NationStates Jolt Archive

What Country is next First it Was America in September 11 2001 then in Spain in March of 2004 and yesterday in London England? What Country is next you ask I think its Poland in Warsaw or Gdansk,Sopot,Gdynia.

the recently high profile cities of the Olympic bid most likely: Madrid, Paris, Moscow... they might go for Sydney or Cambera just to show they can reach anywhere

just speculation of course: i have no basis for this

Care to explain why you think that and what happened to make Poland a city and Warsaw a country?

Well, I've heard this kicked around a bit - several years ago (November 2002), Bin Laden named 5 countries on Al-Qaeda's hit-list, Spain having been added to the list later on by a branch of A-Q.

The other 5 countries listed as potential targets were:

UK
Australia
France
Italy
Canada

So far to date, terrorist actions have been perpetrated in UK, upon Australians in Bali, and in Madrid. It doesn't necessarily mean that France, Italy, or Canada will be the focus of the next terrorist action, but there's a better chance of something occurring in one of those three countries specifically named by A-Q than elsewhere.

Poland might certainly be targeted. So might any country known by A-Q to have acted in concert with US forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq. While I fully expect my nation's government, and the governments of all nations concerned, to give this threat due consideration, and to adopt preventative means to preclude terrorist actions, I will not allow unseen bogeymen to haunt my steps in my daily life.

It's the same as back in the old days of the Cold War, when we lived under the constant threat of Mutually-Assured-Destruction. I might wake up in bed, I might wake up at the edge of a crater where the downtown core used to be, or I might not wake up at all. I didn't go live in a cave then, I'm not about to start now.

So I might get blown up walking down the street, riding transit, watching a parade - wherever, whenever. I could also be crushed by a falling piano, hit by a truck, or shot in the head by an unbalanced aggressor - it doesn't really change things all that much. I accept that bad things happen, and that sometimes bad things happen to me, or to people I know.

That doesn't mean I want or feel the need to coccoon myself or my country. You pay your fare, you take your chances. Like in the old days.

I hope to god it's not Paris next, and i doubt it'll be since there is such a high concentration of Muslims in the city.

I hope to god it's not Paris next, and i doubt it'll be since there is such a high concentration of Muslims in the city.
Unlike in London?

Psov, that might just be a factor in Paris' favour. Some people feel similarly about Toronto. I couldn't say for certain whether that's any sort of guarantee, however.

*Edit: as White Hats points out, London has its' own high concentration of Muslims.

Canada? I'd doubt so. Terrorists wouldn't have anything to gain by blowing up Canadians. We're sending peacekeepers abroad, not soldiers.

France? They already get a few bombs and terrorist incidents every year, from Islamic groups. Don't you read the newspapers? Oh. Your newspapers don't talk about that, right?

Unlike in London?
Helluva lot in Southall.

I think it will be Paris or Sydney next, but then again this is just an opinion.


"Only Through Death is Life Possible"

Canada? I'd doubt so. Terrorists wouldn't have anything to gain by blowing up Canadians. We're sending peacekeepers abroad, not soldiers.

France? They already get a few bombs and terrorist incidents every year, from Islamic groups. Don't you read the newspapers? Oh. Your newspapers don't talk about that, right?

I agree with you Sarkasis, for me it's a question of whether the A-Q "hit-list" is being followed, loosely or to the letter. That could give people a better idea of whether to expect a terrorist action on their soil or not.

The more multicultural and ethnically diverse the target, the fewer tight-lipped and tacit supporters A-Q has around the world.

Hopefully the next country to experience a bunch of bombs going off within it's borders is Saudi Arabia. Hopefully those bombs will be dropped by US aircraft.

Well Dcd, I can't agree. I won't bother quoting Ghandi, but the last thing we need is a run on glass eyes.

I don't think anyone really knows, even the people who do this stuff. A-Q are not some big shadowy organisation plotting from the centre - there are lots of cells around the place in a very loose affiliation. The guys who did the Madrid bombing weren't even A - Q, they were another militant group that had been inspired by the A-Q ideals. Bin Laden does not sit in a cave somewhere planning these things - if he did it'd be a lot easier to stop them.

It's very likely that the cell that did London would have very few links to other organisations. They will be very insular, very wary of having any dealings with people outside their own little group. I suspect that one of two of them had been to Afghanistan before 9/11 but had no contact with that side of things since, or our security services would have picked them up like quite a few others in recent years.

If you can. track down a copy of an excellent series done by the BBC - "The Power of Nightmares". Very informative, it even tells you what Al Qaeda means in Arabic, something the news stations haven't bothered to in the whole 3 1/2 years since 11th September 2001.....

Canada? I'd doubt so. Terrorists wouldn't have anything to gain by blowing up Canadians. We're sending peacekeepers abroad, not soldiers.

France? They already get a few bombs and terrorist incidents every year, from Islamic groups. Don't you read the newspapers? Oh. Your newspapers don't talk about that, right?

It's true that Canadian forces aren't significantly involved in the war in Afganistan, but you may have enough exposure to put you on the hit list:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/Athena/index_e.asp


My thinking is that the greater the Moslem poulation of the country the easier an attack becomes to implement. The guerilla swimming in the sea of the people kind of thing.

My guess is that they are doing the necessary reconnaissance on multiple targets simultaneously in numerous countries. And then striking at the most beneficial target for the moment. From reading I deduce that operations take some time to plan, so the only way to extract the maximum political benefit is to have several targets available.

No way, for instance, that they could have known the Brit's would get the Olympics, but if the target were bracketed they could have chosen that time to extract more benefit for themselves. Rather than, say, a target in Poland that was also ready.

Canada? I'd doubt so. Terrorists wouldn't have anything to gain by blowing up Canadians. We're sending peacekeepers abroad, not soldiers.


What are you talking about?

We are pretty much "infidels of the west" according to the eyes of terrorists. And since we are allies with the Americans...

I think Italy might be next.
It would make sense; Berlusconi's government members have made some anti-Islam comments over the last years, and they have committed themselves into the Iraqi war despite a huge popular opposition (more than 75% of people were against). If Italy gets hit, the government WILL fall; it's pure and simple. They're already on shaky ground.


PS: France have very high security measures, especially in Paris, and has probably the best secret services in Europe. It's no surprise that they collaborate closely with the US secret agencies in many global operations. France has intercepted a lot of terrorist-wannabes over the last years, and has foiled many attempts. Now look at the British -- they're even unable to prevent people from slipping inside the queen's apartments. And a mortar round was fired (two years ago I think) on the royal family's appartments too. The latest terrorist attack will slap them hard enough, that they'll beef up their security levels. At last.

Something that we can conclude from the frequency of the attacks, is that the terrorists seem to manage to pull off one major attack in Europe every year since 2003.
In 2003 it was Istanbul, mainly British installations (Bank, Consulate)
In 2004 it was Madrid
In 2005 it was London

As for the future, no one is really safe. Turkey isn't involved in Iraq, but it is generally regarded a traitor among muslim countries. Madrid and London were obvious. These terror attacks aren't only about Iraq. It might seem that way because Spain pulled out immediatly afterwards, but Afghanistan ranks just as high, if not higher on the list.
High risk targets would most likely be thriving metropolises in nations involved Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Madrid and London suffered attacks on public transportation during rush hour. Cities with less potential victims are thus "safer", unless the large cities become so hard to attack that terrorists will go for less protected places, but honestly, an attack in Warsaw is likely to get less publicity than an attack in Rome, and next to victims, publicity is the number one goal of terror.
I'm personally afraid that the terror attack we will be likely to experience during 2006 will occur in one of the stadiums in the World Cup here in Germany.

If you can. track down a copy of an excellent series done by the BBC - "The Power of Nightmares". Very informative, it even tells you what Al Qaeda means in Arabic, something the news stations haven't bothered to in the whole 3 1/2 years since 11th September 2001.....

It means "Foundation", or "Fundament". How do I know? Perusing an Isaac Asimov website a while back, it came to my attention - when the Foundation trilogy was published for the Arab world, it was titled, 'Al-Qaeda'.

Poor Isaac. Considering one of his better quotes, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" appears more than once in the first volume, that is.

Well, I've heard this kicked around a bit - several years ago (November 2002), Bin Laden named 5 countries on Al-Qaeda's hit-list, Spain having been added to the list later on by a branch of A-Q.

The other 5 countries listed as potential targets were:

UK
Australia
France
Italy
CanadaYour list does not make sense...

i remember the Osama tapes have mentioned USA and the Coalition of the Bush-assKissers.

Canada and France are not part of that coalition.

Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Your list does not make sense...

i remember the Osama tapes have mentioned USA and the Coalition of the Bush-assKissers.

Canada and France are not part of that coalition.

Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Here's a link I found, but it's out of date and therefor does not answer the question of France and Canada - but since they have forces (as does Germany) in Afghanistan helping the US it seems likely Osama might take it personally, don't you think?. He is explicitly "calling those who support the United States "infidels and heretics."" We know what he wants to do with them, right?

"Let the transgressors know that we reserve our right in responding when and where we see appropriate against all the countries that participate in this unjust war [in Iraq] -- especially Britain, Spain, Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy," the speaker said. "Not to be excluded those Muslim countries that participate, especially the countries of the [Persian] Gulf and Kuwait."

The second message -- directed to Iraqis and Arab Muslims worldwide -- called the U.S.-led effort in Iraq "a crusader's war" and issued a rallying cry for Muslims to launch jihad operations against the United States and its allies.

"The Romans have gathered under the banner of the cross to fight the nation of the prophet Muhammad -- so take up jihad," the tape's speaker said.

"You have no reward but in jihad," the voice added, calling those who support the United States "infidels and heretics."

"Know that this war is a new crusading campaign against the Islamic world, and this is a very critical war to the nation as a whole, because it has dangerous ramifications and consequences impacting Islam and its people -- to an extent that Allah only knows."

The speaker also called on Muslims to fight those in their midst who support the building of a democratic, representative government in Iraq."

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:GFRFe1xUH_cJ:edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/20/binladen.tape/+bin+laden+countries+threatened&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Okay, here is where I believe they amy strik nex:
Moscow
Seoul
USA (again)
Rome
Paris
Tokyo
Beijing (olympics)

Canada? I'd doubt so. Terrorists wouldn't have anything to gain by blowing up Canadians. We're sending peacekeepers abroad, not soldiers.

France? They already get a few bombs and terrorist incidents every year, from Islamic groups. Don't you read the newspapers? Oh. Your newspapers don't talk about that, right?

Er, how do you think you keep the peace in a warzone? Just standing there with a gun locked in safety isn't going to do anything against a bunch of fanatics looking for blood...

What Country is next First it Was America in September 11 2001 then in Spain in March of 2004 and yesterday in London England? What Country is next you ask I think its Poland in Warsaw or Gdansk,Sopot,Gdynia.

I think considering what these attacks entail, it is very unhealthy to speculate who is going to be attacked next. Perhaps is am being superstitious but I find it distasteful ,while there are still bodies in the London Underground. What will you do if your predictions are proved right? Will you be satisfied that your predictions were proven correct?

Distasteful? This thread is pretty much asking the question on a lot of people's minds, "Are we next?" or "Who's next?" There's nothing wrong with starting a thread where people can discuss the question on their minds...

Your list does not make sense...

i remember the Osama tapes have mentioned USA and the Coalition of the Bush-assKissers.

Canada and France are not part of that coalition.

Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Yes, I do. Peruse my nonsense all you like.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2005/07/07/bombings-canada-050707.html

Here is the pertinent portion:

"The other countries on the al-Qaeda list released in November 2002 were Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Australia.

Spain later became a target because it sent troops to Iraq when U.S. President George W. Bush's administration decided to invade and topple Saddam Hussein's government. "

Blow your misplaced indignation out your backside.

Gee, no retort from Oceandrive. Guess I showed him.

*flexes muscles*

...And I owe it all to Dynamic Tension...

Who says it has to be a new country? Or only one for that matter?

I say US.

Would lay odds on Paris. But I wouldnt put them past striking at Nato HQ or at the EU HQ

AQ released a statement to the BBC i believe saying that Denmark and Italy were the next targets if they did not withdraw troops from Iraq
i'll look 4 a link to support

Quoting OceanDrive2:
Your list does not make sense...

i remember the Osama tapes have mentioned USA and the Coalition of the Bush-assKissers.

Canada and France are not part of that coalition.

Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Someone has already made a post going into detail what the translated message of the tapes were, but in regards to OceanDrive2, how can you remember what the tapes say if you haven't even heard the recordings for yourself? You don't speak Arabic, you have no clue what they say. Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Edited: "Coalition of the Bush-assKissers"? Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Well, I've heard this kicked around a bit - several years ago (November 2002), Bin Laden named 5 countries on Al-Qaeda's hit-list, Spain having been added to the list later on by a branch of A-Q.

The other 5 countries listed as potential targets were:

UK
Australia
France
Italy
CanadaYour list does not make sense...

i remember the Osama tapes have mentioned USA and the Coalition of the Bush-assKissers.

Canada and France are not part of that coalition.

Do you have a link to support your nonsense?

Yes, I do. Peruse my nonsense all you like.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2005/07/07/bombings-canada-050707.html

Here is the pertinent portion:

"The other countries on the al-Qaeda list released in November 2002 were Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and Australia.

Spain later became a target because it sent troops to Iraq when U.S. President George W. Bush's administration decided to invade and topple Saddam Hussein's government. "

Blow your misplaced indignation out your backside.Gee, no retort from OceanDrive. Guess I showed him.

*flexes muscles*

...And I owe it all to Dynamic Tension...your link is about to someone that mentions the list.

not really proof of anything...

I m looking for a link with the full transcript not an edited-out-of context transcript.

not a link to some Canadian official saying
"Canada is not immune"...
"no specific threat"...
"its possible"...
"you never know"...
"we might"...
"we could"...
"maybe" ...kind of message.

Yes Canada did send soldiers to Afghanistan...but if you read the full transcript of the Video Tapes you can see on the choice of words that the bottom line is directed to the US.(audio tapes are easy-ly faked)

we did go through all this with WisperingLegs already...since the US has asked to censure parts of the OBL video tapes...he got 2 of his Arab friends to traslate from Al-Jazeera and so far he has not got back to me with the translations...

Someone has already made a post going into detail what the translated message of the tapes were, but in regards to OceanDrive2, how can you remember what the tapes say if you haven't even heard the recordings for yourself? You don't speak Arabic, you have no clue what they say. Do you have a link to support your nonsense?
I did read the transcripts here...
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

also this is of interest:

http://www.marktaw.com/blog/ATaleofTwoOsamas.html

many sites that had the full tapes and full trancriptions are now gone.

Why? I dont know. its like a monster cyber black hole.

I should have copy-saved the pages.

Well Canada is part of the west, and we do support the US in many ways. I think Canada would be the best target. Apparently, we would be an easy target and if we got hit, the US would go absolutely MAD. They might even do some drastic thing. They've feared forever the presence of terrorism in Canada that would be able to access the states.

The perfect storm.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/article_1032179.php/Were_next_After_London_concern_in_Italy_rises
Here's the link about Italy

My money is on Italy. The only questions would be if the Italians will notice a bomb going off in the middle of Rome :D

Well Canada is part of the west, and we do support the US in many ways. I think Canada would be the best target. Apparently, we would be an easy target and if we got hit, the US would go absolutely MAD. They might even do some drastic thing. They've feared forever the presence of terrorism in Canada that would be able to access the states.
First, they would seal the border. And I mean, seal it. With extra tanks. Plane patrols. Flex tha muscles!!!
Then, the US government would patronize us. "Look there, poor Canada who won't invest in its army, invade Iraq, pay through the nose for a Missile Shield, blah blah"
Afterwards, they would blame us for what has happened to ourselves, and offer some help -- if we agree to sign a huge pile of papers giving away control on our security, ports, airports, waters, airspace, and so on.

I think Canada would be the best target...why?
and if we got hit, the US would go absolutely MAD. They might even do some drastic thing.like what?

Please look at the WWII Allies. US (2001), UK (2005), Spain (2003) (They weren't really a powerful country in WWII though). Moscow or St. Petersburg is next.

Please look at the WWII Allies. US (2001), UK (2005), Spain (2003) (They weren't really a powerful country in WWII though).
Spain was neutral in WWII; Franco was aligned with the Nazis during their civil war. Remember Guernica, which was a German-Italian bombing raid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica

Please look at the WWII Allies. US (2001), UK (2005), Spain (2003) (They weren't really a powerful country in WWII though). Moscow or St. Petersburg is next.
Russia has it's own domestic terrorist problems, i doubt AQ will go for Russia, wouldn't make much sense, or much of a statement. It would be interesting though to see Putins response if Al Queda chose them for an attack

oh and wtf? spain was neutural in world war II, and was more for Germany than for the Allies anyway

Personally, I hope it is not Australia.

There is also the danger of a nuclear device coming into play sooner or later, more likely than not within U.S. borders.

Many of you are failing to recognize that in addition to the strategic decision of who to hit for whatever political reasons, there are tactical concerns for a terrorist attack as well. Ease of access, ability to blend in, ability to obtain materials, etc. are all critical factors that influenced the choice of London for the attack on Thursday, On New York and Washington on 9/11 and Madrid on 3/11 . These factors have got to be included in any threat assessment for European cities.

While I believe Rome is definitely on the list, Athens is an extremely easy city for most to reach, being a hub for many flights into the Middle East. During the Cold War, Athens was one of the primary cities for terrorist (the pre-Al-Qaeda groups like the PIRA, INLA, Action Directe, Red Army Faction, PLO etc.) activity. So I think it ranks up there, especially given Greek friction with Turkey.

Because of Paris' high concentration of muslims, I think it has to be on the list. Aldgate and the other East London areas targeted on Thursday are in the heart of London's Islamic district. An area where it is easy for Arabs and other middle eastern ethnicities to move around without causing suspicion are areas to watch.

These three cities would be on my top three list.

B

The original poster also forgot Bali in his list.

Well, the cell that apparently bombed London said Italy and Denmark are next. So that could be one.

The US always. Airports have become too secure, but it is simply impossible to protect trains from something like this - so any of the major US cities is a candidate.

Nukes I think isn't gonna happen anytime soon. It is just too difficult to get a warhead (and they are quite big) into a country, especially with all the checks that are done these days.

France isn't that super likely, I don't think. They were against Iraq. But then again, they did have the whole headscarve thing.

It's gonna strike most places in the next few decades. I don't see any of the current tactics working, and no one considers changing them.
So it's best if everyone keeps updating their emergency services.

What Country is next First it Was America in September 11 2001 then in Spain in March of 2004 and yesterday in London England? What Country is next you ask I think its Poland in Warsaw or Gdansk,Sopot,Gdynia.


Way to totally forget Bali.....christ they gotta be white for it to count?