Minneapolis Bridge collapse... Conspiracy?

Question

Obviously with Bush downplaying the strength and abilities of Al Qaeda right now, a terrorist attack on American soil would not be preferential to the Republican party as it would mean that their efforts and the sacrifice of many American soldiers has been completely ineffectual and just a waste of precious American lives and money. If a terrorist act were to occur right now it would not be in the best interest of Republicans to let it be known. That said, couldn't a few well placed small explosives take down a bridge, especially one that is positioned, not only on a major route, but that has also been rated 4 out of 10 by inspectors as far as it's condition is concerned. To me it seems that if terrorists were looking for an easy target that could not only create fear, but also be devastating in sense of American infrastructure and transportation, that this is as good a target as any! Why is there no mention of the possibility of terrorism? Republican cover-up?

The first couple of replies have completely missed my point. Yes the bridge was in bad need of repair, ergo easy target to bring down. Yes terrorists want their deeds to be publicized, but who controls the media that you are watching?

My god people, I float an idea... If you want to refute it then give logical counterarguments... To just say, no and to add very little onto this is not only blindly ignorant, but it is comparable to being lemmings following each other off a cliff... Enjoy your next Bridge crossing!

Bigsky_52, thank you for providing some links that show your ability to be more objective in interpreting the reality of this event. By the way most of the people answered I can see how America's "reactionary" and “emotional” approach, versus a healthy approach of maintaining a sane objective perspective, is constantly getting them into situations best classified as foreign relations nightmares. I don't actually believe in this conspiracy. I was attempting to see if Americans could think outside their country's mainstream media system and interpret this issue from a more well rounded/Global perspective. As it turns out the majority of the answers that I received do NOT show this ability.

PS, could you post your answer in the "current events" section as well so that those answerers might enjoy your more balanced perspective as well?

Also, I don't think that the possibility of this being God's doing is even nearly the same as the possibility that it could be a terrorist act.

By the way, to all you finger pointers that answered to my question claiming that this is Liberal nonsense. I'll admit that I'm no fan of Bush, bit I am NOT a Liberal! What I wrote might very well be nonsense, but if that is all that you figured out from this exercise in thought, then you completely missed the point!

No Stig, I'm saying that it might not be the right time for them to release their tape if their are additional targets that they want to hit before causing a security increase. I suppose that since no official tape has been released for the Glasgow Airport bombing that that was not terrorism either according to your weak theory? Stop being so naive and at least go through your life with your eyes open to all the possibilities!

Also, to you "no explosive sounds" people... Do you truly think that the only way to collapse a bridge is with explosives?

Answer 1

You make some good points, so considering that the majority of media that American's absorb is either CNN or FOX, I decided to go check in with Al Jazeera to see what angle they might be putting on this... http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DA9C87B9-1E21-46EC-8ACB-D59DE95FDD72.htm As you can see, even this media group, which has been heavily tied into the activities of Al Qaeda in the past, is going along with the mainstream belief that this was not terrorism and even quotes that "A spokesman for the US department of homeland security said there were 'no indications of a nexus to terrorism at this time'." So with this in mind it is unlikely that this event was terrorism. I do understand, unlike the majority of your answerers, that it is important to be balanced in ones analysis and to think of all of the possibilities. From the way you asked your question I don't even think that you necessarily "believe" in this conspiracy, you just wanted to get people to think outside the "box", in this case the box being the TV that 300 million Americans derive the majority of their news from, which anyone with a more global perspective can tell you is the most tainted and biased news service in the entire world.

Answer 2

Homeland security, local agencies, and the FBI are in fact considering terrorism. But as of right now there are no indications that it was anything other than a structural failure. Every story I've read has said that terrorism was considered as a possible cause, but given a low probability based on the facts of the situation. I suppose it's also possible that God himself struck down that bridge, but it's not very likely and is hence not getting much in the way of mention. There's no reason to create a panic when you have nothing to base it on but idle conjecture about possible motives.

Answer 3

If Dick Cheney has the potential to demolish a bridge with civilians on it, why didnt he do the clever element and demolish the headquarters of the radical left wing internet site? If there are grounds for an impeachment, a bridge collapsing isnt going to evade this. this is completely ridiculous.

Answer 4

It is possible but not probable.

If this was a terrorist attack we WOULD know about it by now.

There would be a security LOCKDOWN, just like the one after 9/11

you conspiracy nuts need to get a grip on reality

Answer 5

Terrorists generally don't do things without advertising and taking credit for it. It is funny that you say it would not be in the best interest of the Republicans to let it be known if it were a terrorist attack when I see liberals on here writing that the republicans will probably stage a terrorist attack to put fear into the American people. You can't have it both ways.

Answer 6

If terrorists had done it, they would have taken responsibility by now. It would serve no purpose to do such a thing and not have people be terrorized by it.

Are you really saying that if a terrorist organization released a video taking credit for the destruction of the bridge, the government would be able to keep it from getting out? That the media would sit on this huge story simply because the government didn't want it reported? I'm sorry, but if you really think the world works that way, then no logical argument will work with you.

Answer 7

I don't think this was an act of terror.

It was a lack of proper maintenance.

Is every event in this country involving infrastructure going to be called an act of terror?

What about the Big Dig ceiling collapse? That wasn't an act of terror, either.

There's no cover up here, period.

Answer 8

I concur with stiggo629--no terrorist group would pass up the opportunity to loudly proclaim how they had struck decisively against the United States.

No responsibility taken = no terrorist plot.

Folks at the MN Dept. of Transportation might be a little nervous, though.....

Answer 9

if it was a terrorist act, the terrorist organization would be using it as propaganda against our evil empire...

Your assertions ring hollow.

Answer 10

I luv how you libs twist everything to fit your point of view. Because it was not a terrorist attack you say it wouldn't be in the best interests of republicans if it was. However if it was reported that it was a terrorist attack you would say that "Bush's cronies planned it to keep the fear and anxiety in the hearts and minds of the American people." It was a poorly constructed bridge. Period.