Officials Worried About Summer Attack

[Ziggurat]

If there is an attack this summer, such as subway bombings, mall bombings, or even a dirty bomb or chemical attack, what would the response of Bush be?

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran?

If the attack had Iran's fingerprints on it, quite possibly. If it's a nuclear weapon (not just a cheap dirty bomb), probably, even if Iran isn't tied to the attack (and there's a good game-theory reason for that too, BTW).

Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

You won't see a response even resembling that unless there's an actual nuclear bomb detonated. In which case, the gloves come off and it's anyone's guess what happens next.

 

[Random]

OSINT:



http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/Press_briefings/2007/070702_briefing_transcript.pdf

Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat, R.I. on the Armed Services Committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/w...169&ex=1332648000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://reed.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=269509

The explosively formed penetrator stuff has been pretty thoroughly gone over. While designing the device is complicated, once the pattern is out there, it is fairly easy to produce. Parts that could be used in EFPs were found in an Iraqi machine shop during a US raid. Even if they were produced in Iran (which is highly questionable), that does not mean they were provided to insurgents by the Iranian government. Lots of the insurgents have AK-47s, is Russia supporting the insurgents?

I don’t know enough about the Quds Force Operatives or the “training center” for the embassy attacks to make an analysis, but after Saddam’s nuclear program, biological weapons program, chemical weapon stockpiles, etc, I pretty much ignore anything that comes this administration either directly or indirectly until it has been independently verified.

This administration has lied about the freaking weather in Texas for crying out loud…

 

[Augustine]

The explosively formed penetrator stuff has been pretty thoroughly gone over. While designing the device is complicated, once the pattern is out there, it is fairly easy to produce. Parts that could be used in EFPs were found in an Iraqi machine shop during a US raid. Even if they were produced in Iran (which is highly questionable), that does not mean they were provided to insurgents by the Iranian government. Lots of the insurgents have AK-47s, is Russia supporting the insurgents?

I don’t know enough about the Quds Force Operatives or the “training center” for the embassy attacks to make an analysis, but after Saddam’s nuclear program, biological weapons program, chemical weapon stockpiles, etc, I pretty much ignore anything that comes this administration either directly or indirectly until it has been independently verified.

This administration has lied about the freaking weather in Texas for crying out loud…

This is not the administration, this is the U.S. military. The U.S. military and military intelligence community is not the administration. When Jack Reed, a Democratic Senator, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and gets high-level briefings on Iraq from military commanders and intelligence officers, can say that Iran is involved, I think we can safely say that this is not "administration lies".

This is one of the most frustrating things for many members of our armed forces. The U.S. military is NOT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION. When your soldiers tell you something, it is TRUE. ASK anyone who has served in Iraq and had access to the intel stream over there - the involvement of Iran is most definitely REAL. There is nothing political about the kidnap and murder of American soldiers.

 

[gumboot]

I don't know why Iran's involvement would surprise anyone. Just look at Iran's involvement in Lebanon and Syria. They love to meddle. Heck, unlike Iraq, Iran did actually get involved in the 9/11 Attacks, although only in a minor way.

-Gumboot

 

[Dorian Gray]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threats

So officials are worried about a summer time terrorist attack in the USA. While I am concerned about possibly loss of life, I am more concerned about how the Bush administration might use such an event to his advantage.

If there is an attack this summer, such as subway bombings, mall bombings, or even a dirty bomb or chemical attack, what would the response of Bush be?

Would he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

I'm sure it all depends on the severity of the attack, and who we end up blaiming. But I'm sure Bush has some exciting ideas of what he plans on doing once the next attack occurs.

I think the Bush administration saw the new Transformers movie and just took it too far. We have to fight the Decepticons there so we don't have to fight them here!

It's also fearmongering for the failing 'troop surge'. Or else, why would Bush be so Adam Ant about all of us waiting until September to find out if it's working as opposed to, say, watching the news?

 

[BeAChooser]

"U.S. reconnaissance spacecraft have spotted a training center in Iran that duplicates the layout of the governor's compound in Karbala, Iraq, that was attacked in January by a specialized unit that killed American and Iraqi soldiers. The U.S. believes the discovery indicates Iran was heavily involved in the attack, which relied on a fake motorcade to gain entrance to the compound. The duplicate layout in Iran allowed attackers to practice procedures to use at the Iraqi compound, the Defense Dept. believes."

If this and all the rest of the Iran links are true, then Bush didn't really mean what he said about fighting terrorism. If this and all the rest are true, then Bush should be impeached for not doing anything about it. What in the world is he waiting for ... an invitation? A nuclear Iran? And if Iran goes nuclear does anyone seriously think they will suddenly behave? What is Bush waiting for? 0% approval so the polls no longer matter?

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the Bush administration saw the new Transformers movie and just took it too far. We have to fight the Decepticons there so we don't have to fight them here!

It's also fearmongering for the failing 'troop surge'. Or else, why would Bush be so Adam Ant about all of us waiting until September to find out if it's working as opposed to, say, watching the news?

You really have your "Tin Foil Hat" on tonight...

HAAAAAAA....HAAAAAAA...

 

[Schneibster]

Mmmfff... OK. Reed is credible. Checked out his campaign financing, he's run-of-the-mill, and better'n most. Didn't like finding State Street on the list of donors, but it's only two grand, out of like several hundred thousand.

I'll admit that as a physics buff EFPs looked like one of those simple great ideas to me.

As far as the military's credibility, I find they're pretty much like anyone else: some are credible, some not so much. You gotta check. I will say that I don't apply any likelihood of bias to them any more than I do to members of the general public, other than an eagerness to apply their hammer to whatever problems come along. After all, what else do you go into the military to do? I wouldn't want people who didn't do that serving in my military. Why should I want it for my country's? But I account for it.

ETA: Not looking to make a nasty comment with that "great ideas" statement; I mean great as in a very creative use of physics, not great as in its great they're killing people with it.

 

[Corsair 115]

The US Government has to get lucky all the time. The terrorists only have to get lucky once.

But the terrorists' odds of getting lucky can go up considerably depending on the situation in place.

 

[Puppycow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/summer_terror_threatsWould he use the attack as a justification to attack Iran? Would Muslims between the ages of 17 and 45 be sent to detention camps? Would the right to be charged with a crime when detained be suspended?

Unless it's a nuclear attack we're talking about, I think this is borderline tinfoil-hat grade paranoia.

 

[aggle-rithm]

On the other hand, the 9/11 Commission report made a lot of recommendations in regards to strengthening America's defences against terrorists, and many of those recommendations still have yet to be implemented.

True -- but I was reacting mainly to the common misconception that the President of the US can somehow foresee the future, stop hurricanes, control the economy, etc., etc. Therefore, anything bad that happens to the country is his fault.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But the terrorists' odds of getting lucky can go up considerably depending on the situation in place.

I agree. Terrorists are just like hackers. They aren't going to exploit a weakness that has already been patched, they going to go after a weakness that has been ignored or that no one has thought of.

 

[aggle-rithm]

....I am more concerned about how the Bush administration might use such an event to his advantage.

This statement just jumped out at me and I feel I have to respond.

I don't see how anyone could say that Bush's heavy-handed tactics over the last few years could be interpreted as being to his advantage. How has he benefited, exactly? His approval ratings are in the toilet, his party has lost control of Congress, and even die-hard political allies are turning their backs on him.

I think that Bush has been doing what he believes is right, however misguided that belief may be. His personality is such that, once he sets his mind to something, he can not be deterred, despite negative consequences. If he really cared only about his own personal advantage (whatever that may be), then he would take a more politically shrewd stand and take actions that would NOT guarantee he will go down in history as the worst two-term president ever.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Even if they were produced in Iran (which is highly questionable), that does not mean they were provided to insurgents by the Iranian government. Lots of the insurgents have AK-47s, is Russia supporting the insurgents?

I don’t know enough about the Quds Force Operatives or the “training center” for the embassy attacks to make an analysis.

I'll go a step in this direction. The US gave considerable support to the Muj in Afghanistan in the 80's. Did Russia declare war on the US? The Soviets gave loads of weapons and material to Viet Nam in the 1960's. Did the US go to war with Russia? (Yes, slightly different contexts, but theme is similar.) The US has a Monroe Doctrine, which it appeals to now and again, regarding foreign powers interfering within the American sphere of influence, the Western Hemisphere. Would it not be reasonable to expect Iran to have a similar policy within its neighborhood, the Persian Gulf region?

Iran was playing in Syria and Lybia, of course, but they were also involved (as were some Muj) in Bosnia.

Did the US declare war on Iran over that?

I could go on, but the fact that Iran is pursuing its aims in its own neighborhood by a variety of acts is hardly a casus belli, given the conditions under which the US entered the neighborhood recently. That does not quell my irritation that they are again involved with actions that get Americans killed, but it is understandable. While I would think that a stable Iraq is good for Iran, and an early end to the turmoil there of benefit to Iran, my point of view is not necessarily valid in Teheran.

DR

 

[Augustine]

If this and all the rest of the Iran links are true, then Bush didn't really mean what he said about fighting terrorism. If this and all the rest are true, then Bush should be impeached for not doing anything about it. What in the world is he waiting for ... an invitation? A nuclear Iran? And if Iran goes nuclear does anyone seriously think they will suddenly behave? What is Bush waiting for? 0% approval so the polls no longer matter?

I think it's an oversimplification to say that because Bush is not attacking Iran, he's not serious about fighting terrorism. I think it would be an oversimplification to say that because the American people are not advocating attacking Iran, they're not serious about fighting terrorism. Similarly, I think it would be an oversimplification to say that the American military are not serious about fighting terrorism, because there is no large movement afoot within the military advocating direct military action against Iran - if anything, quite the opposite. Iran poses a very difficult problem, especially so with their nuclear program, and there are no easy solutions. However, this argument that "Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Iran" ignores current reality.

 

[Augustine]

Mmmfff... OK. Reed is credible. Checked out his campaign financing, he's run-of-the-mill, and better'n most. Didn't like finding State Street on the list of donors, but it's only two grand, out of like several hundred thousand.

I'll admit that as a physics buff EFPs looked like one of those simple great ideas to me.

As far as the military's credibility, I find they're pretty much like anyone else: some are credible, some not so much. You gotta check. I will say that I don't apply any likelihood of bias to them any more than I do to members of the general public, other than an eagerness to apply their hammer to whatever problems come along. After all, what else do you go into the military to do? I wouldn't want people who didn't do that serving in my military. Why should I want it for my country's? But I account for it.

ETA: Not looking to make a nasty comment with that "great ideas" statement; I mean great as in a very creative use of physics, not great as in its great they're killing people with it.

Just a comment on your view of the military's "eagerness to apply their hammer": this is not Dr. Strangelove, and your view that the military seeks "to apply their hammer to whatever problems come along" is so far off base it's troubling. I can't speak for other services, but in the Army, every officer, field grade and above, studies the elements of national power (DIME - Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic) as part of their professional military education. In strategic training scenarios at the schoolhouse, officers will advocate pursuing diplomatic solutions, applying economic sanctions, and using public affairs to solve realistic problems. It is far more common to see a non-military person believe that military action is a magic panacea - military personnel understand all too well the limitations of what can be accomplished through DMA, and the importance of integrating any military action (say, FDO) with the other elements of national power.

 

[brodski]

You sound like Alex Jones when you say things like that...

-Gumboot

Not really, “let it happen through negligence or incompetence” (LIHTNOI) is a legitimate theory for many terrorist attacks, where as LIHOP isn’t.

 

[Random]

This is not the administration, this is the U.S. military. The U.S. military and military intelligence community is not the administration. When Jack Reed, a Democratic Senator, who sits on the Armed Services Committee and gets high-level briefings on Iraq from military commanders and intelligence officers, can say that Iran is involved, I think we can safely say that this is not "administration lies".

This is one of the most frustrating things for many members of our armed forces. The U.S. military is NOT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION. When your soldiers tell you something, it is TRUE. ASK anyone who has served in Iraq and had access to the intel stream over there - the involvement of Iran is most definitely REAL. There is nothing political about the kidnap and murder of American soldiers.

So if Bush ordered a soldier to lie to the press, that soldier would disobey?

 

[Random]

I could go on, but the fact that Iran is pursuing its aims in its own neighborhood by a variety of acts is hardly a casus belli, given the conditions under which the US entered the neighborhood recently. That does not quell my irritation that they are again involved with actions that get Americans killed, but it is understandable. While I would think that a stable Iraq is good for Iran, and an early end to the turmoil there of benefit to Iran, my point of view is not necessarily valid in Teheran.

DR

The key point there is that the end of the turmoil in Iraq would be beneficial to Iran. With Iraq’s Shiite majority, any government that emerges from the system is almost guaranteed to be fairly sympathetic to Iran. I said in an earlier thread that this was my main problem with the idea of Iran providing weapons to the insurgents. The bulk of the insurgents are Sunnis who want to kill Shiites. It just doesn’t make any sense for them to provide weapons and training to anti-Shiite insurgents to destabilize a government that would probably be friendly to them once everyone got their act together.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think it's an oversimplification to say that because Bush is not attacking Iran, he's not serious about fighting terrorism.

If they have proof that al-Qaeda are operating freely out of Iran, using Iranian arms, and even building mockups in Iran of the facilities they will attack in Iraq, then the Bush administration has a responsibility to act on that information and stop it. If he does not, then he is not serious about winning in Iraq. Nor is he serious about defeating terrorists AND the allies of terrorists ... as he said he was going to do. That is not oversimplifying.

Similarly, I think it would be an oversimplification to say that the American military are not serious about fighting terrorism

Of course, I haven't said that. The military does what the President tells them to (as they should). The responsibility if the war in Iraq is lost because the insurgents were given a free pass in Iran and Syria rests solely at Bush's feet. Likewise, if Iranians build nuclear weapons and one of those ends up in terrorist hands, I will point my finger at Bush's failure to act when all the warning signs were present.

ran poses a very difficult problem, especially so with their nuclear program, and there are no easy solutions.

Iran is a lot more vulnerable than you seem to imagine. Iran's economy is extremely vulnerable. Shut down their oil facilities and you shut it down. It's airforce would fair no better than Iraq's did. And neither would its ground forces. But waiting is allowing Iran to acquire weapon systems that could cause immense damage to attacking forces. And of course once they actually do have nuclear weapons ...

However, this argument that "Bush is looking for an excuse to attack Iran" ignores current reality.

I agree. Bush seems to be doing everything he can to ignore the reality of the threat Iran poses now in Iraq and long term by NOT looking for an excuse to attack Iran.