Al Qaeda Chemical Weapons Plot

[Drummond]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22742201?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+yahoo%2FfPiy


The authorities in Iraq say they have uncovered an al-Qaeda plot to use chemical weapons, as well as to smuggle them to Europe and North America.

Defence ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said five men had been arrested after military intelligence monitored their activities for three months.

Three workshops for manufacturing the chemical agents, including sarin and mustard gas, were uncovered, he added.

Remote-controlled toy planes were also seized at the workshops.

Mr Askari said they were to have been used to release the chemical agents over the target from a "safe" distance of 1.5km (1 mile), reports the BBC's Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad.

All of the arrested men had confessed to the plot and said they had received instruction from another al-Qaeda offshoot, he added.

As the defence ministry spokesman spoke on Iraqi TV, footage was shown of four men with black hoods on their heads, our correspondent adds.

Three of them were wearing bright yellow jumpsuits and a fourth was in a brown jumpsuit.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq is believed to be the only offshoot of the Islamist militant network to have used chemical weapons.

It detonated 16 crude chlorine bombs in Iraq between October 2006 and June 2007.

Chlorine inhalation made many hundreds of people sick, but no deaths resulting from exposure to the chemical were recorded, US officials said at the time. Instead, the bomb blasts are believed to have caused the fatalities.

At the time, US officials said al-Qaeda appeared to want to use debilitating agents like chlorine in their bombs to cause casualties beyond those hit by the initial explosion.

US and Iraqi troops subsequently killed or detained many of the militants who were building the chlorine-laced bombs and seized much of their stockpiled chemicals.

A letter written by the late al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden five days before he was killed in a US military raid in Pakistan in 2011 urged members of the group's offshoot in Yemen who he believed were considering using "poison" to be "careful of doing it without enough study of all aspects, including political and media reaction"

This story speaks for itself. I haven't got much to add to it.

I'd just point out that those who consider it right to scale back on the War on Terror are very obviously misguided. Because Al Qaeda, and groups like it, haven't given up on their murderous plans. VERY far from it.

The scales in this War can tip either way. Be lightweight in efforts to defeat terrorism, and that lack of weight tips the scales in favour of the enemy.

Oh, and by the way, am I the only person to wonder about the 'coincidence' that Iraq, that very land which supposedly 'didn't have' chemical weapon WMD's, just HAPPENS to be Al Qaeda's choice of intended chemical weapons exporting ?

[red states rule]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22742201?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+yahoo%2FfPiy



This story speaks for itself. I haven't got much to add to it.

I'd just point out that those who consider it right to scale back on the War on Terror are very obviously misguided. Because Al Qaeda, and groups like it, haven't given up on their murderous plans. VERY far from it.

The scales in this War can tip either way. Be lightweight in efforts to defeat terrorism, and that lack of weight tips the scales in favour of the enemy.

Oh, and by the way, am I the only person to wonder about the 'coincidence' that Iraq, that very land which supposedly 'didn't have' chemical weapon WMD's, just HAPPENS to be Al Qaeda's choice of intended chemical weapons exporting ?

and this happens after Obama said the war on terror was "over"

[Drummond]

and this happens after Obama said the war on terror was "over"

Your comment reminds me of the archetypal German, during WWII, who'd say to a captured Allied soldier, 'For you, the war is over'.

What he'd mean is that the German's enemy was defeated, neutralised.

Perhaps Obama was declaring (or trying to) America's defeat in the War on Terror ? Because he definitely wasn't correctly describing Al Qaeda !

[red states rule]

Your comment reminds me of the archetypal German, during WWII, who'd say to a captured Allied soldier, 'For you, the war is over'.

What he'd mean is that the German's enemy was defeated, neutralised.

Perhaps Obama was declaring (or trying to) America's defeat in the War on Terror ? Because he definitely wasn't correctly describing Al Qaeda !

http://www.derangedharmony.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Oh-snap.png

[aboutime]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22742201?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+yahoo%2FfPiy



This story speaks for itself. I haven't got much to add to it.

I'd just point out that those who consider it right to scale back on the War on Terror are very obviously misguided. Because Al Qaeda, and groups like it, haven't given up on their murderous plans. VERY far from it.

The scales in this War can tip either way. Be lightweight in efforts to defeat terrorism, and that lack of weight tips the scales in favour of the enemy.

Oh, and by the way, am I the only person to wonder about the 'coincidence' that Iraq, that very land which supposedly 'didn't have' chemical weapon WMD's, just HAPPENS to be Al Qaeda's choice of intended chemical weapons exporting ?


Sir Drummond. What actually scares me the most...personally is. How those in the Middle East celebrate how Inept, Unqualified, and so supportive of their claims as nothing more than Revolutionaries....rather than terrorists.
In other words. I fear what Obama's Cowardice, and Appeasement combined have created in giving our Enemies more Confidence to just do whatever they like....All with Obama's Blessings. Because he is nothing but A WUSS!
So, Obama has placed my son's, and our grandchildren in great harm merely by his LACK of willingness to Observe, and Honor his Oath.

[red states rule]

Any ideas on how Obama and the liberal media will blame Bush for this?

[jafar00]

It was George Bush who gave Al Qaeda a home in Iraq. He left a mess over there.

[revelarts]

both Saddam and Kdahffi (and Assad now) fought Al Qeada.


but drummond yes the story speaks for itself.
Seems the local Iraqi forces found a plot. Good work! with...
5 guys... and stopped it. 3 months of work. done with more leads i assume.

So, how many BILLIONS/TRILLIONS do we need to deal with threats like that?
How many Countries do we have invade to deal with that?
How many drones need to fly over Cleveland?
How many old ladies need their underwear checked at airports?
How many U.S. and U.K. phone calls need to be recorded?
etcetcetc

the war on terror is far overblown and over funded for the reality of the threat.
especially since we support the terrorist/AlQeada we like. It's more a political game than a serious threat to national security much less our sovereignty.



BTW i'd assume that the Iraqi forces that found, worked for months and stopped the plot were made up of MUSLIMS Iraqi security/police/military.
I wonder how that could be?

[jimnyc]

It was George Bush who gave Al Qaeda a home in Iraq. He left a mess over there.

No, more like Al Qaeda is finding homes in Islamic countries all over. Maybe some want them gone, but you sure don't see them propping up tents here in America or the UK. When these countries want them gone, the countries where Al Qaeda finds homes, and they actively fight to get rid of them, they will mostly be gone. As for now, they mostly find welcome parties where they form new groups or move to. And if you really want to boil it down - the problem of Al Qaeda spreading around is more Bin Ladens fault, and other leaders from the group. Odd that you rarely want to talk smack about them and talk about how they should be eradicated, but more interested in blaming Bush.

The "mess" over there wouldn't be a mess if these people were civilized and not animals.

[jimnyc]

both Saddam and Kdahffi (and Assad now) fought Al Qeada.


but drummond yes the story speaks for itself.
Seems the local Iraqi forces found a plot. Good work! with...
5 guys... and stopped it. 3 months of work. done with more leads i assume.

So, how many BILLIONS/TRILLIONS do we need to deal with threats like that?
How many Countries do we have invade to deal with that?
How many drones need to fly over Cleveland?
How many old ladies need their underwear checked at airports?
How many U.S. and U.K. phone calls need to be recorded?
etcetcetc

the war on terror is far overblown and over funded for the reality of the threat.
especially since we support the terrorist/AlQeada we like. It's more a political game than a serious threat to national security much less our sovereignty.



BTW i'd assume that the Iraqi forces that found, worked for months and stopped the plot were made up of MUSLIMS Iraqi security/police/military.
I wonder how that could be?

Again with we're spending too much and putting too much into fighting terrorism? We are reading stories about terrorism on a weekly basis, if not more. They recently tried to come in through Canada. We had a couple of kids kill Americans in Boston. 2 men chop a mans head of in the UK. It's an extremely difficult enemy to fight when a terrorist is almost an unknown. But you think we should back off and spend less and maybe take manpower away from the efforts? I can almost guarantee that if we do this, these scum rebuild, regroup and recruit - and in 10-20 years we get harder than we did on 9/11.

Asd for your "how many's" - how many people need die before you agree that the war on terrorism is real, they exist and they want to hurt us, our allies and other innocent people as much as ever?

[fj1200]

Asd for your "how many's" - how many people need die before you agree that the war on terrorism is real, they exist and they want to hurt us, our allies and other innocent people as much as ever?

When did rev NOT agree with that? I think the point is the matter of scale.

[jimnyc]

When did rev NOT agree with that? I think the point is the matter of scale.

I 'think' from many past posts, that he feels the war on terror is exaggerated, if not mythical to an extent.

But yeah, we can concentrate on the scale of things. My thinking is this - look at the scale now - and it's not really stopping terrorism, it's not stopping them from trying to figure out ways to get here and harm us. IMO, it comes down to money versus lives. If trying to save money - fix the shitty welfare system and use that money to hunt down these scumbags! We can also remain vigilant and strong AND fix the TSA issues and other things that piss people off. But I think it's far too early to reel things back.

[fj1200]

I 'think' from many past posts, that he feels the war on terror is exaggerated, if not mythical to an extent.

He certainly feels that it's overblown as he said 3 posts ago and there is a mythical part to it like the theater of TSA and other actions.


But yeah, we can concentrate on the scale of things. My thinking is this - look at the scale now - and it's not really stopping terrorism, it's not stopping them from trying to figure out ways to get here and harm us. IMO, it comes down to money versus lives. If trying to save money - fix the shitty welfare system and use that money to hunt down these scumbags! We can also remain vigilant and strong AND fix the TSA issues and other things that piss people off. But I think it's far too early to reel things back.

The OP as example, Iraq stopped the plot so do we need extra policies in place or do we need to support what works?

[jimnyc]

He certainly feels that it's overblown as he said 3 posts ago and there is a mythical part to it like the theater of TSA and other actions.



The OP as example, Iraq stopped the plot so do we need extra policies in place or do we need to support what works?

I think it's going to be ever adapting for awhile. Sure, I believe we can change policies as we go along, as we learn what works and what doesn't. Like I said, I think they can do a LOT to fix the TSA type issues. But I think they need to stay on target with worldwide intel, and killing these terrorists the first chance they can. Anything that would allow them to sit idle, regroup, recharge - it will likely hurt us or our allies before too long. It's like cockroaches. You can kill a bunch, but if you allow a half dozen to remain in the cabinets because they are hiding, you'll have 10,000 next year!

[fj1200]

I think it's going to be ever adapting for awhile. Sure, I believe we can change policies as we go along, as we learn what works and what doesn't. Like I said, I think they can do a LOT to fix the TSA type issues. But I think they need to stay on target with worldwide intel, and killing these terrorists the first chance they can.

I think that's the CIA's job if I'm not mistaken. Not necessarily the army's job to invade anywhere we have issue.

[jimnyc]

I think that's the CIA's job if I'm not mistaken. Not necessarily the army's job to invade anywhere we have issue.

Oh, I agree with that. I'm not implying we need to invade anywhere we find them. I'm all for the CIA droning them one by one, but I believe Rev disagrees. From 2003 till now, I've ALWAYS believed we should address as much as we can from the sky and save the lives of as many Americans as possible. Granted, in Iraq and Afghanistan that would have required the fighter jets, but IMO, better than boots on the ground. But where we are now, I have zero desire to place troops anywhere at all, not even Syria. Let them all fend for themselves. They scoffed for years about how it's none of the USA's business, then let them have their business to themselves. BUT, terrorists we have to address, as I have very little doubt that the majority of them would enjoy seeing us harmed, or our allies.

[revelarts]

Parts of the war war on terror are mythical.
Parts are not.
the TSA is useless. it is a complete waste. Many of the people who were airport security BEFORE the TSA outlined ways to prevent airline terror. some of which was adopted most o it wasn't they think the TSA is a joke. and a politically. I say flat out with many other that the TSA is security theater. the systems been tested for years and fixed for years it still fails to stop fake bombs from going though. so much so that they don't even make the report public anymore.
TSA is a joke and BAD security much cheaper and BETTER methods are available.
THAT"S what i want.
And i want my freedoms and privacy back.
Jim you may feel it's just an inconvenience that fine. i feel that it's a crime.
You should not be able to take my constitutional rights away so you can feel better, ESPECIALLY since the BS measures are proven not to work. let the reality of the situation dictate not the fear.

there is no such thing as perfect safety, There's No way we are going to stop every wildfire or terrorist it's far to diffused. vigilance and targeted work by a focus intel and military are what's needed IMO.

I mention a while back the number of known Alqeada and the number of TSA agents.
how that you could take that same number of people from various Agencies and put 100 of them on tracking every movement of each Alqeada member.
THAT would cover the main events correct? without any TSA and without this blanket record every US phone call, and e-mail looking for keywords and SUPPORTING ALQEADA THAT WE LIKE.

We could save lives and dollars.
And look sane in the eyes of the world and be feared by the right people. Instead of librarians, toy store owners and gold coin minters in fear of getting approached by the FBI as terror suspects.

[Drummond]

Parts of the war war on terror are mythical.
Parts are not.
the TSA is useless. it is a complete waste. Many of the people who were airport security BEFORE the TSA outlined ways to prevent airline terror. some of which was adopted most o it wasn't they think the TSA is a joke. and a politically. I say flat out with many other that the TSA is security theater. the systems been tested for years and fixed for years it still fails to stop fake bombs from going though. so much so that they don't even make the report public anymore.
TSA is a joke and BAD security much cheaper and BETTER methods are available.
THAT"S what i want.
And i want my freedoms and privacy back.
Jim you may feel it's just an inconvenience that fine. i feel that it's a crime.
You should not be able to take my constitutional rights away so you can feel better, ESPECIALLY since the BS measures are proven not to work. let the reality of the situation dictate not the fear.

there is no such thing as perfect safety, There's No way we are going to stop every wildfire or terrorist it's far to diffused. vigilance and targeted work by a focus intel and military are what's needed IMO.

I mention a while back the number of known Alqeada and the number of TSA agents.
how that you could take that same number of people from various Agencies and put 100 of them on tracking every movement of each Alqeada member.
THAT would cover the main events correct? without any TSA and without this blanket record every US phone call, and e-mail looking for keywords and SUPPORTING ALQEADA THAT WE LIKE.

We could save lives and dollars.
And look sane in the eyes of the world and be feared by the right people. Instead of librarians, toy store owners and gold coin minters in fear of getting approached by the FBI as terror suspects.

Let's see if I can summarise your position.

1. We shouldn't believe all that we are supposed to believe about the War on Terror (... perhaps you can commit yourself to saying what's fictional, and what isn't .. cue the BBC, whose 'Power of Nightmares' mini-series claimed that most of Al Qaeda didn't even exist ??).

2. Scale back on airport checks

3. Accept that some terrorism will always happen, and that some just has to be tolerated

4. Be complacent about our knowledge as to who is and is not working for Al Qaeda .. what is 'known' can be relied upon to always be correct ?

5. On that basis, allocate manpower to track all the KNOWN members, and feel as secure as possible ... accepting, conveniently, that not all terrorism will be stopped ...

6. SAVE MONEY !!!

You even say ...


and be feared by the right people. Instead of librarians, toy store owners and gold coin minters ..

... I see. So, there's no such thing as an Al Qaeda terrorist who blends in with society ? None ever take harmless - seeming jobs ? It's actually IMPOSSIBLE, is it, for a librarian to also be a terrorist, or a store owner, likewise .. ?

For your information, the leader of the group that perpetrated the London bombings on '7/7' was a schoolteacher. Another of the group worked in a fish and chip shop ...

Revelarts ... terrorists RECRUIT. Tell me, how will the intelligence agencies ever guarantee to track EVERYONE who's a terrorist ??

It only takes ONE unknown terrorist to deploy a WMD in a city for the group responsible, in their very, ahem, 'human' way, to declare a major success. A success which may make 9/11 look like a picnic, and which, by your reckoning and tactics, will be .. what ?

ONE OF THOSE ATTACKS WHICH WE ALL HAVE TO ACCEPT AS BEING .. 'INEVITABLE' ??

NO, Revelarts, the point is that you DON'T give terrorists ANY advantage, even a minor one, AT ALL. Not if you genuinely want lives saved, that is ...

[revelarts]

Are you going to guarantee zero terrorism with a 100 TRILLION U.S. dollars and 50 million U.S. men thrown at the problem drummond?

What part of, part of what we are doing now doesn't work and isn't stopping all terror, doesn't make sense.
Throwing more gov't and more money at a problem is a LEFTIST answer. Have you gone LIBERAL?!?!

[jimnyc]

Are you going to guarantee zero terrorism with a 100 TRILLION U.S. dollars and 50 million U.S. men thrown at the problem drummond?

What part of, part of what we are doing now doesn't work and isn't stopping all terror, doesn't make sense.
Throwing more gov't and more money at a problem is a LEFTIST answer. Have you gone LIBERAL?!?!

No one can ever guarantee zero terrorism - but I'd bet both my testicles that all of our power and might and as much as we can afford - will ultimately save countless lives here and abroad. The attacks stopped worldwide, supposedly in the thousands already since 9/11, prove that.

[Drummond]

Are you going to guarantee zero terrorism with a 100 TRILLION U.S. dollars and 50 million U.S. men thrown at the problem drummond?

What part of, part of what we are doing now doesn't work and isn't stopping all terror, doesn't make sense.
Throwing more gov't and more money at a problem is a LEFTIST answer. Have you gone LIBERAL?!?!

As Jim says, you're never going to be able to guarantee zero terrorism. But reducing its incidence by a single percentage point, Revelarts, DOES translate into lives being saved.

On what basis do you argue that those lives should NOT be saved ?

As for 'Throwing more gov't and more money at a problem is a LEFTIST answer' .... well .... NO, actually. Wars cost money, Revelarts, and Bush wasn't shy about committing whatever resources were required to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan, now, was he ?

No, where this becomes definably Leftie is all to do with spending other peoples' money, like there's no tomorrow. Demand tax hikes. Borrow from the IMF and elsewhere. Spend, and spend again, in the hope that if anyone has to pick up the tab, the Left can both avoid doing so, AND avoid taking responsibility for the almighty mess they've created.

I daresay that what I've just described will sound familiar to others on this forum. But, guess what ? I've just described the BRITISH Socialist approach to fiscal irresponsibility !!

Lefties are remarkably similar -- the world over.

[jafar00]

No, more like Al Qaeda is finding homes in Islamic countries all over. Maybe some want them gone, but you sure don't see them propping up tents here in America or the UK. When these countries want them gone, the countries where Al Qaeda finds homes, and they actively fight to get rid of them, they will mostly be gone. As for now, they mostly find welcome parties where they form new groups or move to. And if you really want to boil it down - the problem of Al Qaeda spreading around is more Bin Ladens fault, and other leaders from the group. Odd that you rarely want to talk smack about them and talk about how they should be eradicated, but more interested in blaming Bush.

The "mess" over there wouldn't be a mess if these people were civilized and not animals.

It seems to me the "War on Terror" is having the exact opposite effect of what it's intention was. Terrorism has INCREASED worldwide since 9/11.

[logroller]

It seems to me the "War on Terror" is having the exact opposite effect of what it's intention was. Terrorism has INCREASED worldwide since 9/11.
Have you considered that is the intention?

[logroller]

As Jim says, you're never going to be able to guarantee zero terrorism. But reducing its incidence by a single percentage point, Revelarts, DOES translate into lives being saved.

On what basis do you argue that those lives should NOT be saved ?

As terrorist incidents have increased, and with each incident lives are lost, on what basis do you argue that lives have been saved?



As for 'Throwing more gov't and more money at a problem is a LEFTIST answer' .... well .... NO, actually. Wars cost money, Revelarts, and Bush wasn't shy about committing whatever resources were required to fight in both Iraq and Afghanistan, now, was he ?

'Twas a noble effort; but again, more lives have been lost as terrorism has increased, so at what point do you realize that doubling-down on failed policies is not only a fruitless endeavor, but counterproductive?


No, where this becomes definably Leftie is all to do with spending other peoples' money, like there's no tomorrow. Demand tax hikes. Borrow from the IMF and elsewhere. Spend, and spend again, in the hope that if anyone has to pick up the tab, the Left can both avoid doing so, AND avoid taking responsibility for the almighty mess they've created.
like trillions spent fighting a war that increased the incidence of that which it intended to curtail?


I daresay that what I've just described will sound familiar to others on this forum.
Indeed. That's how wars are funded.


But, guess what ? I've just described the BRITISH Socialist approach to fiscal irresponsibility !!

And a fine spokesman you are. But i thought you were against such practices, yet you promote a war that depends on those things.


Lefties are remarkably similar -- the world over.
So I've noticed.

[jafar00]

Have you considered that is the intention?

I have indeed.

[logroller]

I have indeed.
I guess the next logical question is why?

[jimnyc]

It seems to me the "War on Terror" is having the exact opposite effect of what it's intention was. Terrorism has INCREASED worldwide since 9/11.

So you have murderers, the authorities kill them, and then there are more murderers. And you want to blame someone other than the murderers - and those that aid and comfort them? It's the mind of a terrorist, and the mind of those who get drawn into terrorism, and the radicals who brainwash them, who are the problems. You seem to think we should just ignore terrorists so they don't breed. Nope, they die. And if the next asshole wants to get in a suit and die, so be it. Eventually these cockroaches that want to become terrorists will realize the only end is death.

You should ask yourself - with the world wanting to eradicate terrorism, and terrorists being killed - why are so many Muslim men still turning from their religion to terrorism?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

When did rev NOT agree with that? I think the point is the matter of scale.

Always to the rescue of those that promote scaling back operations against muslim terrorists. Yet you claim not to be a leftie or muslim sympathiser. :laugh:

Always to the rescue....... always,, its your standard .. -Tyr

[Drummond]

So you have murderers, the authorities kill them, and then there are more murderers. And you want to blame someone other than the murderers - and those that aid and comfort them? It's the mind of a terrorist, and the mind of those who get drawn into terrorism, and the radicals who brainwash them, who are the problems. You seem to think we should just ignore terrorists so they don't breed. Nope, they die. And if the next asshole wants to get in a suit and die, so be it. Eventually these cockroaches that want to become terrorists will realize the only end is death.

You should ask yourself - with the world wanting to eradicate terrorism, and terrorists being killed - why are so many Muslim men still turning from their religion to terrorism?

This assumes, of course, that they ARE turning from their religion to terrorism. But I see no reason to accept that as true.

Indeed, Anjem Choudary has come out in favour of the scum who murdered Lee Rigby (British soldier; Woolwich, SE London). According to him, what was done was done in the service of Islam ... and is certainly defensible within its terms.

Perhaps Jafar can explain that one.

[Drummond]

Always to the rescue of those that promote scaling back operations against muslim terrorists. Yet you claim not to be a leftie or muslim sympathiser. :laugh:

Always to the rescue....... always,, its your standard .. -Tyr:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting:

[Drummond]

Have you considered that is the intention?

- - Meant as a joke ? Surely .. it must be ??

Logroller, have you forgotten how the War on Terror first started ?

11th September 2001 -- America was attacked by Al Qaeda. A number of attack sites were involved, though of course the one that really sticks out in everybody's memory was the demolition of the Twin Towers in New York, with approximately 3,000 dead.

George W Bush could hardly NOT react to this, now, could he ? So it was that the War on Terror was born.

So, then. Am I to believe that Bush's thinking process was to view 9/11, and to think in response to it ... 'Well now, this is nice. Obviously, the most appropriate thing to do is to set a scenario in motion that invites lots more of the SAME to happen ... '

Logroller, seriously, does that make ANY sense to you ??

Now, Bush could've done things differently (.. and been impeached for it ..). He could've just sat on his hands, made a couple of sympathetic speeches, then taken the bog-standard Leftie line that not all terrorism can be stopped, therefore we might as well not try. BUT, as history records, in the months that followed, he gave Al Qaeda an almighty bloody nose from all the carpet-bombing of their Afghanistan-based terrorist training camps. This, as we know, decimated Al Qaeda's strength, and forced them to decentralise their operations .. just to SURVIVE.

Decimating Al Qaeda. Wiping out many of its 'operatives'. This, by your reckoning, was a cunning plan to STRENGTHEN Al Qaeda ?

In WWII .... did American troops think that killing the enemy would breed far greater numbers of them, so was an excellent way of encouraging Nazism to grow ? OR, by WINNING their battles, did they set out to DEFEAT Hitler's forces ??

[Drummond]

As terrorist incidents have increased, and with each incident lives are lost, on what basis do you argue that lives have been saved?

Intelligence services, in your country and mine, have done a great job in minimising those 'incidents' you claim to be happening.

Regardless .. it comes down to sheer numbers. The War on Terror has killed many terrorists. Now, if they're dead, they're in no fit state to lob bombs around .. yes ??

Of course, without any War on Terror to kill them, then they'd be ALIVE, instead. And, since they lack the humanity to develop consciences, they'd use that definite advantage (!!) to, er'm, MAKE ATTACKS. Thus, the War on Terror has undoubtedly saved lives.

Who can seriously believe that, had all those training camps in Afghanistan been left alone, rather than blown to bits, that the net outcome would've been .. NO more attacks, EVER ? So what WERE those terrorist camps, anyway ? Holiday camps ???


'Twas a noble effort; but again, more lives have been lost as terrorism has increased, so at what point do you realize that doubling-down on failed policies is not only a fruitless endeavor, but counterproductive?

Meaning, that the best way to defeat an enemy is to refuse to tackle it ??

I suggest to you that wiping out terrorists is a SUCCESS story, not a DEFEAT. If you really want to consider what would've constituted a defeat, think of terrorist numbers massively increased, by a policy of leaving them alone !!


like trillions spent fighting a war that increased the incidence of that which it intended to curtail?

9/11 was a one-off ? GW Bush could've done nothing, and known that further 9/11's were out of the question ?

Logroller, terrorists had ALREADY been recruited, to perpetrate 9/11. Terrorist training camps DID exist, prior to any action taken against them. This tells you, does it, that terrorist recruitment was a FAILURE, pre-9/11 ??

Terrorist recruitment was already a fact of life. The one choice was ... whether to leave them alone, or to decimate them.

I cannot fathom your apparent belief that decimating them was NOT a good idea.


.. i thought you were against such practices, yet you promote a war that depends on those things.

It would've been more cost-effective, then, to never fight Al Qaeda ? To give them a message which said, 'We won't spend money on a war, so you will get away with whatever you try. So, unmolested by us, bomb who you like, where you like, when you like, and of course this is guaranteed to have NO deleterious affect on our economy, no matter WHAT you get up to .. ???

Anyone care to tell me what's wrong with this picture ??!?

[aboutime]

It seems to me the "War on Terror" is having the exact opposite effect of what it's intention was. Terrorism has INCREASED worldwide since 9/11.


jafar. If that is how it appears to you. Then your love of Terrorists must be working exactly the way OBL planned, and announced it would.
The reason terrorism has increased here in the USA is due to our Appeasement, Imposter, and Pretend President who fears telling the truth by Identifying those he supports...and doesn't want to offend. Much like you do.
Obama and everyone who follows him, like you, who probably secretly wishes OBL was still around. Deny terror, terrorism, terrorists, and that a war on terror is required.
That's exactly how a man announced to the World, back before the 2nd World War felt, and assured the world Hitler was no threat as well.
What you want us to believe when you say terrorism has increased since 9-11 is. If we had just stayed quiet, and done nothing to identify those who declared WAR on the American people. Terrorism wouldn't exist because MORE AMERICANS WITHOUT COURAGE and GONADS would now be subjects, and even slaves to those like Hamas, and Hezbolla, with those who TOOK PART IN THE 911 attacks.

Your lousy, miserable word games of semantics, rhetoric and downright Lies...no longer fool us.

[fj1200]

Always to the rescue of those that promote scaling back operations against muslim terrorists. Yet you claim not to be a leftie or muslim sympathiser. :laugh:

Always to the rescue....... always,, its your standard .. -Tyr

False assumption #1, Rev needs rescuing. False assumption #2, that more is always better. False assumption #3... well, there are so many. You'd get along better if you would engage some critical thinking skills.

[aboutime]

The greatest surprise I have noticed in this, and other threads has been the endless, perpetual, decided defense of those who practice terror in whatever forms the terror may take place.

Most of the defensive posts in favor of granting terrorists rights, and almost under the constitution of the U.S. is shameful on many counts.

How disappointing it is to read how so many terribly, uninformed Americans would rather grant those destined to destroy America, and Americans all of the rights, freedoms, and liberties they seem willing to give up...for fairness, and appeasement.

This has become even more obvious with the announcements about the FORT HOOD murderer being granted, what seems like Unlimited freedom to defend his WILLFUL Murders of Americans.

If that is the way so many Americans...like several here feel.
I can only hope. Your appeasement one day finds you, or a member of your family the experience you DEMAND here.

[fj1200]

Not that this will do any good but here goes.


The greatest surprise I have noticed in this, and other threads has been the endless, perpetual, decided defense of those who practice terror in whatever forms the terror may take place.

Most of the defensive posts in favor of granting terrorists rights, and almost under the constitution of the U.S. is shameful on many counts.

The only "defense of terrorists" has been the defense of the God-given rights of man. And nobody that I recall has suggested they be granted Constitutional rights; Only citizens are entitled to that.


How disappointing it is to read how so many terribly, uninformed Americans would rather grant those destined to destroy America, and Americans all of the rights, freedoms, and liberties they seem willing to give up...for fairness, and appeasement.

This has become even more obvious with the announcements about the FORT HOOD murderer being granted, what seems like Unlimited freedom to defend his WILLFUL Murders of Americans.

1. Hasan is a US citizen and has the right of defense; or is your oath selective? 2. Who wants to grant terrorists "rights, freedoms, and liberties"?


If that is the way so many Americans...like several here feel.
I can only hope. Your appeasement one day finds you, or a member of your family the experience you DEMAND here.

Wow.

[aboutime]

Not that this will do any good but here goes.



The only "defense of terrorists" has been the defense of the God-given rights of man. And nobody that I recall has suggested they be granted Constitutional rights; Only citizens are entitled to that.



1. Hasan is a US citizen and has the right of defense. 2. Who wants to grant terrorists "rights, freedoms, and liberties"?



Wow.


Right! The WORKPLACE defense. Got it!

[logroller]

- - Meant as a joke ? Surely .. it must be ??

Logroller, have you forgotten how the War on Terror first started ?

11th September 2001 -- America was attacked by Al Qaeda. A number of attack sites were involved, though of course the one that really sticks out in everybody's memory was the demolition of the Twin Towers in New York, with approximately 3,000 dead.

George W Bush could hardly NOT react to this, now, could he ? So it was that the War on Terror was born.

So, then. Am I to believe that Bush's thinking process was to view 9/11, and to think in response to it ... 'Well now, this is nice. Obviously, the most appropriate thing to do is to set a scenario in motion that invites lots more of the SAME to happen ... '

Logroller, seriously, does that make ANY sense to you ??

Now, Bush could've done things differently (.. and been impeached for it ..). He could've just sat on his hands, made a couple of sympathetic speeches, then taken the bog-standard Leftie line that not all terrorism can be stopped, therefore we might as well not try. BUT, as history records, in the months that followed, he gave Al Qaeda an almighty bloody nose from all the carpet-bombing of their Afghanistan-based terrorist training camps. This, as we know, decimated Al Qaeda's strength, and forced them to decentralise their operations .. just to SURVIVE.

Decimating Al Qaeda. Wiping out many of its 'operatives'. This, by your reckoning, was a cunning plan to STRENGTHEN Al Qaeda ?

In WWII .... did American troops think that killing the enemy would breed far greater numbers of them, so was an excellent way of encouraging Nazism to grow ? OR, by WINNING their battles, did they set out to DEFEAT Hitler's forces ??
Too long, didn't read it all. But im guessing i could paraphrase it nonetheless; for I don't need a history lesson. Im astutely aware of the events precipitating the war on terror. Are you aware of the precipitating events to 9/11? the west's training of clandestine operatives who would later turn their animosity back upon us. Or how we propped up cruel and oppressive dictators friendly to our interests. Oh no. That's right; mentioning that makes me muslim/terrorist appeaser. Well hey guess what; paint me with that brush to your hearts content, but don't get your knickers in a bunch when I return with accusations of your promoting oppressive dictatorships and genocide. You're insane if you think inflammatory rhetoric is going to solve the problem of terrorism when that's what lies at the root of the problem.
Btw, ineptitude is not grounds for impeachment. Were it that it were, there'd be a much longer list of impeached presidents. The question which I have posed, repeatedly and without answer, is why terrorist attacks have increased during our war on terror? You seem quite fond of continuing with reactive policies that don't have their desired effect. That is, reducing/eliminating terrorist attacks.

[fj1200]

Right! The WORKPLACE defense. Got it!

:dunno: His defense as provided for in the UCMJ.

[aboutime]

Too long, didn't read it all. But im guessing i could paraphrase it nonetheless; for I don't need a history lesson. Im astutely aware of the events precipitating the war on terror. Are you aware of the precipitating events to 9/11? the west's training of clandestine operatives who would later turn their animosity back upon us. Or how we propped up cruel and oppressive dictators friendly to our interests. Oh no. That's right; mentioning that makes me muslim/terrorist appeaser. Well hey guess what; paint me with that brush to your hearts content, but don't get your knickers in a bunch when I return with accusations of your promoting oppressive dictatorships and genocide. You're insane if you think inflammatory rhetoric is going to solve the problem of terrorism when that's what lies at the root of the problem.
Btw, ineptitude is not grounds for impeachment. Were it that it were, there'd be a much longer list of impeached presidents. The question which I have posed, repeatedly and without answer, is why terrorist attacks have increased during our war on terror? You seem quite fond of continuing with reactive policies that don't have their desired effect. That is, reducing/eliminating terrorist attacks.


:lol:

[logroller]

:lol:
Ibid

You're insane.

[aboutime]

Ibid


Thank you! I KNOW. It's a requirement when you attempt to converse with others like me here.

And Thank you for being the first to recognize how I emulate so well.

[Drummond]

Too long, didn't read it all. But im guessing i could paraphrase it nonetheless; for I don't need a history lesson. Im astutely aware of the events precipitating the war on terror. Are you aware of the precipitating events to 9/11? the west's training of clandestine operatives who would later turn their animosity back upon us. Or how we propped up cruel and oppressive dictators friendly to our interests. Oh no. That's right; mentioning that makes me muslim/terrorist appeaser. Well hey guess what; paint me with that brush to your hearts content, but don't get your knickers in a bunch when I return with accusations of your promoting oppressive dictatorships and genocide. You're insane if you think inflammatory rhetoric is going to solve the problem of terrorism when that's what lies at the root of the problem.
Btw, ineptitude is not grounds for impeachment. Were it that it were, there'd be a much longer list of impeached presidents. The question which I have posed, repeatedly and without answer, is why terrorist attacks have increased during our war on terror? You seem quite fond of continuing with reactive policies that don't have their desired effect. That is, reducing/eliminating terrorist attacks.

Yes, certainly, my post was lengthy. But it made good points, which I'm sure accounts for the lack of their being met with comparable detail in your reply.

Your reference to ..


the west's training of clandestine operatives who would later turn their animosity back upon us.

.. must refer to the Mujahiddeen movement, which is what they (or many of them) were before becoming something ELSE entirely.

The Mujahiddeen, yes, had Western support. Al Qaeda, however, NEVER did. The worst you can reasonably accuse the West of is an inability to demonstrate clairvoyance.

Your reference to ..


how we propped up cruel and oppressive dictators friendly to our interests.

Meaning .. Saddam ? Who else ?

Looks to me like you're trying to have this both ways. On the one hand, you're critical of Saddam and what he represented. Ah, but when, in real terms, something decent was done to tackle him, and his regime ... suddenly, this is open to criticism ....?

If you didn't have Saddam in mind, further clarification is needed.

What's your thinking on Iran, and Ahmadinejad ? Should the West prop up his genocide-threatening, terrorist-enabling (e.g Hamas) regime by continuing to FAIL to take direct action against it, or should Iran have all the time it needs to develop a nuke capability it'll turn against Israel ?

As to your final point, that of 'why terrorist attacks have increased during our war on terror?' .. well ... I offer this thought, Logroller.
When enemies take you on, they like to WIN. So, they put in the effort to do exactly that.

It's very naughty of them. But, what do they care ? They're unprincipled terrorists, after all.

So, what to do ?

Well, there are these options:

1. Paralysis. Do nothing to combat them. Possibly in the delusional hope that they'll grow consciences and decide to stop attacking. Well .. I fail to see where such a hope could come from.

2. Appeasement. Maybe try approaching them, to negotiate ? Same objection ... what makes anyone think they'd ever listen, or see it as any more than weakness ?

3. Surrender. There are times when I think this is the Left's preferred option. Hopefully, unthinkable !!

4. FIGHT ON. This involves recognising an enemy AS one. It also involves the concept of the prospect of eventual VICTORY, forcing said enemy into being DEFEATED.

... Shocking stuff, eh, Logroller ?

[red states rule]

Too long, didn't read it all. But im guessing i could paraphrase it nonetheless; for I don't need a history lesson. Im astutely aware of the events precipitating the war on terror. Are you aware of the precipitating events to 9/11? the west's training of clandestine operatives who would later turn their animosity back upon us. Or how we propped up cruel and oppressive dictators friendly to our interests. Oh no. That's right; mentioning that makes me muslim/terrorist appeaser. Well hey guess what; paint me with that brush to your hearts content, but don't get your knickers in a bunch when I return with accusations of your promoting oppressive dictatorships and genocide. You're insane if you think inflammatory rhetoric is going to solve the problem of terrorism when that's what lies at the root of the problem.
Btw, ineptitude is not grounds for impeachment. Were it that it were, there'd be a much longer list of impeached presidents. The question which I have posed, repeatedly and without answer, is why terrorist attacks have increased during our war on terror? You seem quite fond of continuing with reactive policies that don't have their desired effect. That is, reducing/eliminating terrorist attacks.

Spoken like a Ron Paul supporter LR. It takes a special kind of person to blame those murdered on 9/11 that they invited the attack

Sit back and enjoy this moment LR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg

[aboutime]

Spoken like a Ron Paul supporter LR. It takes a special kind of person to blame those murdered on 9/11 that they invited the attack

Sit back and enjoy this moment LR


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQrwKr_b4Lg


Good thing Logroller isn't living at 1600 Pennsylvania ave in the White House. Ineptness wouldn't be his only problem drawing the demands for Impeachment. Let us count the ways.

Oh...by the way Logroller. How did Ron Paul do with the election?????