Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.
Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."
Hey Dem's, do you see what is going to happen if we leave Iraq?
Of course you don't...
Leaving Iraq now will cause us to be another Israel in the terrorist world. Right now we are forcing them to fight away from our shores. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, plots like this will be carried out...just like 9-11 was due to the fact we didn't do anything in the 90's.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Details Emerge About Possible Terror Threat
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
the sad thing is you are correct...it was okay when they had no power...now it is a deadly thought
I hope the coalition forces had a search warrant when they raided that safe house. What will France think of us if we don’t provide constitutional rights to enemy combatants? Maybe we should involve the ACLU or Amnesty International so we can get to the bottom of this obvious outrage!
So let me get this straight. All members of al Qaeda capable of carrying out terrorist attacks against the US are pinned down in Iraq, and the US is safe as long as we are in Iraq. And if we are somehow able to leave with a stablized Iraq, these same members of al Qaeda will...will what? Pack up their suitcases and go home and get a job?
If we leave with a stabilized Iraq, we will perhaps have one more ally in the fight against terror. Is this so hard to grasp? I would suppose you would like a lock-solid guaruntee. Well, here's one: If we leave now, nothing will change except for the worse because of how our leaving will appear to the scumbags. This has been echoed by many who are fighting them now, as well as one who used to fight with them. It is mentioned by those locked up in Gitmo and to pretend that leaving will placate them is idiocy. If we leave Iraq in the manner that Bush is trying to achieve, we have a far better chance of reducing the threat.
This is another typical post blaming dems for everything. The issue is far more important than domestic politics of Rep vs Dems.
If you are really worried about terrorism, you would be talking about other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and UK. Not just Iraq. When was the last time you saw an Iraqi blowing up things in Israel, europe or USA? Have you heard any Iraqi mujahideens fighting in Kashmir or Chechnya???
Yes, there is al-queda in Iraq now because of american presence. But our troops can shut them down. I am more worried about so called our allys on war on terrorism!!
Yes - Personally I would support staying back in Iraq and fighting as long as it takes to stabilize the country. It's our responsibility to clean up the mess we created. But, I am not going to be naive enough to believe that it would destroy Al-Qaeda cells. They would simply move to another location.
vittal,
We did not create Al Qaeda. Bin Laden did. He is a fanatic. He ordered attacks on the US long before 9/11, but Clinton ignored them. That is one reason we blast the Defeatocrats on it.
Jim shows his usual partisan ignorance and BDS,as you do when you solely blame Bush for Al Qaeda.
vittal
We could not simultaneously attack every terrorist cell in every country. We started with Afghanistan and Iraq. If we make semi-stable democracies out of both those countries, it will reduce terrorist membership, as well as free up more resources for us to go after terrorist in other countries, particularly in those countries that offer sympathy and/or shelter and/or support for terrorist (no, I’m not talking about San Fransicko, or Boston) like say a Syria or Iran.
pcd,
It’s so tempting to ignore what I wrote and get back to the mudslinging of partisan blame game, Isn’t it?
First of all, I didn't blame Bush for Al-Qaeda!! Al-Qaeda grew in Iraq due to American presence. It's not a rocket science. They would go wherever they can fight America.
I agree that America (yes, including Bill Clinton) ignored Al-Qaeda before 9/11. Al-Qaeda is only one face of Islamic threat. Too bad that America didn’t wake up before 9/11. I don’t know how much you know or follow the Islamic terrorism. There is a reason why I mentioned Chechnya and Kashmir. Both Clinton and Bush were running around telling Russia and India on how to have dialogue with these Islamic terrorists before 9/11. Media called them either insurgents or freedom fighters!!
Again, my main point here is that we should go after Islamic terrorists and fight them as long as it takes to destroy them. We should never wait to confront them till they either attack Europe or America. If they blow up trains in Mumbai today, they would do the same thing in London tomorrow.
And, in this process we shouldn’t act like partisan morons when both parties had failed to protect us from 9/11.
Vittal,
You don't read other posts, yourself.
Let me spell this out for you slowly. There was Al Qaeda BEFORE Iraq and BEFORE 9/11. The Blind Sheik was not alone when the Trade center was attacked by a truck bomb. That was Al Qaeda. That was roughly a DECADE before Iraq. Got your facts straight now??
Now, Jaime Gorelick made sure NSA and CIA NEVER saw the evidence and intelligence the FBI collected from the truck bombing of the Trade Towers. When the Sudan offered Bin Laden on a silver platter to Clinton, Clinton could dodge taking OBL because no one knew of the evidence tying OBL to the bombing. Strike one on the Dems.
Strike Two is the Dem. Congress in gutting home defensed cut out a F-16 Fighter/Interceptor wing in New Jersey that could have intercepted the 2nd plane flown into the Trade Towers instead of waiting for a pair to scramble from Maine.
Strike Three on the Dems is that they were obstructing Bush from his inauguration day until they lost Congress. Many political appointees in the government were Clinton holdovers who also blocked Bush's agenda. They didn't see anything and handed over no plans for Al Qaeda.
And it is the Dems who DO NOT SEE ANY THREAT FROM AL QAEDA NOW.
vittal, you can't argue with delusion. You can't argue with ignorance. You can't argue with a world view that insists that lies are true and the truth is lies. You can't argue with those who refuse to acknowledge facts in the public record. You can't argue with those who say you said something you clearly didn't and repeat the claim when you've made it abundantly clear that you didn't.
Vittal,
The last time we saw Iraqis blowing up things in Israel was during the first Gulf War when Hussein was lobbing Russian missles into Israel and our Patriot Missles were intercepting most of them. Since then, he'd been a bit distracted from doing more beyond paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It's just more on the list of reasons why taking him out was a great idea.
Jim,
Taking your words and using them on you means that we should ignore you and maybe game shouldn't allow you to post here. Is that how you mean to censor people, if you could?
Jim, good one! No more comments....smiles...
Marshall Art - I remember the first persian gulf war. As far as I know, nobody calls it an act of terrorism. It was an act of war. :) It's very different from some suicide bombers blowing up trains and pizza joints...
Post a Comment