LONDON, Aug. 16 — The United States is the fourth most likely of 186 countries to be the target of a terrorist attack within the next 12 months, a research company based in London says in a report to be released on Monday.
"Another Sept. 11-style terrorist attack in the United States is highly likely," the report states. "Networks of militant Islamist groups are less extensive in the U.S. than they are in Western Europe, but U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has exacerbated anti-U.S. sentiment."
More than a thousand portable, heat-seeking missiles developed by the Russians and Americans are now floating around the world unaccounted for. They could be highly effective against passenger planes during takeoffs or landings if terrorists managed to launch them near airports.
Equipping the American passenger fleet with the kinds of antimissile protections now used by American military planes and some Israeli commercial flights would cost about $7 billion to $10 billion and could be accomplished quickly. Washington is now considering a plan for such protection, which includes flares, jamming devices and the scattering of metal debris as decoys, starting in 2006. That schedule should be advanced, with the added equipment phased in first on newly delivered aircraft, along with those flying the most vulnerable routes.
posted on August 17, 2003 07:31:41 AM new
I just don't agree it exacerbated
it. The threats and actions of these terrorists have been there for years...kept growing...then 9-11. Finally a President who's doing something about it.
Equipping the American passenger fleet with the kinds of antimissile protections now used by American military planes and some Israeli commercial flights would cost about $7 billion to $10 billion and could be accomplished quickly. Washington is now considering a plan for such protection, which includes flares, jamming devices and the scattering of metal debris as decoys, starting in 2006. That schedule should be advanced, with the added equipment phased in first on newly delivered aircraft, along with those flying the most vulnerable routes.
The costs can be partially subsidized by restoring the federal security tax on air travel, now temporarily suspended, at a slightly higher level. Though the prospect of rising fares does not thrill the airlines, they will be better served by a small spike in ticket prices than the downing of a commercial airliner, an event likely to throw the industry into a new tailspin.
If we had just spent a small percentage of the cost of this war on security, we would be ready for most terrorist attacks. And as an added bonus, we would have the support of the international community.
posted on August 17, 2003 08:32:20 AM newIf we had just spent a small percentage of the cost of this war on security,
Not to mention the antiquated electrical system! Sorry, just couldn't help myself since I live in Ohio and it seems we've caused the blackout.
I agree that more money needs to be spent on security. However, now there is no money. Now that the even states have been forced into bankruptcy, where is the money going to come from? Or, should I say now that we have to spend money we don't have to rebuild a country we spent money on to destory, where would the money come from?
Cheryl
Power to the people. Power to the people, right on. - John Lennon
posted on August 17, 2003 01:32:58 PM new
No matter what defensive measure ares taken, another attack sooner or later is INEVITABLE. It may be next week, or it may be 60 years in the future (Time between Pearl Harbor & WTC) But it will happen eventually. The same can be said for Bio and Nuke attacks. These weapons exist. There's very little chance that no one will EVER use one.
Actually, I predict it will be in the last month or two BEFORE to the election.
Whether you agree with him or not, GWB is doing SOMETHING to stop the terrorists.
Many, both inside & outside the US feel that the Democrats would not be so eager to attack our enemies. Therefore another attack during the election would discredit Bush and may get a "weaker" president elected.
Terrorists could see it as attacking Bush at his weakest point.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on August 17, 2003 02:29:35 PM newWhether you agree with him or not, GWB is doing SOMETHING to stop the terrorists. Many, both inside & outside the US feel that the Democrats would not be so eager to attack our enemies. Therefore another attack during the election would discredit Bush and may get a "weaker" president elected. Terrorists could see it as attacking Bush at his weakest point.
With the Iraq war, Bush has exacerbated anti-U.S sentiment, making terrorism more likely in the United States as the report to be published
tomorrow will indicate. Your inference that George Bush is a strong president is not supported by facts. Violating international law and invading
a soverign country without support is not a sign of strength. George Bush is not respected or considered credible by countries that have formerly
been our good allies. Appearing like a cowboy is a WEAK position from which to lead a country such as the United States.
Telling the truth and having moral integrity is a sign of STRENGTH.
You should also consider the fact that sometimes NOT going to war is a sign of STRENGTH.
On the economic front, turning a huge federal surplus into the largest deficit in history is not a sign of good, strong leadership.
Any one of the leading Democratic candidates will be a stronger president that George Bush.
On your last point...An honest election will defeat George Bush.
posted on August 17, 2003 02:58:35 PM new
So, in the month after 9/11, what would YOU have had the president do? What would Gore have done? MORE talk?
No. A few invasions what EXACTLY the right method. Let those people see who they are fooling with.
I'm not going to argue about the economy. It stinks. The economy takes time to catch up with the political world. 8 years of Democratic rule is taking its toll. You can't correct the economy in two years- it may take several years to clear up this mess.
And yeah he HAS told the truth. He may have been fed incorrect information by the Brits, but it was the truth as explained to him. The only fault I can see is WHY Bush won't defend himself on this.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
If you think that George Bush has strenth, you have had the proverbial wool pulled over your eyes.
Expedience (the ends justify the means) defines his philosophy and that of his administration. In his fervor to go to war, he lied and misled the American people. That, in my opinion is anti-Democracy and certainly not the kind of leader that America needs.
Helen
ed. to add name.
[ edited by Helenjw on Aug 17, 2003 03:04 PM ]
posted on August 17, 2003 03:07:19 PM new
All this could be avoided if this administartion went to the UN and Nato and got them involve in the reconstruction of Iraq.
posted on August 17, 2003 03:15:06 PM new
Helen - I know the next 5 years are going to be rough on you. All that bitching, complaining, copy and pasting. But you'll pull though it just fine.
posted on August 17, 2003 03:49:25 PM new Many, both inside & outside the US feel that the Democrats would not be so eager to attack our enemies. Therefore another attack during the election would discredit Bush and may get a "weaker" president elected
That's right, terrorists are probably praying to allah that the democrats win the White House and Congress.
posted on August 17, 2003 04:02:01 PM new If we had just spent a small percentage of the cost of this war on security, we would be ready for most terrorist attacks.
Should we put guards, metal detectors, and bomb sniffing dogs at every grocery store, movie theater, power plant, etc? Should we wear flak jackets to church?
Our only defense is to hunt down the savages and take them out.
posted on August 17, 2003 04:35:11 PM new
"The whole world is praying Bush isnt re SELECTED in 2004"
Your obvious typo notwithstanding, you may have a valid point. Much of the world would rather GWB not be re-elected.
Afghanistan
Iraq
Sudan
Libya
Etc...
Just who are we trying to please? SCREW the rest of the world. If our security means flattening the entire middle east, then lets get ON WITH IT!
You talk about Bush being a warmonger. In my mind, he's not done enough yet. Why are we pussyfooting around Pakistan anyway? Talk about supporting terrorist activity. Are we afraid of them?
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on August 17, 2003 05:38:59 PM new
"The war on terror is a sham."
You misunderstand me. I *AGREE* with this.
GWB said (approximately) "Everyone who harbors or supports terrorists will be against us." Well... Why are we not in Pakistan? How about Sudan? How about Israel?
It's a joke. We're NOT doing all we can against terrorism. We need to be doing MORE, not stopping at Iraq.
Do they hate us over there? Yep. Have they ALWAYS hated us over there? Yep. Remember, they attacked us first. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't hate us first.
And yes, there is a lot more we can be doing in this country. Not profiling because politically incorrect? puleeeze! Keeping the borders open? Foolish. If the border patrol sees someone coming over the border illegally at night, they should be authoizrd to shoot to kill.
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on August 17, 2003 06:26:59 PM new
Gosh, I dunno. Who would you guess?
You can blame the terrorist attacks on Al-Quaeda or the Taliban if you want. But if it comes right down to it, it's an Islamic thing isn't it?
Remember- they are the first to admit that it's a "holy war" against us. No amount of negotiation or discussion will EVER change that. Just look at the Israeli situation. Now I'd never claim the Israelis were saints, but there isn't enough negotiating power in the world that can solve their problems. Their neighbors want them dead, Period, end of discussion.
The Koran DOES say to eliminate the non-Muslims. Any Muslim who doesn't want us dead isn't a very good muslim. The word of Allah isn't open to negotiation.
Which obviously is unlike the Christian religious, where even a clearly admitted sinner can become a Bishop. Politics or not, religion is supposedly handed down from your God of choice.
Now I'm done with this thread, let me leave you with this parting statement:
The Muslims want us dead. They won't stop until we are dead or they are dead. Since you like to play politics, which way do you vote?
-------------------
Replay Media
Games of all kinds!
posted on August 17, 2003 06:30:01 PM new
eag. "Our only defense is to hunt down the savages and take them out."
It doesn't seem that your illustrious leader is very committed to a successful ‘hunt’.
When you consider that his 1st choice for the person to head the 9/11 inquiry was the biggest b.s. artist in US history, 'Kissinger'.
eag. "That's right, terrorists are probably praying to allah that the democrats win the White House and Congress."
That's right eag. the Jewish dominated pnac neo-cons are keen to see that belief perpetuated by you and others.
posted on August 17, 2003 06:31:42 PM new
Replaymedia,
You have several issues that you need to consider more carefully. You apparently advocate widespread war in the mid east, closing the border and shooting people that may be illegal immigrants.
Sorry, just couldn't help myself since I live in Ohio and it seems we've caused the blackout.
