Terror attacks may escalate with war

In breaking news this morning, US officials estimated that there would be terrorist attacks in the future.

 

"In breaking news this morning, US officials estimated that there would be terrorist attacks in the future."

What a prediction how did they figure that out? Got to be kidding right. They will try these things again if we go into Iraq or not. Your afraid, be prepared carry something to defend yourself and the family. Then after you shoot them fucck them.

 

But...but...but President Bush said we'd be more safe from terrorist attacks, not less safe. He wouldn't lie to us just to push his agenda, would he?

 

But there's no connection between Iraq and terrorism so why would terrorists want to attack us if we go in there, right?

 

Re: Re: Terror attacks may escalate with war

Well, let´s see: There is no connection between terrorism and Morocco, agree?
But if the US would attack Morocco a lot of islamic terrorists would attack the states! Got it?

domingo

 

Just curious how has "containment" made us safe from terrorism?if anything it has made the problem much worse.

Every "pissed off" Muslim likes to scream how us "infidels" are in their "holy land".Well, why are we there? to protect the Saudis , Kuwatis and the rest of the gulf states from saddam.a decade of containment has been a dismall failure.Their are only two options which should be considered... The complete US pullout of the region, or toppling saddam.

 

Actually, we're in the Gulf region to a) maintain our interests vis a vis the flow of oil and b) protect Israel from just about everybody else.

And how exactly has containment been a dismal failure? How many countries has Saddam attacked since 1991? Anything more than zero would be an acceptable answer to show that containment has been a failure.

 

Mike, they might time the attacks to coincide with a war, but they're going to carry them out sooner or later whether or not we go into Baghdad.

If anything, IMO going into Iraq would give us a better chance at stopping the attacks, since we'd know they're coming.


Alex

 

That whole notion of invading Iraq being a direct reason for future terrorism from Al Queda types is bullsh!t to me.

What I'm afraid of is the muslims that are not convinced we're satan seeing all the suffering we're about to unleash over there.

 

Do you honestly believe the US will leave the region anytime soon regardless of what happens in Iraq? I don't.

And do you really think that the Muslim extremists will accept an Iraqi government that they see as a US puppet after we've gone in, removed Saddam (killing many many Iraqis in the process), set up our occupation force for Vishnu knows how many years and installed our new government?

[edit]And that's if everything goes absolutely smoothly for us in the postwar Middle East which, given the Bushies' horribly incompetent build-up to war, is far from guaranteed.[/edit]

 

"He wouldn't lie to us just to push his agenda, would he?" Talking about Bush.

I think I will call you out on this. What exactly is the Presidents Agenda?

It is not to be reelected because this is going to kill any chance of that happening.

So what is the agenda in your eyes?

 

Well, for one, Ghadaffi doesn't blow up planes over Scotland anymore.

 

There's a disconnect here, Mike. You can't in one sentence say our actions in Iraq are the reason for al-Qaeda's actions, then in the next sentence say a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is irrelevant.

OBL may use our actions in Iraq as his excuse, but since we've already determined that terror attacks at some point are likely no matter our policy in Iraq, we can't say that containment is responsible.

 

Removing Saddam Hussein has been on Bush's agenda since 1999 at least. It was a central theme of his foreign policy agenda and was mentioned specifically during the debates.

To now say that it is tied to the war on terror is political opportunism at best.

 

Probably right on both counts. But you could also add, maintaining order because if Israel went it alone, I think we would see a lot more violence in the area.

I think part of our presence over there is to head off WW III.

As far as containment being a dismal failure, just pick a terrorist attack. The economic situation in a lot of those countries is terrible for all but a few, and when you have that, you have extremists. They aren't going away.

If we stay status quo, there are only going to be more attacks and they'll probably get worse as we go along.

I give Bush credit because at least he's trying to do something about it. I would rather that than sitting back and waiting for the next Sept. 11.

 

9/11 was a response to which US armed conflict? they're planning to kill us anyway, this is not a reason not to go to war. surely, you may find reasons not to go to war with iraq, but i don't think this is one of them.

 

Re: Re: Terror attacks may escalate with war

Good point........

We are no longer in Dress Rehearsal mode. I for one will feel a lot safer knowing that OBL and Saddam will NEVER have the opportunity to help each other out and help them achieve each of their respective goals.

 

OK, so this is the second time containment has been directly or indirectly held responsible for the Terror Attack of the Week.

The obvious question is, what are the alternatives to containment, and would there be more TAotWs, fewere TAotWs, or the same number of TAotWs (yes, I do like typing that, why do you ask?)?

Because it's all fine and good to say that containment is to blame, but if there's not containment, there's something else, and we should discuss whether that would be better or worse.

 

Too easy

So exactly when do we invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, India, North Korea, Sudan and Indonesia? Has Bush released a timetable for those invasions yet?

 

Re: Re: Re: Terror attacks may escalate with war

In response to this post and the one it was in response to:

VERY indirectly (all apologies to Karl Keller), 9/11 was a response to the first Gulf War. Many analysts attribute the rise of OBL and AQ to the first Gulf War and its aftermath.

Secondly, you make a logical leap above that OBL and Saddam would ever help each other out. OBL thinks Saddam is an infidel and an apostate. They have different ideologies and different goals. They have no reason to help each other out.

 

Kudos to you.

If the US does nothing, the extremist muslims will hate us and terrorism will continue unabated. Does this mean I think a war in Iraq will stop terrorism? No, but I believe it is a step in the right direction.

1) Hussein is a despot who has shown in the past what he is willing to do (see Kuwait, circa 1991).

2) We are now a part of the "war on terrorism", which IMHO, I can't believe that SH doesn't have a hand in.

3) If we leave the middle east, to a us vs them relationship, our interests will never be served.

4) Our interests are freedom to live in peace and to have a free flow of oil.

5) If our relationship is us vs them, the extremist muslims will only grow in power.

The best way to help countires in the middle east is to help spread freedom for them. Let them see what we enjoy and what life can be like for them.

 

Re: Too easy

no not yet, but hopefully soon. i am hoping that our takeover will really lead to a nicer middle east. i gotta tell you i'm picturing sort of a vegas 2 for iraq. casinos, hookers, bright lights. maybe indonesia could be more a hawaii type resort will hula girls and mai-tais. this is gonna be sweet

 

Re: Too easy

I don't know the White House Policy but I Imagine it goes a little something like this.

House of Saud.......with us.
Iran.....................We'll be in Iraq if we need to, but they'll know we mean business.
Pakistan...............You're kidding right, they're helping us dismantle OBL's network.
Egypt...................Why is Egypt here, enlighten me.
India....................Again, you're kidding right?
Sudan.................. Why? Send the poor some aid.
Indonesia.............. Their government is helping us.

North Korea........... Lil' Kim...you're next.