrorists.

Just as the vast majority of Catholics are moderate and NOT terrorists.

Granted, nuking the Vatican or Mecca would have -interesting- global effects, these are not the effects one is after, I suspect. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those saying to strike @ Islam for the actions of a few terrorists....

The direct parallel is to nuke the Vatican the next time the IRA does something.

The vast majority of Muslims are both moderate and NOT terrorists.

Just as the vast majority of Catholics are moderate and NOT terrorists.

Granted, nuking the Vatican or Mecca would have -interesting- global effects, these are not the effects one is after, I suspect. ;)

I suggested destroying the Ka'ba I did not suggest a nuke anything - the Ka'ba is not that big. I suggest this because the Ka'ba is of special significance to Islam as the symbol of G-d or All-h being among and supporting Islam. If we understand the religion of Islam - there would be nothing for which to seek revenge. In essence it would be a sign that Islam is not associated with All-h or G-d. It would be the end of that religion and any reason or purpose of jihad.

The Traveler

PS. It would be similar to the way we ended WWII with Japan but on a much smaller scale of destruction. In essence it would be like forcing the emperor of Japan in WWII of admitting he was not G-d or his chosen ruler.

Edited by Traveler
added PS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden

I think it's about as reasonable fear as getting hit by a bus. Could it happen? Sure, but the likelihood of it happening is extremely small.

It doesn't mean we don't have people doing intelligence work to make sure it doesn't happen (we do), it just means it's not a reasonable fear. These are long tail events that while they do happen are extremely rare and IMO was just said by Obama for political gain, making himself look like he is concerned.

I know there are those who will never be convinced about Al-qaeda, they hate us because we're Christian, we're free, etc, etc, etc. There might be a certain segment who certainly do, but the leaders of the movement have a little bit of a different view.

From Bin-laden's mouth himself (of course those hooked on certain networks will never accept his words at face value and will make some excuse):

"Q1)Why are we fighting and opposing you?

Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

a) You attacked us in Palestine:

(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

(ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) - and we make no distinction between them.

(iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

© Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

(i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

(ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

(iii) These governments steal our Ummah's wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

(iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

(v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.

(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.

(f) You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.

(g) You have supported the Jews in their idea that Jerusalem is their eternal capital, and agreed to move your embassy there. With your help and under your protection, the Israelis are planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. Under the protection of your weapons, Sharon entered the Al-Aqsa mosque, to pollute it as a preparation to capture and destroy it.

(2) These tragedies and calamities are only a few examples of your oppression and aggression against us. It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge. Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!!

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

© Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs"

Later on he rails against America's decadence. But primarily the reason the US was attacked was from their perspective the US was 1) involved in their homeland 2) supporting Israel. It's not a war about religion, it's a war about power.

Link to comment

And this is where my brain can't quite make the connection. Why do people bring up the suggestion of destroying the holiest site of another religion? Are we back in Old Testament times?

1.6 billion people are Islamic and a percentage of the 2.2 billion Christians advocate threatening to destroy their holiest of holy? And that 1.6 billion would just say . . . . yeah that's okay with me that you destroyed it. . . .That makes absolutely 0 sense and I think reveals more about ourselves than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Playing devil's advocate, here; not saying we should actually do it:)

No; but it would convince hard-line Mormons that Mormonism isn't invincible; which would then give the other party a bit of an edge at the bargaining table.

The trick, of course, is to destroy enough of the extremists' sacred sites that it hurts them and makes them wonder if God's really on their side; but not so much that they decide they have nothing left to lose and just soldier on out of spite. I'm not sure any military power has actually hit that "sweet spot". From what I understand (gleaned back in my undergraduate days), there are those who think that the Blitz in London and the firebombing of Germany were counterproductive to the aims of their respective perpetrators because they actually steeled civilian resolve, rather than breaking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share