[osiris]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070711/..._terror_threat

I couldn't help but LMAO at this headline, simply because I don't believe it.

All these years, all these dollars, all these deaths, and all of the bush administration's claims that Al Qaida has been squelched and/or moved to Iraq have been complete BS IMO.

Any thoughts? Do you believe this headline? Could it be possible after spending 12 billion a month?

Discuss, and have fun kids.

[Dakarʒ]

Here's the problem: Even if it were true, the administration would never tell us.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Here's the problem: Even if it were true, the administration would never tell us.

Wouldn't it be to their advantage to tell us - as a means to get more money/support to their cause? (Bush's, that is)

[Dakarʒ]

Overall it'd still bean admission of failure. The first question asked would be why should we give them more time and money when 5 years have brought us back to square one.

[Dakarʒ]

I wonder how much this has to do with what seems like out neglect of Afghanistan. (Assuming its true)

[peeb]

The US went into Afghanistan with broad international support. They could have focussed there, and done the job (destroyed a genuinely dangerous movement, helped rebuild a troubled nation, made the region safer) instead, they got distracted by settling a score with one of Daddy's rivals, and the wheels came off the whole project.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Wouldn't it be to their advantage to tell us - as a means to get more money/support to their cause? (Bush's, that is)

Maybe, but it might also lose them support by showing that what they're doing now just isn't working.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Overall it'd still bean admission of failure. The first question asked would be why should we give them more time and money when 5 years have brought us back to square one.

I agree, but the article is attempting to spin this as a means to gain more support for the president's invasion.

I wonder how bush supporters feel about the article.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The US went into Afghanistan with broad international support. They could have focussed there, and done the job (destroyed a genuinely dangerous movement, helped rebuild a troubled nation, made the region safer) instead, they got distracted by settling a score with one of Daddy's rivals, and the wheels came off the whole project.

Yeah, they totally ****ed that up. I was ready to enlist and go to Afghanistan, but I'm not touching the military with a 10 foot cruise missile now.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I wonder how much this has to do with what seems like out neglect of Afghanistan. (Assuming its true)

as an aside; I doubt we have neglected anything in Afghanistan - considering the increase in Opium production since we've landed there. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...eut/index.html

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I wonder how bush supporters feel about the article.

I wonder how many war supporters will believe it.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I wonder how many war supporters will believe it.

Indeed, but it could be an epiphany.

[OldManMac]

More scare tactics, probably from Chertoff's "gut feelings." You have to give the Bush administration credit for chutzpah, though. They never give up trying to scare the American people, even after most Americans realize they've been bamboozled.

[olePigeon]

Probably scare tactics and fluff to draw attention away from the failing Iraq policy, Libby's commuted sentence, and the firing of the attorneys.

At least, that's what my guy is telling me.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I wonder how much this has to do with what seems like out neglect of Afghanistan. (Assuming its true)

that and pakistan. that is where they seem to be rebuilding their strength. mushareff doesn't seem to be helping us out much (even with all those f-16's we gave him) on this fight - too much domestic pressures for him, and the fact that everybody is trying to take his life.

if we lose mushareff, we lose fly-over privileges and afghanistan becomes isolated. i'm sure china and iran don't want us and nato freely using their airspace.

[Rumor]

If Al-Queida is along the Afganistan/Pakistan border and it is known, then why is our military in Iraq?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

If Al-Queida is along the Afganistan/Pakistan border and it is known, then why is our military in Iraq?

I guess it's where all the "evil-doers" are.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

If Al-Queida is along the Afganistan/Pakistan border and it is known, then why is our military in Iraq?

Erm? Not much oil in Afghanistan?

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The US went into Afghanistan with broad international support. They could have focussed there, and done the job (destroyed a genuinely dangerous movement, helped rebuild a troubled nation, made the region safer)...

Dude, that stuff is for faggots. Following a consistent and coherent path with your allies? Bah.
Who wants to hunt down the No.1 terrorist symbol, when you can democratersize whole countries?!

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02


PB.

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Here's the problem: Even if it were true, the administration would never tell us.

Wow. I have a question for you, why does it matter what the Bush administration has to say on this topic? You know that there's a 99% chance that whatever they have to say about it is going to be complete BS, even if they honestly believe it, just like the "we must invade Iraq, it has WMDs", and "Mission accomplished" statements.

It seems to me that the sources cited in the article are far more credible, you know, they actually deal with the issues first hand, the White House just relays the news after severely distorting it.

[ThinkInsane]

I don't think this report is unbelievable at all. Just from following the news reports, it seems that Al Qaida has changed it's operation, basically franchising local groups and cells and bringing them under the "Al Qaida umbrella". They may have taken a hit to their operational structure, but it seems they've found a new way of doing business by outsourcing.

It's actually pretty smart on their part, and that adaptability is kind of scary. If they staunchly stayed with their original operational model, it would make it easier to break the organization as a whole (not that I think or thought that we were going about breaking the original network in any kind of effective manner- my solution probably would have made even the non-PC types cringe. But I have a low tolerance for bull****, poor impulse control and an unshakable belief that Friar William of Ockham's beautiful razor theory is the be all and end all. In short; I'm a very practical man. But I digress...). Now we're looking at network of affiliated groups receiving training, financial and/or logistical support from a core group, while being able to operate independently from the core group. Honestly, I think this operational model has the potential to be far more dangerous than what we've dealt with previously. I hope that's not the case.

Anyway, I think a serious change of tactics is needed, as all we've really accomplished thus far is restructuring the most ambitious terrorist organization out there, while simultaneously setting our own population at each others throats as to how things have/are/will be handled. I really and truly hope whoever ends up in the Whitehouse next has some brilliant and workable ideas. Unfortunately, from what I've read about our illustrious candidates, I'm not gonna be holding my breath on that one.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

If Al-Queida is along the Afganistan/Pakistan border and it is known, then why is our military in Iraq?

Divide and conquer. If the tourist insurgents are going to Iraq, they can't be going to Afghanistan. Spreads 'em thin.

Which is why AQ is opting for a bit of outsourcing.

[itistoday]

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

[tie]

Of course Doofy, you don't realize that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia consists mostly of Iraqis and didn't even exist before the 9/11. It has grown up because of our invasion. So:
1. Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda's international organization and doesn't do anything to prevent terrorism here,
2. The Iraq war has been great for Al Qaeda recruiting and has helped it grow tremendously.

Your "divide and conquer" between Iraq and Afghanistan rationale is typically insane.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by itistoday 

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

Unless, of course, your business _is_ violence.

PB.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Divide and conquer. If the tourist insurgents are going to Iraq, they can't be going to Afghanistan. Spreads 'em thin.

They weren't thin enough for us to handle in Afghanistan?

[tie]

Maybe he means spreads us thin?

I don't think Doofy is an American. He isn't the one spending >$350,000 every minute in Iraq.

[peeb]

He's British. Of course, he fails to point out that it is the crusaders who are spread thin. Their presence is generating more resistance from the local populace.

[Big Mac]

Thank you for outing yourself, peeb. Only a terrorist sympathizer would call American forces crusaders.

[peeb]

George W Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."

Lol! Only a crusader would call what the US is doing in Iraq anything but terrorism.

[tie]

Big Mac: Are you saying George Bush is a terrorist sympathizer?

LOL. That argument -- calling everyone who disagrees with you a terrorist -- is a pretty tired one. Especially given its record. (The people like you who go around calling everyone else a terrorist are the same ones who support policies that hurt the US and help Al Qaeda. Coincidence?)

[riley46]

Originally Posted by osiris 

Al-Qaida has rebuilt, U.S. intel warns - Yahoo! News

I couldn't help but LMAO at this headline, simply because I don't believe it.

All these years, all these dollars, all these deaths, and all of the bush administration's claims that Al Qaida has been squelched and/or moved to Iraq have been complete BS IMO.

Any thoughts? Do you believe this headline? Could it be possible after spending 12 billion a month?

Discuss, and have fun kids.

I think this is just a ploy to make people aware of the threat and in order for us not to be complacent. Remember before 9/11. There were already reports that Al Queda was preparing a serious attack on American soil and all these were ignored.

[CreepDogg]

I'm really scared with all this new terrorist talk. I think we should give the administration whatever they think they need to smoke 'em out. It's better that we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. But if they want a fight, bring 'em on!

Now excuse me while I go back and hide in my 1955 bomb shelter.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Maybe he means spreads us thin?

I don't think Doofy is an American. He isn't the one spending >$350,000 every minute in Iraq.

You realise that the vast majority of that money is going back into the US economy, right?

Because, you know, the US soldiers don't get their bullets from Abdul's Bullet Emporium on Baghdad High Street.

[tie]

Doofy, what's your point?

We're borrowing money from China to buy bombs and bullets, for a war that is fostering the growth of terrorism. That's a damn stupid use of our money. Instead of wasting the money, we could be investing it in roads and infrastructure, or in education, for example. We could spend it on security measures, like securing our ports. We could give everyone healthcare (which I don't support, but it would be cheaper and a better use for our money than this war). You don't think we have better uses for our money?

Or, even better, we could cut taxes. My own share would be a couple thousand dollars a year. You don't think I have better uses for my money?

[tie]

... And Doofy disappears to start two more threads. Why am I not surprised?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

Doofy, what's your point?

We're borrowing money from China to buy bombs and bullets, for a war that is fostering the growth of terrorism. That's a damn stupid use of our money.

It would be, unless you had people at the top who had massive interests in the defense industry. Wait a minute....

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

Doofy, what's your point?

We're borrowing money from China to buy bombs and bullets, for a war that is fostering the growth of terrorism. That's a damn stupid use of our money.

It would be, unless you had people at the top who had massive interests in the defense industry. Hey! Wait a minute....

[Helmling]

I feel compelled to point out that the focus of this article is Pakistan--not Iraq.

But I thought fighting in Iraq would draw them to us there so we could kill them? Isn't that one of the absurd rationalizations for the Iraq war?

How deeply we have screwed this particular pooch is quite disturbing.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

How deeply we have screwed this particular pooch is quite disturbing.

What a disturbing visual. Quite appropriate though.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You realise that the vast majority of that money is going back into the US economy, right?

Because, you know, the US soldiers don't get their bullets from Abdul's Bullet Emporium on Baghdad High Street.

That may be, but we're mortgaging the country to the Chinese in order to buy all those bullets. Even Spliffdaddy can tell you that debt is bad!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

How deeply we have screwed this particular pooch is quite disturbing.

I think it's more along the lines of fisting up to the elbow.