Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Richard Clarke on ABC now...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Postman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:32 PM
Original message
Richard Clarke on ABC now...
Brings up the "fight them there instead of here" policy as not really working....

Was asked why this hasn't happened in the US yet....

He said London has a much larger "jihadist community", there is a large Muslim population in London that sympathizes with Al-Qaeda...there is nothing of the sort in the US.

Also said Bush needs to "harden" potential targets in the US.

(I would assume this means subways, rail, power plants, chemical plants, etc., etc.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CTD Donating Member (732 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. Did anyone just see the segment on US transit security?
They discussed the ease of attacking our transit systems. They showed from their earlier investigative reporting how unattended backpacks went unnoticed on trains. Then they showed what explosives in a single backpack would do.

To a bus.

It was obliterated. Just obliterated.

I'm sure this was unintentional on ABC's part. But, it ties in with something I have been thinking. That bus in London wasn't damaged *that* badly.

4 bombs went off in densely packed areas and only 38 were killed (with less than an additional 45 seriously wounded). That's a VERY low number of casualties.

The tricky part of this bombing was getting the explosives in place and coordinating the timing for maximum impact. They did that. Why didn't they place more powerful explosives? We know al Quida (if it was al Quida) has much stronger stuff at their disposal.

As it was, the carnage was no worse than a typical bad day in Baghdad (BTW, I believe 21 died in attacks there today). That's not to make light of the incident or of any loss of life, but the death toll is far from staggering.

When you compare the death toll to 9/11 or even the Madrid 3/11 bombings, the loss of life is very very low. Considering the circumstances (poor access in tunnels - trapped victims - high smoke inhalation risk), it should have been at least as high as Madrid.

Why was it so low? It begs the question, IMO, who was behind this and what did they seek to accomplish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gogi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Terror, that's what they're after.
A small explosion can be just as effective as a large one. I walked around an IRA carbomb in 1974 (did'nt realize it, of course!) that did'nt have a detonator, the IRA wanted to make a 'statement', bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC