Republican Convention NYC - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LaughingGravy · #1 07-19-2004, 10:51 PM

OK, now that I've got your attention, here's something I'm curious about. For the most intelligent group I've ever seen as far as internet forums, I'd like your opinions. No matter what your political leanings, especially those of you who work or live in the NYC area, what do you feel are the actual chances of bad guys doing something major before,during, or at the end of the convention? I've seen the security here first hand and I know what gets checked/doesn't/ hasn't been checked as far as packages/trucks going in and out of NYC. My thoughts are that with a little bit of planning, anything liable to cause major damage has been in the city already for months and could be set off via cell phone. There have been internet rumors of refigerators filled with nasty stuff sitting in places just waiting.
Does anyone know anything I don't to put my mind a little more at ease?

Seriously, from a bad guy standpoint (Al Qaida and the like)...you've got this line up:

http://www.2004nycgop.org/contents/goplive/primetime/

The political group taking most of the blame from the majority of the world for supporting Israel and invasion forces to the Arab world ,right or wrong, in one place, with perhaps the largest contingent of Jewish people available, will all be on a small island.

Of course I hope nothing happens with all my being, but c'mon...odds aren't good from my standpoint, 30 miles away (West,upwind). I'm in the city a only few times a month, but I travel to many places in the city as part of my job. I've seen what "security" is/isn't. Most of it is "isn't" when it comes to trucks.

I'm not saying we should live in fear every day, but this is the only time since the big day I'm definitely not going in.

Please...your thoughts?

Botnst · #2 07-19-2004, 10:54 PM

All it takes is a fanatic with a Semtex jacket to join the hit parade.

I wouldn't go to NYC unless I was a voting delegate.

Same with Boston.

Ditto Olympics.

Those Mofos want crowds of self-indulgent rich westerners.

Bot

djugurba · #3 07-19-2004, 11:03 PM

my biz partner is taking himself and the documents from his fire safe to miami during the convention. he's been a new yorker all his life and has little confidence in preventative measures.

I agree with Bot. wouldnt catch me near any of those places... although... if I happened to be with a certain high jumping cousin of a forum member... I might be otherwise inclined... so to speak...

bad kevin.

yeah, stay away.

I can't resist sharing that I feel that the likelihood of an attack is greater due to our current foreign policy. I wish we had gone after Al-Quaeda the way we went after saddam. might not be so uncertain these days.

yal · #4 07-20-2004, 01:10 AM

I liken the hype about something happening here to the one about Y2K. Someone is going to build a bomb shelter and stuff it with baked beans.

The only thing I am worried about is the damn traffiic headache this convention will cause.
The security here is pretty good. Most of it you will not be told of or shown. There is a reason the politicians picked NY. They wouldnt be safer holding this thing in any other city, even DC, despite given us the shaft with the terrorism budget.

Regardless of what I say there will be people who will be scared out of their wits, especially those that have a vivid memory of 911, and we still get a constant barrage of endless terrorism updates.

Honestly if I was a terrorist i'd blow something up in Miami with all eyes on NY.

Botnst · #5 07-20-2004, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by djugurba
my biz partner is taking himself and the documents from his fire safe to miami during the convention. he's been a new yorker all his life and has little confidence in preventative measures.

I agree with Bot. wouldnt catch me near any of those places... although... if I happened to be with a certain high jumping cousin of a forum member... I might be otherwise inclined... so to speak...

bad kevin.

yeah, stay away.

I can't resist sharing that I feel that the likelihood of an attack is greater due to our current foreign policy. I wish we had gone after Al-Quaeda the way we went after saddam. might not be so uncertain these days.

Okay, for the high jumper, yeah.

Too bad you couldn't resist the pull of politization. We did/are going after AlQuedistas. We got large numbers of worker bees, most of the 3rd tier and a lot of the second and some of the first tier. Osama is effectively neutralized and activities are uncoordinated and focused mostly on Iraq, where they are dtying by the dozens. Better Baghdad than Boston.

Botnst · #6 07-20-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yal
I liken the hype about something happening here to the one about Y2K. Someone is going to build a bomb shelter and stuff it with baked beans.

The only thing I am worried about is the damn traffiic headache this convention will cause.
The security here is pretty good. Most of it you will not be told of or shown. There is a reason the politicians picked NY. They wouldnt be safer holding this thing in any other city, even DC, despite given us the shaft with the terrorism budget.

Regardless of what I say there will be people who will be scared out of their wits, especially those that have a vivid memory of 911, and we still get a constant barrage of endless terrorism updates.

Honestly if I was a terrorist i'd blow something up in Miami with all eyes on NY.

Recall that Al Queda had a plot and the plan was underway when alert border guards on the USA side of Canada busted some guys? That was great police work, but the policework came from hieghten alert from intelligence services. I think they were aiming for LAX, right?

Old300D · #7 07-20-2004, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Better Baghdad than Boston.

After all the discussions here, this just seems bizarre. Somehow, taking out Baghdad has averted a strike in Boston? I agree with you Bot about staying away from the conventions, but why? One one hand you seem to be implying they are dangerous places because of terrorist strikes, and yet, because we took out Iraq, they are safer places. Can you reconcile this, or is it an inherent contradiction that cannot be explained?

LaughingGravy · #8 07-20-2004, 10:41 AM

I think what Bot is trying to say is that by us taking out as much of the terrorist network as we have, most of their activities have been isolated to Iraq, trying to get the infidels out, where we can't tell who's who as easily, where most of their training has been, in the Arab countries. Compare that to here, where we're doing more in the way of bugging phones, etc. It's more difficult here. Though, in my opinion, it's still an easy thing with a little forethought and planning with our easy access to all kinds of gadgets here.

Bot, if I'm out of line, please advise.

Botnst · #9 07-20-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LaughingGravy
I think what Bot is trying to say is that by us taking out as much of the terrorist network as we have, most of their activities have been isolated to Iraq, trying to get the infidels out, where we can't tell who's who as easily, where most of their training has been, in the Arab countries. Compare that to here, where we're doing more in the way of bugging phones, etc. It's more difficult here. Though, in my opinion, it's still an easy thing with a little forethought and planning with our easy access to all kinds of gadgets here.

Bot, if I'm out of line, please advise.

Like he said much better than I.

Flash Gordon · #10 07-20-2004, 04:59 PM

A couple of interesting observations. I heard over the radio some time back that many high-end hookers, both domestic and overseas will descend on the Big Apple to cash in on the big event. I think there will be some scandals in the papers!

In addition, the event will cause commuters much inconvenience due to the added security checks and cancelled trains for people in Long Island and New Jersey.

#11 07-20-2004, 06:23 PM

If I went to the Republican convention again (which I never will) I'd stash Potassium Iodide in a compartment hidden inside my bible.

I've never seen more short sleeves and ties in my entire life.

I've been to the democratic convention as well and it was MUCH more fun

moparmike · #12 07-20-2004, 09:48 PM

If I did go, I would keep a fast chopper and an SR-71 on standby at all times to GTFOOD should something happen. And damn the gun laws too. If I were to go.

djugurba · #13 07-21-2004, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LaughingGravy
I think what Bot is trying to say is that by us taking out as much of the terrorist network as we have, most of their activities have been isolated to Iraq, trying to get the infidels out, where we can't tell who's who as easily, where most of their training has been, in the Arab countries. Compare that to here, where we're doing more in the way of bugging phones, etc. It's more difficult here. Though, in my opinion, it's still an easy thing with a little forethought and planning with our easy access to all kinds of gadgets here.

Bot, if I'm out of line, please advise.

However, if we'd have pursued the actual criminal Osama with the fervor of our assault on Saddam, the diminished capacity would be complete. no insurgents limiting their focus to iraq. Our Iraqi endeavors have also raised the ire of those who would have been happy to have us get Osama and go home. Can you imagine spending the money we've spent on Iraq on intel and ops to scour the planet for Al Quaeda? we'd know what every last one of them took in their coffee, and we'd know where each of them died.

The point about it being a rather easy thing with a little forethought is just too accurate. Shamefully, we've not been focused on finding those with the means and motivation to pull off such stunts.

Like roaches, if you see one, you know there are hundreds. But, there are exterminators who can find them all. cheap bug spray only gets the ones you see.

KirkVining · #14 07-21-2004, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LaughingGravy
I think what Bot is trying to say is that by us taking out as much of the terrorist network as we have, most of their activities have been isolated to Iraq, trying to get the infidels out, where we can't tell who's who as easily, where most of their training has been, in the Arab countries. Compare that to here, where we're doing more in the way of bugging phones, etc. It's more difficult here. Though, in my opinion, it's still an easy thing with a little forethought and planning with our easy access to all kinds of gadgets here.

Bot, if I'm out of line, please advise.

Oh, yeah, they're all in Iraq. There's no resurgence of the Taliban in Afganistan, nobody's getting blown up in Spain or Saudi Arabia, those guys arrested in Bahrain didn't exist, and the U.S Army Intelligence report putting al-queda's world-wide strength at 18,000 people, they were just kidding. And Osama roaming around free in Pakistan, just some story the democrats made up. Yes, yes, invading Iraq has ended the al-Queda threat. Here guy's This One's for You! :

Here's the real truth, curtesy of the US Army: Hardly anyone they are fighting are "al-Queda" - thats as trumped up as this bull$hit war. We are fighting indigenous insurgents, people we would not be fighting if we hadn't invaded. Meanwhile, thousands of Al-queda ion Afganistan escaped into Pakistan because we did not have enough troops there. We let them go, we did not chase them, and who the hell knows where they are now, never mind what they might be doing. All this worked out that way because our president did not want to commit the number of troops required to catch him in Afganistan because he was already planning to send them to Iraq, even before he was sworn into office. He violated his oath to preserve and protect the United States so he could prosecute an unnecessary war, purposefully not dealing with the al-Queda network in Pakistan so he could have his war in Iraq , and some day we are going to pay for it.

Instead of Koolaid, try a little truth for a change -even tho its harder for some here to swallow:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040709_186.html

This fiction that somehow the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror has addled y'alls judgement. How about a few logical answers to a few little simple logical questions?

If most of our troops are tied down fighting Iraqi insurgents who were peaceful goat farmers before we arrived in Iraq how are they "fighting terrorists"?

If no one is fighting al-Queda in Pakistan, then how, pray tell, are we fighting a "War on Terror" ?

If the terrorists all got away in Afganistan:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

what makes you think these same people are in Iraq, when even the US Army says they ain't? And if they ain't in Iraq where the fu*k are they ? Never in the history of this country have so many people put blinders on so they could follow a leader with his head so clearly up his ass. If we sent 200,000 troops to Afganistan, where we had NATO and UN support, chased him in to Pakistan if necessary, killed every last one of those Sons of *****es, we would not be discussing this now, and Georgie would be floating to re-election. Ask yourself - why wasn't this done? Why are we sitting here in fear and dread hoping one of our citys isn't attacked with Soviet poison gas from the caves of Afganistan or a uranium weapon coutesy of Pakistani intelligence? Why was this threat not eliminated - a freaking bunch of *******s who lives in caves, ignored so 200,000 men could occupy Iraq, 200,000 men whose main job is to stand around waiting to get shot or blown up by a damned goat farmer?

LaughingGravy · #15 07-21-2004, 09:30 AM

I didn't mean at all to minimize all the other crap that's been going on outside of Iraq.
I agree that Al Quaida/Osama everywhere should have been the first highest priority, to commit our folks to that which would prevent harm to us.
I've run into many usually die-hard republicans, which aren't fond of Kerry, but ttheir priority is to get W outta here, for committing way too much to the Iraq cause and not to the real terrorist threat.
Maybe this will hijack my own thread...has anyone heard Kerry's position on the war on terror? It would be nice if he had a change in our war priority from Iraq to real terrorism that affects us as part of his platform. Bring our troops home to protect our own borders. What's the latest figure on what Iraq is costing us daily? Better to spend that on military here for our own protection patroling the borders, if you're going to spend that much. Leave the Iraqi sheep herders alone to fight their own civil war. Yes, it could be argued very easily that we started their civil war by taking out Saddam and leaving the country to be run by fighting tribes, however, weren't most of them grateful at first that we got Saddam removed from power?
I think their response at first was akin to "Thanks! We appreciate that you got Saddam out, now GTFO." We should have done just that and focus the rest of our efforts on killing all the terrorists from Saudi Arabia, etc. ( Don't get me started..) meaning to do harm to us here.