PDA

View Full Version : FBI Warns: New al-Qaida WMD Threat



glockmail
05-28-2008, 07:49 AM
The FBI issued a bulletin to 18,000 law enforcement agencies this week warning that al-Qaida has made new threats to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S. targets.


ABC News reported late Tuesday that intelligence sources have confirmed that al-Qaida plans to release a new video on the web sometime tomorrow. U.S. intelligence believes the terror group will advise its "jihadists to use biological, chemical and nuclear weapons to attack the West."


An FBI spokesman confirmed the threat "calling for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against civilians." The U.S. has no "intelligence of any specific plot or indication of a threat to the U.S.," the Bureau spokesman said. Still, the FBI has taken the precautionary step of alerting other agencies of the potential threat.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/new_al_qaida_threat/2008/05/27/99319.html

How did ABC News know that?

Gaffer
05-28-2008, 08:05 AM
abc was late getting this out, I read it yesterday morning on one of my regular non-mainstream news sites. This isn't something new, it looks like a communication to certain elements to proceed with operations already underway.

glockmail
05-28-2008, 08:13 AM
Well I figure its only a matter of time before those pukes get hold of a nuke or a dirty bomb and touch it off in NYC. I'm glad I don't live there.

retiredman
05-28-2008, 08:37 AM
just imagine how much safer we could have made our borders and ports of entry with the half a trillion dollars we have flushed down the toilet in Iraq!

red states rule
05-28-2008, 08:37 AM
Well I figure its only a matter of time before those pukes get hold of a nuke or a dirty bomb and touch it off in NYC. I'm glad I don't live there.

You mean there are terrorists in the world? According to Dems there is no terrorists threat - except for Republicans who are trying to use fear to win votes

According to Dems, the best way to make the world love us again is to surrender in Iraq, and roll over for the UN

retiredman
05-28-2008, 08:39 AM
You mean there are terrorists in the world? According to Dems there is no terrorists threat - except for Republicans who are trying to use fear to win votes

According to Dems, the best way to make the world love us again is to surrender in Iraq, and roll over for the UN


do you have a link to any statement by any democrat saying that there are no terrorist threats in the world, or do you just spew ridiculous shit like that 24/7 without any justification?

red states rule
05-28-2008, 08:40 AM
To be fair Dems do have a National Secuirty plan

http://www.redstategraffix.com/Democrat_Security_Plan.gif

Sitarro
05-28-2008, 11:57 PM
just imagine how much safer we could have made our borders and ports of entry with the half a trillion dollars we have flushed down the toilet in Iraq!

Are we really suppose to believe that there is a single dem that would approve of that? The money would have been spent on licenses for illegals, welfare for illegals, housing for illegals, tortillas for illegals...... them they would give them the right to vote, but only for dems.

Psychoblues
05-29-2008, 12:11 AM
You listen to too much limpdick and FauxNews, zero.




Are we really suppose to believe that there is a single dem that would approve of that? The money would have been spent on licenses for illegals, welfare for illegals, housing for illegals, tortillas for illegals...... them they would give them the right to vote, but only for dems.

But, that's not a surprise to anyone, is it?

dread
05-29-2008, 12:15 AM
Are we really suppose to believe that there is a single dem that would approve of that? The money would have been spent on licenses for illegals, welfare for illegals, housing for illegals, tortillas for illegals...... them they would give them the right to vote, but only for dems.




Not all the illegals eat tortillas. Some eat pita bread and hummus.

Psychoblues
05-29-2008, 12:27 AM
And some eat country fried taters, red beans and cornbread, don't you know? God bless them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dread
05-29-2008, 12:29 AM
And some eat country fried taters, red beans and cornbread, don't you know? God bless them all!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I really dont think you are with the program....Terrorists come in illegally into our country and they dont eat tortillas...They eat arabic food.

Psychoblues
05-29-2008, 12:52 AM
Really?




I really dont think you are with the program....Terrorists come in illegally into our country and they dont eat tortillas...They eat arabic food.

So why all the fuss about the tortilla eaters? What kind of program are you promoting, dead? Great Jesus, you now have me all confused!!!!!!!!!!!!

red states rule
05-29-2008, 06:27 AM
Are we really suppose to believe that there is a single dem that would approve of that? The money would have been spent on licenses for illegals, welfare for illegals, housing for illegals, tortillas for illegals...... them they would give them the right to vote, but only for dems.

You left out government paid health care as Obama wants to give them

red states rule
05-29-2008, 06:28 AM
You listen to too much limpdick and FauxNews, zero.





But, that's not a surprise to anyone, is it?

Yep, libs hate it when Fox News and Rush shines the light of turth on them, and exposes them for who and what they really are

retiredman
05-29-2008, 07:12 AM
RSR: Got an answer to #6?

Nukeman
05-29-2008, 07:17 AM
just imagine how much safer we could have made our borders and ports of entry with the half a trillion dollars we have flushed down the toilet in Iraq!
I have to say that I agree with this. There are so many other ways we could have handled Sadam and Iraq. If we had spent just 10% of what we have on the war effort on securing our borders we would be safer and without a lot of the illegals.

I do think that some on here are so put off by MFM that you will not concede a valid point when he makes it. I am not bashing anyone but he does have a point with this post..

red states rule
05-29-2008, 07:21 AM
I have to say that I agree with this. There are so many other ways we could have handled Sadam and Iraq. If we had spent just 10% of what we have on the war effort on securing our borders we would be safer and without a lot of the illegals.

I do think that some on here are so put off by MFM that you will not concede a valid point when he makes it. I am not bashing anyone but he does have a point with this post..

BOTH parties have failed to secure the borders. When Republicans were fired in 2006 (and properly so) Dems said they were going to do alot of things

As far as illegals, Dems are worse the Republicans. They want to give them drivers licenses, in state tuition, and they refuse to go after cities that protect them. Like the Dems, MFM talks a great game, but all we get is talk. What hve Dems done in the last 2 years to crack down on illegals and secure the border?

Nukeman
05-29-2008, 07:25 AM
BOTH parties have failed to secure the borders. When Republicans were fired in 2006 (and properly so) Dems said they were going to do alot of things

As far as illegals, Dems are worse the Republicans. They want to give them drivers licenses, in state tuition, and they refuse to go after cities that protect them. Like the Dems, MFM talks a great game, but all we get is talk. What hve Dems done in the last 2 years to crack down on illegals and secure the border?I really wasn't refering to any politicle party in my post. the government as a whole are to blame for this not any one party....

red states rule
05-29-2008, 07:29 AM
I really wasn't refering to any politicle party in my post. the government as a whole are to blame for this not any one party....

Dems control the spending right now. With the Federal budget now over $3 trillion, the money is there to seal the borders and deal with the illegals

Dems see them as an untapped voting block and will not do what is needed

retiredman
05-29-2008, 07:33 AM
Dems control the spending right now. With the Federal budget now over $3 trillion, the money is there to seal the borders and deal with the illegals

Dems see them as an untapped voting block and will not do what is needed

you say that the money is there? We are hemmoraging off-budget money in Iraq... we have a huge growing deficit... my point was:

"just imagine how much safer we could have made our borders and ports of entry with the half a trillion dollars we have flushed down the toilet in Iraq!"


Do that for me: imagine if we had been spending the money we spend in Iraq on border and port of entry security. How safe do we look when you imagine that?

Monkeybone
05-29-2008, 07:39 AM
but if it comes down to it, how would we make our ports safer? search the containers over there before they ship to us? stop them before they enter our harbors? (bours?) it's not like it is actual security when you let someone stand in the doorway and ask who they are and what they want (so to speak).

retiredman
05-29-2008, 07:46 AM
we cannot expect to prevent weapons of mass destruction from entering our country through our ports if we do not have a program to inspect the cargo that comes into those ports. It is really that simple.

Nukeman
05-29-2008, 07:57 AM
we cannot expect to prevent weapons of mass destruction from entering our country through our ports if we do not have a program to inspect the cargo that comes into those ports. It is really that simple.
the biggest hurdle we face with our ports is MAN HOURS. this should not be an issue when it comes to the safety of the American citizen..

If a little money was put aside to PAY for more Port Guards and inspectors we could make our country that much safer...

mundame
05-29-2008, 01:38 PM
for me: imagine if we had been spending the money we spend in Iraq on border and port of entry security. How safe do we look when you imagine that?



No more than now: there is no security problem with any of the borders.

There is certainly a cultural problem about letting Mexico move entirely north, every sombrero-ed soul of them!! And turning our country into the drug-lord infested, corruption-riddled country they have.

But no terrorism of any kind has come across the borders, not from land or sea, so pouring money into what ISN'T a problem is just money thrown wildly down the drain.

Like the money thrown down the drain of those two wars we're in.

retiredman
05-29-2008, 02:11 PM
the biggest hurdle we face with our ports is MAN HOURS. this should not be an issue when it comes to the safety of the American citizen..

If a little money was put aside to PAY for more Port Guards and inspectors we could make our country that much safer...


and if we weren't spending that money in Iraq, it would be easier to do so, IMHO.

retiredman
05-29-2008, 02:14 PM
No more than now: there is no security problem with any of the borders.

There is certainly a cultural problem about letting Mexico move entirely north, every sombrero-ed soul of them!! And turning our country into the drug-lord infested, corruption-riddled country they have.

But no terrorism of any kind has come across the borders, not from land or sea, so pouring money into what ISN'T a problem is just money thrown wildly down the drain.

Like the money thrown down the drain of those two wars we're in.

I disagree. our borders are like sieves, and just because terrorism has not yet come via land or sea does not mean that port and border security is NOT a problem that urgently needs addressing.

mundame
05-29-2008, 02:16 PM
I disagree. our borders are like sieves, and just because terrorism has not yet come via land or sea does not mean that port and border security is NOT a problem that urgently needs addressing.


Okay.

I prefer to address problems we know for sure exist, rather than problems people blue-sky, like biowarfare and port terrorism and all the other wild-eyed scare stuff we all talked about incessantly after 9/11, but none of it ever happened.

Well, maybe it did, but we can't be sure.............................

the anthrax and that New York flight that went down.

retiredman
05-29-2008, 02:20 PM
Okay.

I prefer to address problems we know for sure exist, rather than problems people blue-sky, like biowarfare and port terrorism and all the other wild-eyed scare stuff we all talked about incessantly after 9/11, but none of it ever happened.

Well, maybe it did, but we can't be sure.............................

the anthrax and that New York flight that went down.
why should we even care about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, then? Do you really think that United Airlines is going to let a bunch of terrorists check them as baggage and fly them into our country?

mundame
05-29-2008, 02:34 PM
why should we even care about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists, then? Do you really think that United Airlines is going to let a bunch of terrorists check them as baggage and fly them into our country?


Maybe they'll think of something creative. They sure did last time.

retiredman
05-29-2008, 02:58 PM
Maybe they'll think of something creative. They sure did last time.


maybe they'll drive them across the border somewhere in Minnesota?

or maybe they'll pack them in a shipping crate and load them on a container ship in Karachi?

mundame
05-29-2008, 03:04 PM
maybe they'll drive them across the border somewhere in Minnesota?



Apparently not. It would seem so easy, but they can't manage it, not in all these years.

Terminally stupid. We only hurt stupids who can't protect themselves and ourselves with these wars. There is nothing positive to say for it all.

retiredman
05-29-2008, 03:14 PM
Apparently not. It would seem so easy, but they can't manage it, not in all these years.

Terminally stupid. We only hurt stupids who can't protect themselves and ourselves with these wars. There is nothing positive to say for it all.

I agree with your assessment of the war in Iraq...

I would suggest that one of the reasons that our enemies have not driven WMD's across our borders is because they do not have them yet.

mundame
05-29-2008, 03:20 PM
I would suggest that one of the reasons that our enemies have not driven WMD's across our borders is because they do not have them yet.


Oh, I'm sure they don't yet ----------

Though Bush HAS lost nuclear non-proliferation, thanx a lot Dubbya.

I wasn't even thinking of WMD. I don't think these types are capable of that, actually. We all thought they were after 9/11, but it has become apparent they are pretty primitive; look at Saddam's feckless history of trying and failing to acquire much of any sort of weaponry, really.

No, I'm thinking of a ten-man raid on a shopping mall, with AK-47s. If they can't manage that, well, they're not much in terms of warriors. I mean even our useless CIA managed that in Italy, sent in a Delta sort of team, scooped up various terrorist imam types right off the street, zip, zip, zip.

And you can't say much for our CIA, but they're better than all of Islamdom at fighting, even so.


We're losing because we're grossly outnumbered on enemy territory, that's how that works.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 04:17 PM
You should love this Mundame

Have You Forgotten?
How many of us can forget that day, six or seven years ago, when George Dumbya Bush sat there on his ass in an elementary school classroom and read a story about a pet goat while commercial aircraft fell from the sky, killing 19 innocent Muslim tourists and 3,000 little Eichmanns?

For liberals, it's a day that will be forever branded onto our collective conscience like a pipe burns on a shag carpet. Yet most of the candlelight vigils and hallucinogenic hootenannies being held across the nation this evening focus more on honoring the so-called "victims" then preventing another, perhaps far more devastating tragedy. With all the billions Bush has poured into "Homeland Security" and his "War on Terror", the book that started it on still sits on library shelves. The insidious tome that led to two illegal and immoral wars, the theft of billions of gallons of oil from Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and the severe erosion of my esophogus from countless vomit-ins at military recruitment centers, can be easily purchased by any unelected peeResident with 26 bucks and a hankerin' to kill some brown-skinned fellers.

As tireless defenders of the Living, Breathing Constitution, Progressives by nature have a deep aversion to the banning of books - except for maybe Huckleberry Finn. And the Bible. But with a Tennessee redneck poised to steal the GOP nomination - and perhaps even the White House in 2008 - it is far too dangerous for this book to be allowed to exist.

So, in honor of those who lost their lives and their elections thanks to the terrible event that happened on this Day 5 or 6 years ago, I'll be up at Gasworks Park tonight roasting organic marshmallows on a bonfire fueled with copies of Reading Mastery - Level 2 Storybook, aka My Pet Goat. And Huck Finn. And the Bible. You're all invited to join the festivities. Realistically, we probably won't be able to destroy every copy of the book in existence and prevent another illegal and immoral war. But at least we can make an important political statement and show the world that WE haven't forgotten - while getting really, really stoned in the process.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/09/have-you-forgot.html

Gaffer
05-29-2008, 06:47 PM
Things that come into our ports are inspected before leaving the port of origin. There are US custom agents assigned to all ports that ship to the US. They inspect and seal each container before it is shipped out. A seals are checked and the containers x-rayed when they arrive. Questionable ships are held outside of the port until a search is completed.

mundame really has no imagination. She thinks its just a matter of some killers going into a mall and killing people. For one thing, why send ten guys into a mall with AK47's when they can be sent to ten different malls, creating panic in ten different regions. It only takes one man to kill a lot of people and that way you force the police to go to ten different areas. You see mundame you don't know how to properly use your resources.

AQ and hezbollah and hamas have access to WMD's in the form of chemical and biological weapons through syria and iran. But the use of such weapons can be traced so they don't have permission at this time to use them. Coastal cities are the most vulnerable as rockets can be launched from ships disguised as cargo or fishing vessels. A rocket with a 600 mile range could easily be launched from international waters. Remember russian trawlers during the cold war?

The only reason we have not been hit again is because they are not ready to strike yet. Any strike will be massive and coordinated and done at multiple targets. Logistics is another factor. Getting everything in place unobserved is a difficult task and even one part of the operation being discovered could disrupt the whole plan. If a cell is discovered it has to be replaced. That means moving people and things around, and time tables have to be changed. The busting of one cell can disrupt the whole operation, which is what has been going on so far. AQ does not have redundancy built into its system.

mundame
05-29-2008, 08:07 PM
mundame really has no imagination. She thinks its just a matter of some killers going into a mall and killing people. For one thing, why send ten guys into a mall with AK47's when they can be sent to ten different malls, creating panic in ten different regions.

The Islamists don't do that, either. I guess they don't have any imagination either. They don't do nothing; they are total putzes, not worth spilling our treasure and lives out onto their rusty sand.



AQ and hezbollah and hamas have access to WMD's in the form of chemical and biological weapons through syria and iran. But the use of such weapons can be traced so they don't have permission at this time to use them. Coastal cities are the most vulnerable as rockets can be launched from ships disguised as cargo or fishing vessels. A rocket with a 600 mile range could easily be launched from international waters. Remember russian trawlers during the cold war?


You, gaffer, have lots of imagination. The problem is that it's ALL imagination and nothing actually happening. Nothing ever happens; that's a flaw in your system. For there to be a war against us, the enemy has to actually, you know, attack us. But they don't, because they aren't up to it.


The only reason we have not been hit again is because they are not ready to strike yet.

Or for some other reason, like they can't manage it because it doesn't involve donkeys or stealing other peoples' airplanes.


Any strike will be massive and coordinated and done at multiple targets.

Or not. These people don't have electricity. They don't have sewers. These people are not a threat; they are primitives who wear white dresses. That's the MEN.


AQ does not have redundancy built into its system.

Al Qaeda doesn't have much. Looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. They do have quite a career in Bollywood; bin Laden is sending out as many films and tapes as Madonna. Guess nobody but me thinks that's worth putting a stop to.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 08:12 PM
Report: Al-Qaeda Strength Safely Back to Clintonian Levels
Despite the Bush junta's attempts to keep it buried, a recently obtained classified report confirms that Al Qaeda's strength has returned to pre-9/11 levels. Osama Bin Laden is on the loose, the Taliban has retaken control of Afghanistan, and terrorists are poised to strike the West.

In other words, things are pretty much the way Bill Clinton left them.

It's understandable then why Repugs wouldn't want this infiormation to come to light: it contradicts everything they've been saying since they stole their way into power. All their yammering about duct tape and visqueen and weapons of mass destruction was simply a ploy to control us with fear. Thank Goddess their lies have finally been exposed. We can all sleep soundly tonight knowing that in spite of Bush's best efforts, the so-called "terrorist threat" warrants about as much attention today that President Clinton gave it when he was in charge

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/07/report-al-qaeda.html

Gaffer
05-29-2008, 10:06 PM
Report: Al-Qaeda Strength Safely Back to Clintonian Levels
Despite the Bush junta's attempts to keep it buried, a recently obtained classified report confirms that Al Qaeda's strength has returned to pre-9/11 levels. Osama Bin Laden is on the loose, the Taliban has retaken control of Afghanistan, and terrorists are poised to strike the West.

In other words, things are pretty much the way Bill Clinton left them.

It's understandable then why Repugs wouldn't want this infiormation to come to light: it contradicts everything they've been saying since they stole their way into power. All their yammering about duct tape and visqueen and weapons of mass destruction was simply a ploy to control us with fear. Thank Goddess their lies have finally been exposed. We can all sleep soundly tonight knowing that in spite of Bush's best efforts, the so-called "terrorist threat" warrants about as much attention today that President Clinton gave it when he was in charge

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/07/report-al-qaeda.html

This is why we will definitely be hit again.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 10:08 PM
This is why we will definitely be hit again.

and libs will blame Pres Bush, despite all their efforts to block everything he has tried to do to capture/kill them

Gaffer
05-29-2008, 11:23 PM
You, gaffer, have lots of imagination. The problem is that it's ALL imagination and nothing actually happening. Nothing ever happens; that's a flaw in your system. For there to be a war against us, the enemy has to actually, you know, attack us. But they don't, because they aren't up to it.

I only touched on a couple of examples. Just because you have electricity right now doesn't mean your power won't go out in an hour. Are you prepared for that? Candles? Flashlights? Lanterns? Do you ever plan ahead for emergencies or just live moment to moment with the false idea that nothing bad will ever happen to you?

Just because there are not big armies fighting one another doesn't mean we are not at war. It's a different war with different tactics. Most of it is clandestine. iraq and afgan are just the more conventional means of fighting.


Or for some other reason, like they can't manage it because it doesn't involve donkeys or stealing other peoples' airplanes.

Stealing an airplane is not like stealing a car. It's far more complicated and requires piloting skills. You don't just jump in the cockpit and start driving. While they are incredibly dumb, they are good at taking others product and using it. Usually for something deadly. islam doesn't allow them to be creative or inventive.


You, gaffer, have lots of imagination. The problem is that it's ALL imagination and nothing actually happening. Nothing ever happens; that's a flaw in your system. For there to be a war against us, the enemy has to actually, you know, attack us. But they don't, because they aren't up to it.

And how do you know nothing has ever happened? How do you know what has been stopped and it never made the news? There are multiple trials going on now that don't get news coverage involving groups and individuals linked to AQ and hez. Like I said, they haven't attacked us because they are either logistically unable to or they are not ready for their own reasons.


Or not. These people don't have electricity. They don't have sewers. These people are not a threat; they are primitives who wear white dresses. That's the MEN.

They do have a primitive mind set. They are also canny and determined. Let's see if we can come up with a couple of examples of western superior arrogance verses primitive cultures. Lets look at the little Big Horn. A primitive culture verses trained soldiers. Arrogance verses determination. Who won? The primitives. Three years later in Africa. Another arrogant western force verses a primitive culture known as the Zulu's. Spears verses rifles. The rifles lost. The western forces eventually beat the primitives, but at a devastating cost. 9/11 is another example of primitives defeating a major power, all but temporarily. And the secret to beating them is to be more imaginative than they are.

AQ is only a part of the larger problem of islam in general. iraq and afgan were just the prelude of what's to come when we face iran. That's the head of the snake and has been for a very long time. 90% of this war is being fought in the shadows at this time. The part that is in the open is being condemned and cried about or undermined. The enemy needs to be stopped where he lives or he will very surely come here with his murdering and suicide attacks and hostage taking. He comes here on student visas, business and work visas, by sneaking over the border or in some cases he's an American. All he needs is for us to assume, as you do, that there is no threat and let our guard down.

There is no such thing as the boogey man. That's just made up to scare you and get you to stay in bed. Keep the covers over your head and he can't hurt you.

mundame
05-30-2008, 09:56 AM
This is why we will definitely be hit again.


With your conviction that you know the future for SURE, for CERTAIN and that you are ALWAYS RIGHT, I have one serious suggestion, gaffer:


For God's sake, stay out of the stock market. The Market chews up, swallows and digests men like that every morning between 9:30 and 10 AM.

It caught me pretty good this morning, and I don't even believe in the future.

mundame
05-30-2008, 10:23 AM
I only touched on a couple of examples. Just because you have electricity right now doesn't mean your power won't go out in an hour. Are you prepared for that? Candles? Flashlights? Lanterns? Do you ever plan ahead for emergencies or just live moment to moment with the false idea that nothing bad will ever happen to you?

Sure, we have a generator, too, and we keep the gas cans full. We have a woodstove and keep wood cut, too.

BUT --- what you are suggesting by advocating a neverending war even when there are no attacks against us is that we don't use our electricity, we're so afraid it will go out: just burn candles and run the generator 24/7. And don't heat with oil because we're so sure it must be running out, so we have to heat one room with wood and sleep and live in there.

For your analogy to work we should realize that we could be attacked (New York could be bombed, for instance) but we should look around and correctly observe that we are not getting attacked NOW. We should maintain an Army for defense of the nation, an Army in good condition with a people willing to serve. And when we do fight in defense of the nation, we should open a serious can of whoop-ass on them like Bush I did and actually win for a change.

Instead, because of all this forever-war against attacks that never happened and aren't happening and haven't happened, our Army is broken, our troops demoralized, few people are willing to volunteer, and the entire public with the exception of a very few like yourself, are totally disgusted and convinced we can't go to war because we can't fight our way out of a paper bag.

That's a pretty sorry way to be prepared for emergencies, to destroy our capacity to respond.




islam doesn't allow them to be creative or inventive.

Perhaps you are right. There has to be some reason they are so backward. I think Arabs may just be genetically stupid, however.




Just because there are not big armies fighting one another doesn't mean we are not at war. It's a different war with different tactics. Most of it is clandestine. iraq and afgan are just the more conventional means of fighting.
And how do you know nothing has ever happened? How do you know what has been stopped and it never made the news? There are multiple trials going on now that don't get news coverage involving groups and individuals linked to AQ and hez.



What you are basically saying here is that because we can't see them attacking, they must be doing so anyway but in secret. [Sigh] That since we can't TELL they are attacking, since there are no results and no publicity about anything, that means lots of stuff is happening under deep cover.

The more parsimonious conclusion is that if we can't tell things are going on (and communication is the best it's ever been in the history of humanity right now), then nothing is going on.




They do have a primitive mind set. They are also canny and determined. Let's see if we can come up with a couple of examples of western superior arrogance verses primitive cultures. Lets look at the little Big Horn. A primitive culture verses trained soldiers. Arrogance verses determination. Who won?


We did. We ran the Indians off to reservations ---- had to, they were vicious killers ---- and conquered, occupied, settled, and entirely took over the whole country. And hooray for us: my ancestors came here about 1670, so we were part of it all: enjoy.

There were a few one-day setbacks like Custer's bad military decisions, but when you're taking over a continent you have to expect a few bad days.

Five years of being bogged down in the sandpit of useless Iraq is not comparable to Custer's Last Stand.


The primitives. Three years later in Africa. Another arrogant western force verses a primitive culture known as the Zulu's. Spears verses rifles. The rifles lost. The western forces eventually beat the primitives, but at a devastating cost.

Not so devastating: the British Empire conquered everything it came across for quite some centuries; the sun never set on the British Empire. Be fair: there were a LOT of Zulus that day. But the British counted on the old verse:

"Whatever happens
We have got
The Maxim gun
And they have not."



9/11 is another example of primitives defeating a major power, all but temporarily. And the secret to beating them is to be more imaginative than they are.

9/11 is definitely a case of them being more imaginative than we are. And that has been the case throughout these conflicts: they constantly use asymmetric force cleverly ------ the small boats getting close to big battleships pretending they are harmless, and blowing a hole in the U.S.S. Cole. The suicide bombers, best smart bombs in the world. (Stupid people, but very smart bombs.) Hijacking planes and using them as bombs.



AQ is only a part of the larger problem of islam in general. iraq and afgan were just the prelude of what's to come when we face iran.

More of the same incompetence and bogging down. We should give it a miss; neither our elected officials nor our military is up to any of this. No way they could possibly win against Iran given they can't win against even primitive Iraq and Afghanistan. Persians are smarter, you know. Bad move, let's don't.



90% of this war is being fought in the shadows at this time.

Or not fought at all. It's important not to assume that because you can't see something that isn't sure evidence that it's hidden: it MIGHT be evidence that it isn't there at all. Beware of paranoia.



The enemy needs to be stopped where he lives or he will very surely come here with his murdering and suicide attacks and hostage taking. He comes here on student visas, business and work visas, by sneaking over the border or in some cases he's an American. All he needs is for us to assume, as you do, that there is no threat and let our guard down.

I do want all Muslim in-migration stopped. And I want no more of these Muslims students at colleges!! We are training oil sheiks at Harvard Business School WHY??????? I am deeply worried about a culture that lets them flood in here and build mosque after mosque but back where they come from, no churches can be built, no Bibles can be carried. I know the end of that kind of cultural ratchet! Forget about wars against people who aren't even attacking (we would notice if they were). We should stop them coming in or they may well attack from within: that's something we CAN see, constantly, in France and Britain! There is way too much PC in America, to our detriment.


There is no such thing as the boogey man. That's just made up to scare you and get you to stay in bed. Keep the covers over your head and he can't hurt you.

There is a boogeyman, but you can come out now, he hasn't attacked us for seven years and it really is time you came out from under those covers and felt secure again.

"Don't cry till you're hurt," old saying. We were hurt, but it has been many years, and it really is time now to stop crying and being scared of nothing.

red states rule
06-01-2008, 06:17 PM
Now even the Washington Compost is reporting the progress in Iraq. This wil not make the anti war appeasers very happy



WaPo: Where Is the Good Iraq News?
By Matthew Sheffield | June 1, 2008 - 13:17 ET

The past few days have brought some good news for people frustrated by the elite media's systemic liberal tilt: First we had the Project for Excellence in Journalism admitting that Democratic presidential candidates get better coverage than their Republican counterparts, then came the news that left-wing blowhard Keith Olbermann was exposed (yet again) as a hypocrite for failing to pay taxes.

Now here's some more good news for your Sunday afternoon: The center-left Washington Post editorial page calls out the foreign policy Chicken Littles who've been eager to pronounce Iraq a failure from the start. In an editorial headlined "Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war," the paper presents some essential facts:

There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2008/06/01/wapo-where-good-iraq-news#comments