Terrorism as a result of action in Iraq.

The statistical likelyhood of terrorism will not, IMO, increase (as the naysayers say "the war will make 'em hate us") or decrease (as the pro-war camp says "we was about this close (holding up fingers) from Saddam making an unholy alliance with Osama ").

Bush dropped the alert from Mad Ultimate Orange to Sunshine-Happy Yellow today, so things are perfect in Pleasantville.

oh you mean foreign terrorists! i was thinking more in terms of John Ashcroft and our bill of rights.

Some would say that is an indication that the action in Iraq minimized the threat. I on the other hand believe the color code system is and always has been a crock.

If I were in Bush's shoes I'd lower the alert anyway just for the people who actualy think it's statistically significant.

I really do fear much more from the Bush administration than from external terrorism -- though it's likely we'll see some from the outside too. (Dys, you may have meant that only as a joke, but I mean it quite seriously!)

We've been asking for trouble for a long time and now, it would seem, we're positively begging for it! We also quite naively go into great detail about what areas of the country might be hit and how -- as for example recent discussion of the tremendous value to a terrorist of the Mississippi Delta and the port of New Orleans. From the idiotic color-coding to the speculations about who, how and where, I really think the government and some of its audience are so deeply into a movie-world that any smart American would be right to feel quite unprotected.

tartarin- i meant no joke. Ashcroft is the greatest threat we have in the US today. IMO

I really thought the US/UK would suffer serious terrorist attacks with the onset of the war.

Very glad to be wrong.

To the detractors of the color code system: What ideas do you have that would inform the public that the State Department or intel has uncovered threats to national security. The colors seem dumb, but I haven't heard a better idea.

If threats are made, the people have a right to know. How would you do it?

I'd do it the same way, the colors help make the futility of the gesture more apparent.

I was concerned about terrorism in the immediate wake of the war, but that is not my main concern, terrorism-wise. My main concern is what will happen down the line. I read an article in the New York Times yesterday about a graveyard in Baghdad that is burying 100+ people a day. How many did we kill? How many were civilians? How many leave young male relatives who are very, very angry at the US? How many young male Arabs have seen the pictures, heard the stories firsthand?

And, this is of particular concern, how many will turn against the US in the aftermath? How many had open minds, then when food, water, and electricity is denied them, when the US acts like a bully rather than a friend, will become angrier and angrier? What then?

I think this is avoidable, and I hope for the best. But this is all down the line -- it ain't over yet, not by a long shot.

sozobe,

At least more than 2 times the amount of deaths as 9/11. I make the comparison exclusively for one reason:

You mention the psycological effects, when noting the effect 9/11 caused on the American psyche it's relevant to note that many many times the number of people have been killed by America in the "war on terror" than were killed on 9/11.

Apples and oranges but the grieving often don't make a rational distiction.

I still rate the statistical likelyhood of terror on US soil as low.

A lot of people access the percieved increase or decrease of terror's probablity, I wonder if anyone would participate in a cold hearless, scientific experiment.

Operation Northwoods II is progressing nicely. We should be safe as long as it doesn't falter or slow down.

Craven, yeah, I respect what you're saying about statistical probablity.

I'm mostly responding to this idea of "see, the war's over, and no terrorism! So much for you guys saying that the war would increase the likelihood of terrorism." (Paraphrase.) While it is of course nearly impossible to quantify, I don't think the war decreased the likelihood of terrorism, I think it increased it, just not NOW. Not terrorist cells laying in wait, but young men who will be much more easily recruited to become terrorists.

I think the US has a chance to impact that by how they handle the aftermath, and just hope they take every chance. That's part of why the stuff about looting the museums and lack of electricity and water and food concerns me for more than just altruistic reasons.

Who are we gonna blame when a dirty bomb infects US territory?

Yes indeed => The US government and their incapable army staff.

'Looting' at Iraq nuclear sites

The UN nuclear watchdog agency has urged Washington to allow it to investigate nuclear sites in Iraq that have reportedly been looted.

Mohamed ElBaradei - head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - wrote to Washington last Wednesday to request that an investigative team be allowed into Iraq, but has not yet received a response, according to a spokeswoman.

The agency is concerned that radioactive material known to be stored at several Iraqi sites could pose health and environmental risks, and there are also fears they could be used to create a so-called "dirty bomb".

"We have been assured by the US that they would secure these facilities, but the agency finds these reports [of looting] disturbing," said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming.

She told BBC News Online that the alleged looting at the Tuwaitha site - a large, sprawling facility about 75 kilometres south of Baghdad - was of particular concern.

Two reports over the weekend gave rise to concern:

1)On Saturday, a Washington Post reporter travelling with a special US defence department team visited the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility. US soldiers at the site told him Iraqis had been "coming in by the score" for two weeks. The team found radioactive material scattered around the site.

2)Also on Saturday, a New York Times reporter with the same team visited the nearby Tuwaitha site, again finding radioactive material stored haphazardly around the site and indications that, even by Saturday, little or nothing had been done to prevent looting.

Until our inspectors return to Iraq, the US has responsibility for maintaining security at this important storage facility [Tuwaitha]
Mohamed ElBaradei on 11 April

But on Monday, a State Department spokesman played down the Washington Post report, saying that none of the material involved was suitable for making nuclear weapons.

"Coalition forces have secured the facilities that house the natural and low enriched uranium that was at those sites," the spokesman, Richard Boucher, said.

"All of this uranium would require significant processing in order to be suitable for enrichment for weapons use."

Mr Boucher said Washington was constantly in touch with IAEA on various issues, but added that "there's no decisions at this point about what role they may or may not play in terms of evaluating and monitoring."

The IAEA urgently recommended both the Baghdad and Tuwaitha facilities be given protection on 11 April.

It appears US soldiers were sent to some sites but were unwilling or unable to seal them off.

UN chemical and nuclear weapons inspectors - whose relations with the US were soured over abandoned weapons inspections in Iraq - have not so far been allowed to return to Iraq.

But the IAEA is said to have a detailed inventory of radioactive materials at several sites around the country which would help in identifying if such materials have indeed been taken.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3002169.stm

Establishing a statistical prob of future attacks is now based on the unthinkable first act. As soz said, the typical American ADD atitude is to "do something and act now with a deciesive response"
The bad guys who wish us harm, are expert in long term planning. I dont believe that anything will occur during this administration because we are stirred up and have made a short term investment in interdiction . My concern is 3, 5 and 10 years down the road. The initial pledges for agencies to share and plan jointly is already breaking down . I saw , last week that the CIA and NSA are seeking specific powers reserved for the fBI. There goes the "play nice" rule.

Having said that, Im equally concerned at the gradual erosion of civil rights as Justice Dept starts inserting "special legislation provisions" in PAtriot Act II.

The only way the threat of terrorism will cease is for the Islamic world to undergo its own Reformation and learn to accomodate its beliefs with the realities of the modern world. Think whats going to be the world situation when the oil runs out . were gonna have about 2 Billion very pissed off powerless people who will be led about by fundamentalist Mullahs.

This i found in the NY Post. Even the die hard Bush fans have questions about this looting.



Incapable or malicious? What do you prefer?