Whos the next target?

[guy incognito]

Who do you think is next?(Terror attacks) Note you can chose more than one.

[Cue Ball]

Australia is too soft and under-prepared. Our military, though superbly trained (in fact better trained than most, and definately the best at what they do), isn't designed to deal suicide, car and point of mass population (shopping centres, etc) bombers. No military is.

History shows that attacking the British would only serve to inflame them as a nation (the Harrods blast, Lord Montbattens assassination etc) and bring two of the finest counter terrorist agencies (SAS & SBS) into FULL play.

The Russians already have hassles with the Chechyans (spelling?), so another attack would be lost in the crowd.

Africa is/was a base for training insurgents/terrorists (Libya), so why attack your own interests?

Canada's vulnerability is in direct proportion to the USA's. What's a border after all? An imaginary line. What does it stop? Not a lot unless it's supported by a thumping big wall.

The States? Well, the Iranians did call them "The Great Sataan". They have been hit before. Weapons are easier to obtain. What better way of getting straight to the heart of a matter than hitting a major player where it hurts?

In the end, we're all targets, 'cause if somone is determined to do something, there's no stopping them. You can slow them, but you can't stop them.

[guy incognito]

There have been a lot of claims lately that Aust. is perceived as a "soft" target.What do think of these claims.Airport,port security has increased greatly and we have boosted our SAS numbers as well as RBS misille batteries.
There is talk of a bureau of homeland defence also being formed.

[Cue Ball]

I do think that we should secure our borders, because although some will still no doubt get accross they will be in a limited number. Anyways i would tend to say that France is very vunerable, because they have a huge Muslim population, thats pissed because of the banning of towels. Also their culture would tend to make them a target, and they wont get the point untill they blow up the Eifell Tower, and then still probally wont get it anyway.

With regard to the French, charming people though they are, who do you think sold weapons technology to the "terrorist" nations? America gave weapons, but the technology to create them. Why attack the ones who are giving you the inside advantage? Though I have to agree, nuking the Eiffel Tower would change a few things.

[guy incognito]

Its definatley a tower but just how Eiffel it is is another question.Hey man check your private messages!

[guy incognito]

What do you think about australia's state of readyness?We live in a garrison town and have increased activity here.

[Cue Ball]

Environmental factors don't really come into consideration here. It's either hot and dry or not quite as hot and wet. The only time the poor bugger's don't train is during a cyclone (hurricane).

[jubaji]

Australia is too soft and under-prepared. Our military, though superbly trained (in fact better trained than most, and definately the best at what they do), .

What is it that they do that other nations do not?

[krys]

Anyways ironically enough after posting my earlier rant, which i will finish tomarrow, France raised their alert to high. Either they were reading my posts and actually listening to them (may have been reading but doubtful, and even more so if listening) or i just have a good grasp on the sitituation.

We are monitoring your messages hand2hand... relevant measures will be taken (jk).

According to transfer of technology this has been done by multinational companies. Everybody took part in this business, not only France, Germany....