Is there really legitimate cause for alarm

September 22, 2001 5:08 PM

Is there really legitimate cause for alarm that small towns in the US are unprepared for terrorist attacks? Smacks of yet another excuse for more pointless, ineffective bureuacracy, if you ask me. Which you didn't.
posted by saladin (10 comments total)

Does Osama Bin Laden even really exist?

Seriously.
posted by trioperative at 5:33 PM on September 22, 2001

Let's just say that if the casualties from any attack in a given town would include more cows, horses, or trees than people, terrorists probably won't attack that town. Thus, my hometown is safe.

Unless the terrorist is a cow... or some kind of anti-horse freak.
posted by whatnotever at 5:37 PM on September 22, 2001

Oh well. No one ever thought the Oklahoma City federal building would be bombed either. Same with the World Trade Center in 1993. It also depends on what type of small town you're talking about, doesn't it? There are important military, government and commercial sites in places of all sizes throughout the United States.
posted by raysmj at 5:40 PM on September 22, 2001

Right. I doubt Xenia, Ohio, or Bloomington, Indianna or any other small towns have anything even worth destroying. Although the US seems to think otherwise. Bombing Afganistan would mean bombing many small towns, killing all the cows, horses and chickens...oh yeah, and residents. It'd be intresting if terrorists had a legit army and came into the US to bomb Xenia, Ohio, just because they didn't know what else to do.

Kinda makes the US look like terrorists, huh?
posted by abulafia at 5:58 PM on September 22, 2001

The trouble is how do you prepare for something which by the nature of the beast is unpredictable? Is there anything that needs to be done to prepare for a terrorist attack different from preparing for the next big St. Louis earthquake or a killer pack of F5 tornados?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:36 PM on September 22, 2001

abulafia: In what way? Are you referring to Clinton's highly ineffective strike against bin Laden a couple of years ago? As of yet, the Bush war machine has yet to strike any poultry tents or sand dunes. We have no other choice but to retalliate against those responsible for the attacks of .81. Period.
Might I add that we've (U.S.) gained a considerable amount of respect around the world for not rushing in and setting the whole country of Afghanistan ablaze. I kind of expected a blundering blitzkreig within a few days of the WTC disaster, but Bush and his cabinet members have, thus far, done the right thing by plotting this thing out carefully and ensuring support from other countries, even those once considered "hostile".
posted by Jack Torrance at 6:48 PM on September 22, 2001

Bloomington, Indiana is a bad example, actually, because the Indiana Univesity library is a repository of federal documents.
posted by briank at 6:50 PM on September 22, 2001

We have no other choice but to retalliate against those responsible for the attacks of .81. Period.

I agree that the U.S. has to strike against terrorist camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere (preferably in the same judicious manner that has characterized the response to date).

However, you're not winning any rhetorical points by using the 733t nickname for 9/11.
posted by rcade at 4:54 AM on September 23, 2001

saladin?....saladin...dinner salad....IIIIII dont git it.i wanna change my name. I object to this post on slanted, half cranked whatiffy stuff by mr. Wells here. I think ......"Let's just say that if the casualties from any attack in a given town would include more cows"...first case reported in Japan yesterday of mad cow....i love it when conversation drowns the simply inferior post. in response to my contention, evidence from the movies..."get killed walking yer doggy",(pachino) Unprepared indeed sir..
posted by newnameintown at 11:28 AM on September 23, 2001