US MNT and Terrorism

Yet another reason to bring Friedel as our third keeper.

 

Was the '98 plot Al Qaeda or local French? As others are correctly saying, the popularity of the WCF with the average person on the "Muslim street" is way too high to make the WCF a good target for them (barring, of course, Israeli participation). That said, there are always home-grown wackos and smaller groups that don't care about recruiting and may be looking for a big splash. In France, I'd have been far more worried about N. African-born locals upset with the French government and society's treatment of their kind. In SA, you've a large soup of people who might see benefit in striking a blow against the government (particurlarly some far right Afrikaans groups who would see the multi-racial composition of the SA WC squad as something to attack).

Needless to say, there will be a lot of security. Should Isreal qualify, their security will make ours look like Kindergarden cops.

 

Think you meant Marcus. He owns guns . . . lots of guns.

 

I'm not sure I understand...there is nothing novel here. This is not a new issue at all.

Remember back to Japan/Korea 2002? Less than a year after 9/11, there were plenty of concerns regarding terrorism and the USMNT. Germany 2006 also saw the US team receive a lot of security attention--security measures that were taken such as traveling in unmarked buses grabbed a lot of attention from the international media, but it was nothing new to our players. US State Dept seems to be involved with providing security to the team at international events. Same goes for the Olympics. SA2010 will be no different. South African officials are probably just finding what security measures need to be taken on their end, something that comes with the territory of hosting such an event. I'm sure our government has already been in communications with them for a long time, especially since they've already had the Confed Cup with us there!

 

For all you people saying "The World Cup is too popular"

Yeah. An attack against the WC itself would be unpopular. I agree.

But if some terrorist murdered some or all of our team+support squad(docs, coaches, etc.) I don't think most America-hating soccer fans would really care and the World Cup would go on.

 

I joked earlier in the thread about Friedel, but I'm not joking now.

I believe in the theory that a group of people can usually come up with a better plan than any one person -- even an expert -- can do individually. BigSoccer probably could, if we put our heads to it, devise an effective way to launch a terrorist attack against this team. It would be a harmless and hypothetical message board exercise at the beginning... until some actual terrorist was assigned to explore the possibility... and a few searches later they came across this thread.

So with this thread in particular, think before you post. We know this squad better than anyone. Let's not increase the risk that something bad could happen to them.

And yes, I'm serious. Prior to 2001, I would've considered a post such as my own to come from someone off the ranch, a lunatic alarmist. But in the current environment, and particularly heading into South Africa, I don't think so.

 

Easy- just import some of my L.A. homeboys, like the Mara Salvatrucha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

 

Please... the BigSoccer collective mind couldn't take a shit in the potty like any 4 year old, much less outwit some Navy SEALS. Hell, we can't even outthink Bob Bradley.

 

Im pretty sure Navy Seals dont go with the team, my buddy is an Agent in the State Department who is dieing to get on the security detail for the US in South Africa, which the State Department chooses. Most of the security is done by State Dept agents that work out of the embassy in whatever country the Nats are in combined with agents that travel with the team. It would be a waste of a SEALS time to do security with the National Team, they dont do security...they kill other peoples security. Now if and when we go to Iran to play a friendly it might be a different story since we dont even have an embassy there to feed us any information on would be attackers.

 

It is an unfortunate fact but every country in the world now is a target for terrorism. Every one. Different enemies to be sure, but a large scale world event like the WC will attract terrorists.

The really incredible thing is that few attacks have ever taken place -- you had Munich of course and the Atlanta bombing, but generally, there are enough police around these things to take care of matters. (What I find incredible is that the Tour de France has never been attacked).

Or maybe the world have just been lucky.

In any event, I am not too worried about terrorism in 2010. I would be more concerned about random ordinary crime.

 

Tour de France, PGA open - heck I wanna see Tiger woods carry an AK-47 not just for potential terrorists but to defend himself against the possibility of a bear mauling him.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqOCzV7bAoE"]YouTube - Bear at Golf Tournament[/ame]

There are some PGA events where hitting into the rough might actually cost you your life.

 

No Worries brothers ...

All will be fine in SA10! I trust that SA will stand up and keep the visitors safe. What's meant to be will be ...

 

Attacking the WC would be a HUGE mistake for virtually any terrorist organization for a number of reasons. Football is too well-loved, particularly among Muslim nations and among Africans (where the home-grown sort might come from). The sympathy of those they'd look for support from would not be there, it would be more for the targets, even ones like the USA that they otherwise could care less for.

Certainly no state would back that particular venture.

 

Terrorism is also a big business. Remember, Greece spend billions of dollar for the Olympic games (some argue that if it wasn't for the security concerns, the games could have profitable) by hiring companys from the likes of Israel, the US, and etc to complete the job. Same goes for South Africa. Just the scare tactic forces these host countries to spend millions of dollars, and by doing so, they try to give the impression that they are in control. So, it is big business for those countries that provide the so-called expert advice and services.

 

Why? Aren't the Olympics popular? Yet the PLO hit the Olympics. Yes, in theory it was "Black September" that was a front for Fatah. Did Arafat or Fatah have repercussions? Of course not. Arafat died piecefully in a Paris bed instead of bleeding in a gutter.

As for sympathy, there was some for the Israeli atheletes but not much. John Paul Sarte's comment was that it is "perfectly scandalous that the Munich attack should be judged by the French press and a section of public opinion as an intolerable scandal". Nice, huh?

 

There is a large disconnect when it comes to reality and fanaticism (mainly religious). PR doesn't matter. Serving Allah, God, Jesus, Lucifer, etc. is all that matters. Ruining the World Cup doesn't.

That said, with Al-Qaeda and Taliban mainly located in tribal regions of Pakistan, I ask, besides manufacturing soccer balls, what 'passion' is soccer in Pakistan. Field Hockey and Cricket, yes. Soccer? Not so much.

 

I didn't say that security ought not be vigilant. What I said was (A) that it would not be a smart move in their own best interests, and (B) that they would not get any governmental support for such a venture. Not that all terrorism necessarily needs governmental support, but it tends to be most effective when it gets it.

 

But yet, when you look at history, that is not really the case. Fatah and their Arab (and ultimately Soviet) backers received no real lasting condemnation.

 

Well, there is one other aspect to this, and that's the absolute blind hatred that a large section of the world has/had for the particular target. As much as much of the world dislikes us and our omnipresence, we're nowhere near as hated as Israel is, nor is any other target likely to be at the WC.

I agree with many here that the biggest likely security threat in 2010 will be simple, non-terror-related crime, violent or not.