mikkey 0 #76 December 23, 2003 QuoteI disagree. The only thing that is going to stop terror attacks is when there are either no more terrorists or the terrorists get what they want. I think its naive to think the death of OBL will permenantly damage a terrorists orginazation whose twisted interpetation of religion is based on destruction of the "Infidels". I think it naive to think it either the terrorist get what they want or they are totally annihilated. Neither will happen. What has to happen is to get the key figures and limit the operational ability of Al Qaeda. This is why the capture of UBL is important. It has been shown that the capture of a number of key Al Qaeda people did restrict the operational ability of Al Qaeda. Example: The capture of Hambali (Spelling?) in Bangkok has disrupted the co-ordination between Al Qaeda and SEA associates like JI. It is actually believed the capture did prevent an attack on the recent APEC meeting. We will never be able to completely stop terrorism, but we should aim to limit it to a minimum. Hitting the logistics (i.e. money flow) and the key coordinators will disrupt the operational abilities.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #77 December 23, 2003 Hey Bob, are you having a BBQ in here? I'll take some wings with that!. Blue ones."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #78 December 23, 2003 QuoteI'm trying to understand what benefit you see in capturing Bin Laden. nobody is naive enough to think that getting bin laden will completely stop terrorism. But Usama bin Laden is not just another terrorist. He is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and has friends all over the place. If we get rid of him, it will definitely be a significant blow against terrorism. Sure, others will step in to replace him, but it is unlikely they will have the same access to money & connections that he had. Most terrorists are not also multimillionaires. You seem to be thinking in black & white terms: i.e.: even if we get Usama bin Laden, there will still be terrorism. Therefore getting bin laden means nothing. That's kind of like saying that since the Battle of Normandy didn't end WWII, it therefore accomplished nothing significant. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #79 December 23, 2003 QuoteTrue, but I was responding to Bill's assesment of US security here at home. Please re-read the discussion and try to stay focused Maybe I am more focussed then you - I think my reply was relevant. You were saying that the strategies of the US government have worked. And your main point was lack of attacks inside the US. And then you agree with my post. Now I am confused, no you are confused... anyway...--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #80 December 23, 2003 QuoteThats all well and good in theory, Bill. But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive. The results of our strategy are not necessarily any more positive than those of our counterterror strategy on Sept. 10, 2001. After all, the reality was that as of that day we hadn't been attacked since Pearl Harbor. Did that mean that our counterterror strategies were working then?A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #81 December 23, 2003 QuoteHey Bob, are you having a BBQ in here? I'll take some wings with that!. Blue ones.*** Pass the taters will ya. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #82 December 23, 2003 QuoteQuoteThats all well and good in theory, Bill. But the reality is we haven't been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001. So explain to me how our strategy is wrong when the results are positive.Quote The results of our strategy are not necessarily any more positive than those of our counterterror strategy on Sept. 10, 2001. After all, the reality was that as of that day we hadn't been attacked since Pearl Harbor. Did that mean that our counterterror strategies were working then? We weren't attacked AFTER Pearl Harbor though, were we? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #83 December 23, 2003 QuoteI'm trying to understand what benefit you see in capturing Bin Laden. Let me take a stab at this, As it stands right now OBL perpetuated the 9/11 attack and got away with it. You want this guy for no other reason than to send the message you can't pull this shit and walk.period! Mean while back at the ranch, jackoff George is running around Iraq looking for his ass with both hands and a flashlight. Have a nice dayjerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #84 December 23, 2003 QuoteI think the constant “oversimplification” spin of the US administration has an effect on a few people. I really do not think that you guys understand how the “terrorists” work. Al Qaeda is neither an Army that goes to war here or there (i.e. goes coordinated into Iraq to fight the US) nor is it even a firm organisation with a chairman, treasurer, board, formal communication etc. It is a “loose” network between many small global radical Islamic groups who use violence and terror as a means to achieve their goal. Groups like Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in SEA who were responsible for the Bali bombing, are on the rise again because the focus has been on Iraq. JI would never go to Iraq to fight US troops, but they would happily try to blow up US/UK and Australian tourists somewhere in Asia. The flypaper theory is ridiculous if you know anything how Al Qaeda is organised. The main force the US is facing are disgruntled Iraqi’s who lost power and influence. Very little is known how many “foreign” fighters are involved and if any “co-ordination” from Al Qaeda is involved. Al Qaeda and the groups like JI who are associated, are looking for “soft targets” not heavily armed troops. Why do you think the alert level has just been raised in the US? UBL is an important figure head of Al Qaeda – especially because it is loosely organised and not much/regular communication is going on between the groups. That is why it would be a great blow to capture or kill UBL as this would remove the rallying point. Why do you think that UBL does the video or audio tapes sent to satellite TV stations. It is probably currently the only efficient communication channel they have. Removing UBL from the picture might trigger some attacks in the short terms but would do great damage to the terrorist network in the medium term. The focus on SH was in my opinion a mistake. The allies should have finished the job in Afghanistan and captured UBL first, then move onto whatever was next on the agenda. From James F. Dunnigan's analyst Austin Bay on the Iraq Strategy Page: December 19, 2003: The capture of Saddam Hussein, while important, has been overshadowed by documents found in the briefcase that was captured with him. The briefcase contained lists of men organizing attacks on coalition forces, as well as the minutes of meetings between Saddam allies. It was long suspected that much of the violence was planned and paid for by Saddam's allies and the Baath Party. Saddam's briefcase appears to prove this. Raids made on the basis of the suitcase information led to the arrest of over a hundred Baath party leaders and attack organizers. Intelligence information gathered in the last six months showed that most of the attacks were paid for. This news has been all over the street for months, and some of the recruiters have been captured. Saddam's briefcase enabled raids that rounded up some of the Baath bankers and contributed to growing money problems Baath has been having. Improved countermeasures by American troops has made it more dangerous to attack coalition troops and Baath has had to increase their cash rewards for "volunteers." The trouble with paying cash to resist the foreigners is that even most of those who do it for nothing will demand the money (due to family pressure, as few family's in post-Saddam Iraq can afford to pass up a payment of several thousand dollars.) American intelligence believes that a combination of less cash and better countermeasures has been reducing the number of daily attacks. A continuing danger, however, are the al Qaeda groups. They are driven by hatred of non-Moslems, not cash payments. Moreover, al Qaeda volunteers are willing to make suicide attacks. Attempts to make such attacks on American bases have not been very successful, so al Qaeda is going after Iraqi police. The number of armed Iraqis working for the government keeps increasing, and poses the biggest threat to al Qaeda. This is because an Iraqi cop can quickly spot a foreign Arab. As with an an American spotting a foreign tourist, the Iraqi cop can quickly see who moves and talks differently. The names in Saddam's briefcase also revealed that many Iraqis working for the coalition were still working for Saddam. One cannot underestimate the effect of cash in Iraq. All nations have problems with spies and traitors who are bought, but during Saddam's tenure, he made sure everyone had a price. Even though Saddam was deposed, he still had cash, and knew who could be more easily bought."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #85 December 23, 2003 Blah blah blah....either get off your ass and do something about it or SHUT THE FUCK UP. I think it's pretty simple. Being an armchair quarter back is easy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #86 December 23, 2003 I, for one, like the pretty graphics and animations that accompany the changes in threat level as they are presented by all the various media outlets. I think what the media is 100% missing (or ignoring) and the government is 95% missing (or ignoring) is that the best place for concerns of terrorism are in the back of people's minds, not the front. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #87 December 23, 2003 Quote Groups like Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in SEA who were responsible for the Bali bombing, are on the rise again because the focus has been on Iraq. JI would never go to Iraq to fight US troops, but they would happily try to blow up US/UK and Australian tourists somewhere in Asia. The flypaper theory is ridiculous if you know anything how Al Qaeda is organised. The main force the US is facing are disgruntled Iraqi’s who lost power and influence. Very little is known how many “foreign” fighters are involved and if any “co-ordination” from Al Qaeda is involved. Al Qaeda and the groups like JI who are associated, are looking for “soft targets” not heavily armed troops. Why do you think the alert level has just been raised in the US? someday i'll be able to tell you how mistaken you really are...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #88 December 23, 2003 Here is a quote verbatim from a book released last year. You may not want to believe it, but its food for thought....more than you can imagine. " The prospect of another attack against the United States is very, very real" said Dick Cheney. " Not a matter of if, but when" "Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that terrorists would obtain weaopons of mass destruction. " They have chemicalweapons,biological weapons, some will shortly have nuclear weapons. They inevitably are going to get their hands on them, and they would not hesitate to use them for one minute. We do face additional terrorist threats" he added, " the question is not if, but when, where and how". Its inevitable" said FBI Director Robert Mueller. There will be another attack. We will not be able to stop it. I wish I could be more optimistic". I agree with all three of them, but for many biblical reasons I do not think the nuclear attack will take place until 2005 or 2006. However, I am absolutely sure it WILL take place. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan and ALL that is to follow them was prophesied to take place about 2500 years ago. I didnt start this thread, and I sure hope it doesnt spoil anyone's Christmas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #89 December 23, 2003 My magic eight ball says 2008... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #90 December 23, 2003 regardless, when it takes place, I wouldnt want to live in Philly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #91 December 23, 2003 ROTFLMAO.. maybe you should get a sign and stand on the street corner like the rest of the doomsayers have been doing for the last 2000 years.. Or perhaps you should remove your blinders and check your 'biblical history' so you'll understand the writers you refer to thought they were living in 'end times' too when they wrote their lovely fictional accounts..and they’ve been dust for 2000 years now too, while the world progresses on.. Or perhaps its just that as you get older you start the think/wish the world will end when your life does? but guess what? it wont. it will go on and on as it has for the last several billion years or so no matter what your continually edited, ignorant, short-sighted, culturally biased, dogma might profess to the contrary.... wishes people could see GOD does not share the prejudices and preconceptions of MAN so blatantly obvious in what the 'rightous' tout as 'his word' Happy holidays! (whichever holiday you enjoy, not simply the one the christians have preempted in an attempt to gain credibility by usurping the mythos of others)____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #92 December 23, 2003 QuoteLet me take a stab at this, As it stands right now OBL perpetuated the 9/11 attack and got away with it. You want this guy for no other reason than to send the message you can't pull this shit and walk.period! Mean while back at the ranch, jackoff George is running around Iraq looking for his ass with both hands and a flashlight. In April of this year, the terrorist who hijacked the Achille Lauro was captured in Bagdad. In 1985, he shot and killed a man in a wheelchair. The man was with his wife of 36 years. He was being "difficult". This terrorist also planned speedboat attacks on the beaches in Tel Aviv in the 90s. His capture prevented future attacks. The SuperGun that Iraq was building was a WMD. Do a search for it and the designer Gerald Bull. It's design was clearly to be used to lift a small object into low-orbit (80km). The destruction of this gun prevented future terrorist attacks and destabilization of the region. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #93 December 23, 2003 Quoteregardless, when it takes place, I wouldnt want to live in Philly. Satan promised me that Philly will be safe. Party at my place for armageddon. Bring your baphemets. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #94 December 23, 2003 QuoteMy magic eight ball says 2008... and the Mayan's say 2012..____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #95 December 23, 2003 QuoteI agree with all three of them, but for many biblical reasons I do not think the nuclear attack will take place until 2005 or 2006. Hey Chuteless, what's the biblical connection to 2005/06? I'm curious about why you think this. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #96 December 23, 2003 QuoteGroups like Jemaah Islamiah (JI) in SEA who were responsible for the Bali bombing, are on the rise again because the focus has been on Iraq. Quotesomeday i'll be able to tell you how mistaken you really are... Nahh......no loss of "focus" I have two friends that have been fighting that war regularly since 9/11. One lives in Washington state. The other in San Diego. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 December 23, 2003 QuoteROTFLMAO.. maybe you should get a sign and stand on the street corner like the rest of the doomsayers have been doing for the last 2000 years.. You are being mean. Maybe you should PM Chuteless for a respectful theological debate instead of your mockery. The man has strong beliefs and deserves respect for his devotion to said beliefs. (I'm more agnostic than anything, so don't accuse this of being a case of christian defending christian) Merry Christmas ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #98 December 23, 2003 Agree with you. He is trying to state something he believes in."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #99 December 23, 2003 I can understand making fun of the whole prophesy thing and having fun -together-, it's that third paragraph that just bashes a man's religion that doesn't sit right. Maybe I read it wrong. It happens all the time when dealing in just writing. I don't like 'organized' religions for various reasons, but it doesn't mean that they aren't a source of strength or hope for others. And it's not my business to choose that for others or belittle them because of it, either. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #100 December 23, 2003 QuoteThey are "constantly evaluating procedures ... to find gaps in our security posture that could be exploited," he said. What else are they going to do? They're terrorists. It's our job to beat them to it and close any gaps. Geez! I haven't yet caught up reading the replys, so sorry if someone already said thatPaint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
