I had a disturbing thought that an ISIS attack on US infrastructure or a population center would be a win-win (from their perspectives) for Trump and ISIS. Trump could consolidate power and establish Muslim databases and ISIS could use Trump’s response as a massive recruitment tool.
But then I thought, “Aren’t there Trump properties all around the world?” What would a newly sworn-in President Trump’s response be to a systemic attack on his properties?
My gut says that things could go really badly if something happens early—before all trust is lost in Trump.
And the answer is, yes, of course American taxpayers will pay. If a Trump property wasn’t already the last place I would ever stay in before, it certainly is now, I don’t care how many soldiers you have patrolling the perimeter or whatever they do. Those buildings are one big shiny target.
I wouldn’t be surprised; ISIS loves Trump just as Al Qaeda loved Bush IIli. Those fanatics love the Republicans in general, they have such a predictable spinal-reflex response to anything the terrorists do or say that such people can manipulate the Republicans like puppets.[/li]*
I’m going other. If he proves as bat-shit crazy in office as he did on the campaign trail, it could be less of a chance. Even ISIS types know never to provoke crazy people. Should he turn more normal as a sitting POTUS there may be a good chance that ilk would see it as a sign of weakness and go on the attack. Ask me again in six-ten months and maybe I’ve have a more firm opinion.
I think it depends on how Trump’s attitude towards security travels down the ranks, so far he’s missed 17 out of 20 security briefings, that type of leadership lends to others not caring either.
At the present time nearly every candidate for the presidency is from the very rich, more so than ever before: Romney ( $20 million income a year ) and the Clintons ( $10 million income a year ), both of whom may well be richer than Trump [ he probably uses creative accounting ] no doubt have to disperse wealth into physical assets.
These would be no less vulnerable to physical attack than his assets, and to be fair, he could probably weather losses better than Gaspard the Miser and Hetty Green II. Neither of whom seem sanguine types.
Likewise - if they are planning anything, they will go ahead with it even if Hillary had been elected.
But you can spin it any way you like.
[ul][li]ISIS attacked us because they hate Trump, because he is right about Islamic terrorism.[/li][li]ISIS attacked us because they like Trump because he is wrong about Islamic terrorism.[/li][li]ISIS didn’t attack us because they fear Trump, because he is right about Islamic terrorism.[/li][li]ISIS didn’t attack us because they don’t fear Trump, because he is wrong about Islamic terrorism.[/ul][/li]Regards,
Shodan
I would agree except for the part about his own properties. Which can now become a target when they would have been less of one before. Not completely not a target, since they are made by an American–but still less of one.
And, yes, I do think that Trump, unlike Clinton, would be more likely to react to an attack on Trump properties. Or just an attack in general, if they make it personal. Because we’ve seen that’s how Trump acts.
His way of dealing with people attacking him is to escalate. And thus, even if ISIS attacks stay the same, the response is more likely to be a problem.
That’s the main reason I was trying to convince even people who agree with him on domestic issues to not vote for him. That’s the issue where Trump can start World War III.
It doesn’t depend on the president, but it does depend on what the president does. The more we go after them (without wiping them out) the more likely they are to ry and attack us. If we let the local powers deal with the problem, they are unlikely to attack us.
The main reason it seems like the president doesn’t matter is that we’ve had pretty much the sam policy towards them (or groups like them) independent of who is in the WH.
I disagree and think this is why the likelihood has increased. The terrorist goal is to provoke people and they prefer to attack crazy people because they’re easier to provoke. I wouldn’t go as far as to call Trump crazy but I think it’s fair to say he’ll be easy to provoke.
I don’t understand. If this is an appeal to the wisdom of the masses, why didn’t that wisdom save the US from electing a crazy person? Are you saying ISIS is smarter than the US citizenry? Are you saying that if other countries elected crazy leaders it would prevent terrorist attacks even if it might cause other problems?
I don’t see how Clinton or Romney wealth compare. Trump’s wealth is heavily dependent on hotels/rental properties, etc. I think a coordinated attack killing as little as 100 people could have a significant impact on Trump.
So a Clinton response to terrorism would be similar to a Trump response?
An even bigger impact on the 100. But he is no more likely than either to permit a monetary loss to affect response, no matter what the delusions of his haters: he has lost millions before.
Possibly more violent.
This is the cold war warrior woman who was planning a no-fly policy in Syria had she gained the presidency, to remove Assad — who face it has by now pretty much won — and force Russia to the floor. Again.
Your OP asked about the risk, not the response. The response would probably be different.
But only up to a point. Some things are going to be the same no matter who is President. We would have invaded Afghanistan even if Gore had won the election. Maybe not Iraq, although Algore is on record that he thought Saddam had WMD and the idea that Iraq was trying to get nuclear and bio-weapons was generally supported by the intelligence.
An attack at a lower level than 9/11? Maybe Hillary would lob a few missiles at someone and call it good, or maybe Trump would nuke the Saudis. Or maybe it’s vice versa - Hillary was the one calling for no-fly zones in Syria, despite the risk of conflict between US and Russki planes.
Incidentally, if the president chooses to live at Trump Towers rather than the White House *, will some avoid being tenants because of increased risk from proximity or want to be tenants because of increased security…
Different partisans will hysterically exaggerate or diminish the risks depending on whether they like or dislike President Trump.
Since terrorists “only want to kill innocent people”, how could the identity of the president or the ownership of a building have anything to do with it?