Difference between revisions of "Catastrophic Terrorism/1993 WTC attack"
(Created page with 'category:!articleZelikow speculates that if the 1993 bombing of the WTC had succeeded, <blockquote> <p>...the resulting horror and chaos would have excee…') |
m (+catg: quotes) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[category:!article]]Zelikow speculates that if the [[1993 WTC bombing|1993 bombing of the WTC]] had succeeded, | + | [[category:!article]][[category:quotes]]Zelikow speculates that if the [[1993 WTC bombing|1993 bombing of the WTC]] had succeeded, |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
<p>...the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it, Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unrecognized in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security...</p> | <p>...the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it, Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unrecognized in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security...</p> | ||
Revision as of 17:32, 2 February 2010
Zelikow speculates that if the 1993 bombing of the WTC had succeeded,
...the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it, Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unrecognized in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security...
Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and an after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently.
Is this quote taken out of context, or is it really as evilly gleeful as it sounds? (Also need to find out what page this is from -- sounds like an introduction.)