What do you guys think the next "terror" attack will be?

So what do you guys think about the latest terror 'warnings' and where do think they are "really" coming from? Am I the only one that thinks Bush's comment "I'm not worried about Osama Bin Laden" disturbing? Maybe bush is not worried about Bin Laden because he's still a CIA asset to be used further? I mean,, the Bush family is majorly in BED with the saudi royal family who is still probably more connected with Bin Laden than most morons would think. (The saudis also set gas prices by the way, I don't care what anyone thinks, do your homework on that one) Don't forget the executive order that Bush signed to get the FBI and other folks off the bin laden familys a@#. Disturbing to say the least.

I know it's been awhile but heres a place to start.. Why didn't this get more attention? Man.. people are NUMB.

www.upi.com...

I mean bin laden has been threatening us with nuclear WMD for some time.. and Bush says this?! OMG people wake up.

Tons of other links but you guys get the gist. What do you all think? As far as I'm concerned WW III started on 911 and its all down hill from here, ALOT faster that you folks might think. I really feel deep down in my gut that the "next major conflagration" is being engineered by elitists despotic demon puppets in places you would NOT believe. All the elites have there special places all lined up (Underground and otherwise) to be safe while a 3rd of mankind is wiped off the face of the earth.. I feel the next "terror attack" will be nuclear. Look at this:

news.baou.com...

What better way to start a world wide conflagration than this. Geez.. Things are SCARY. The writing is on the wall.. Do you guys see it? I hope so.




[edit on 14-9-2005 by TxSecret]

Italy perhaps? If one were to occurr in the US, my guess would be West Cost- Cali somewhere.

I often wonder why terrorists haven't gone "biological" yet. Is it solely an issue of lack of bio-resources? I'm sure the Red mafia could help them out there.

Peace

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Serum39]

Martha Stewart's Apprentice show?

Martha Stewart!!? hehe

Maybe she's the antichrist.. (kidding)

I'll give her one thing, shes got some tanacity.

Speaking strictly in a strategic military sense I always wondered why NY or LA? I understand the economic implications and the shock value of massive collateral damage. But imagine this, suppose the US Congress is in section, with Cheney chairing the Senate, Bush is in the West Wing, all the Cabinet members are milling around doing what cabinet members do and over at the Pentagon life goes on as usual with the Joint Chiefs being joint chiefs and the Supreme Court is being, well....supreme then .....BOOM!
A well placed nuke or two just took out all of DC. No warning no time to hussle all the government officals off to safety. You think there was kaos and havoc after Katrina! Kinda makes you wonder, especially when the Terrorist always like to come out with these tapes saying we are going to bomb here and we are going to bomb there. Then we secure that area and then we secure this area. I quess what I am saying is that I think that the next attack will not be where they say it will be. What a novel idea that would be.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Yorga]

I think it depends on how much impact they want the "attack" ti have---if Bush's poll numbers keep dropping, they are going to need something very big and spectacular to boost him back up, and a big "terror" attack would be just the ticket. I would guess someplace coastal and heavily populated, and since New York has already been hit, I am guessing LA or the Bay Area could be next. If Bush's numbers in the polls stabilize but they want a little boost to make him openly install himself as military dictator, then a heartland city would be a safe choice, something that really hits home with the "red state" folks, so in that case Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, or Nashville would be likely targets. Maybe they could just do us all a favor and hit Branson, Missouri.
---Ryan

Major earthquake in California.

"Not a terror attack" you say?

Perhaps not perpetrated by Arab "terrorists" but I don't really believe any of the other events have been, either. You might consider reading this thread.

After nearly a year of falling approval ratings, and after a brief period of Bush shying away from saying "War on Terrorism" in favor of "struggle against violent extremism" I'm now starting to see articles about his sudden shift in focus towards Katrina. Also notice that Katrina is probably going to cost more than war...so natural disasters can apparantly be result in more lucrative contracts being awarded to companies like Haliburton.

So...I expect we shall see less manmade disasters and more "natural" disasters. Why an earthquake in California? Simple.

They've already announced it.

From: www.chron.com...

...the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country.

The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City.

Two of the three disasters FEMA foretold have happened. Why not the third as well?

Originally posted by Yorga
Speaking strictly in a strategic military sense I always wondered why NY or LA? I understand the economic implications and the shock value of massive collateral damage. But imagine this, suppose the US Congress is in section, with Cheney chairing the Senate, Bush is in the West Wing, all the Cabinet members are milling around doing what cabinet members do and over at the Pentagon life goes on as usual with the Joint Chiefs being joint chiefs and the Supreme Court is being, well....supreme then .....BOOM!
A well placed nuke or two just took out all of DC. No warning no time to hussle all the government officals off to safety. You think there was kaos and havoc after Katrina! Kinda makes you wonder, especially when the Terrorist always like to come out with these tapes saying we are going to bomb here and we are going to bomb there. Then we secure that area and then we secure this area. I quess what I am saying is that I think that the next attack will not be where they say it will be. What a novel idea that would be.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Yorga]

Ever hear the old joke about the sniper that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. The one soldier who was geting tired of being shot at told his sargent that he was going to set a trap and kill the sniper. The sargent told him no that if he killed the sniper the enemy might replace him with someone who could shoot.

It is king of like that. If the terrorists were to wipe out Washington DC and most of the government, what would stand in the way of us from starting to fight the war on terror right? In a way Washington DC is one of the terrorist's best allies. We can't agree on enough things to do the job right, remove the seat of all the politics, we might become effective. It is the same with Katrina.

I have read on many forums that CIA is planning new terror strikes world wide to get more allies: I give you the basic outline:


There will be many small CIA designed "terror" attacks, followed by manufactured "videos" claiming responsibility.

These are designed to get the public ready for something big.

When the people are really pissed off and screaming for revenge, it wil be time for US army to act.

THEY gonna do something major. Blame it on Iran or Syria. Send in the troops. Take over the oil.

Iran and Syria are now the only two countries left that still defy United States.

We all know that so far WMD has not been used to plot a terror attack. Now the CIA, and its backers, will use a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons on their own citizens.

Remember Pentagon said that it is now officially preparing to drop nukes on Tehran or Damascus. Everyone know its all about oil. Fighting Al Qaeda is just a smoke screen.

They need Bin Laden and his crew to keep the war going. War is big money. Many people get rich.

THEY are up to something big. Major US or European city is going to be sacrificed to make sure that France Germany and Russia approve of the invasion of the next target - Iran or Syria. Both countires are complete pain in the ass for the US. Both hate Israel and want to see its destruction.

Possibly China is going to get it too. Large terror attack in China or Japan would certainly get them to come along and give full cooperation. So far China is not listening to President Bush. China is still doing business with Iran Syria. This makes President Bush very very very angry. How do you make the Chinese listen? Bomb them and say: look those terrorist did it.

Will the Chinese buy it ? Will France and Germany fall for the plot ? Will Britain buy for it ?

Who can be so evil to do this to their own friends !!

Somebody in those countires is gonna figure it out and break ranks.




[edit on 16-9-2005 by mr conspiracy]

I'm kinda torn on responding to this; I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but at the same time I'd like to share my opinion as well. Being the selfish little bugger I am, of course, I'll put my concerns aside and take the chance that I actually have an idea worth stealing

I think the next potential attack(s) would be entirely dependant on the motives of the organization, and I see two potential motives that really stand out. One is a purely militaristic attack, where the organization is truly trying to set up an invasion or otherwise debilitate the victim nation's response abilities. The other motive I see is a purely terroristic attack, where the organization is just trying to instill fear in the populous without any further (immediate) agenda.

In a militaristic scenario, I honestly don't think that attacking a single city--even Washington DC or London--would be the best action, and I would imagine that the organizations have seen that as well. Even taking out the nation's administration would only disrupt matters for a few days until there was some semblance of organization. In the mean time, the nation would be on highest alert status, and with a nation that has a reasonably sized military, all bets would be off at the slightest sign of rebellion or invasion.

Most likely, in the militaristic scenario, the attack would be something akin to 9/11 but on a much wider scale. A concerted series of weakening attacks across the nation, affecting various aspects of infrastructure such as highways, power plants, water supplies, etc., would cripple the nation. Federal response would be spread extremely thin, and at least in the US most local authority would probably be undermined as the federal government tries to instill a sense of control. The attacks would probably also focus somewhat on major downtown and metropolitan centers in an attempt to create mass confusion among the populous, thereby postponing any vigilante reaction until it's too late.

In a strictly terroristic attack, the idea of a widely concerted effort is greatly reduced. It would most likely come in the form of several, almost unrelated events similar to the 7/7 bombings, or the '93 WTC bombing, and spread out over the course of months or years. Most likely the organization would wait until everyone is secure, not only to increase their chances of success but also to have the most dramatic affect. They may take advantage of a natural disaster as well, when everyone is focused on helping out the victims--think about it, how bad would it have been if a truck load of explosives went through the doors of the Superdome or a small plane crashed through the roof of the NO Convention Center in the days after Katrina?

One thing that wouldn't surprise me is if the next terroristic attack hits a small town instead of a large city. If I remember correctly, large cities account for a relatively small percentage of the American population for example, and yet these have been the targets of the majority of attacks around the world. A bomb going off in New York is more news-worthy than if it were to go off in Podunk Iowa, but it also distances the majority of the population from the event. Many people end up with a sense of security, thinking "I live in a small town, nothing's going to happen here." A terrorist attack in AnyTown USA would throw that idea out the window, and many more people would feel the effects of it.

QUOTE: "I often wonder why terrorists haven't gone "biological" yet."

MY RESPONSE: How do you know they haven't, hmm?

Also put the word terrorists in quotes like this: "terrorists". Meaning so-called terrorists, or acts blamed on terrorists.

Get it?

Food for thought...now digest it...

Man I love these forums!!!

Who really believe that 19 bumb Arabs holding box cutters as weapons carried out the worst terrorist atrocity in the United States

Arabs are too dumb to achieve something as complex as 9/11.

All they can really do is plant a bomb on a Jewish school bus, or take children hostages in a Russian school.

--

I couldn't really guess what it will be. Unless somebody at Bushco breaks rank (which I doubt), we'll just have to wait and see...

This thread is getting really interesting. So let's see---Halliburton makes even more from the "reconstruction" of "natural disasters" than they do from defense contracts---and we all know phony terror attacks are good for their business as well---so basically "hurricanes," or "teeorism," or maybe even some new "threat" we have yet to imagine (alien invasion?)---it pays to keep an open mind---and two open eyes--- to find out who the real responsible party is. One doesn't want to get too paranoid, but I think it is healthy to be skeptical of just about everything.
---Ryan

[edit on 16-9-2005 by RyanC]

The trend of terror atacks to strike large cities just goes to show how little the terrorist understand us. They put more of an emphasis on striking what they believe to be the so called "upper classes". If they really understood us there would be a series of attacks in small towns. Ever see the old Chuck Norris movie "Invasion USA"? The system of attacks shown in the movie would prove to be extremly effective. A couple of carbombs driven into a few Walmarts on a Saturday afternoon would totaly wreak havoc on the US.

The original poster's second source talks about an attack on Iran during the month of August, before Congress returns from break on September 4th. Oddly enough, he posted this on the 14th of September. The time has come and gone, and once again the liberal conspiracy theorists and fear-mongers have been proven wrong. That's not to say an attack on Iran will never happen, but all of the alleged "inside information" and blatant warning signs pertaining to a "Guns of August" nuclear launch against Iranian targets was absurd.

No matter what your opinion of the current administration, I sincerely doubt that they are so dumb as to launch NUCLEAR weapons on "hundreds of Iranian targets" after an attack on the United States which has absolutely no connections to Iran. We're not about to start World War III and be on the receiving end of nuclear weapons launched by the Russians or the Chinese. No matter how insane the author of that article wants to claim Dick Cheney has gotten, he is completely discounting all of the measures and layers of people who would put their collective feet down if Cheney petitioned for, or ordered, an unprovoked NUCLEAR attack on Iran.

Anyway, if I was going to make those kinds of assertions I certainly wouldn't use an article that has already been proven to be untrue as my source. But to answer the question in the title, I think the next terrorist attack will be some sort of "dirty bomb" attack. I still don't buy the theories that al Qaida is in posession of full-fledged, and functioning, nuclear weapons. If they are, and if they use them, may God help us all. And may God continue to bless the United States of America!

Point well taken Rasputin, but I was focusing on the Stratcom issue... Not "guns in august"

www.antiwar.com...

I personally would guess a repeat of the bus-bombings that occured in the UK earlier this summer. Or some dumbass will succeed at waxing DNS servers worldwide and kind of cripple the internet, which would probably be classified as a terrorist action.

with the nfl season going, 100000fan packed college football stadiums filling up, the mlb postseason approaching i believe any near future attack would b directed those ways, at least to my evil mind those seem like easy targets for mass murder.

I think that the next wave of terrorist atacks will come about in our food supplies in order for them to kill as many as they can. They already know that they Dept.H/S is scouring the ports around the world for types of "dirty bombs" and the likes so the next logical step for them is to infect our food sources. I think they will be affected by some typ of Bacterial or Viral pathogen. Not saying I would, if I wanted to ensure the max. effect for the dollar it would be the food source. It would start off with just a few complaining and then some going to their doctors. By the time it takes the doctors to get their berings, the terrorists would have accomplished to do as they set out to do IMHO.