Al-Qaeda ‘certain’ to attack U.S. within months

[darth los]

For anyone who has not seen this it's a real eye opener and very chilling.

Which begs the question: WTF have we been doing for the past 9 years? We seem to be worse off than around the time of 9-11.

We've spent trillions on this war on terror and we are no safer for it. We cannot keep this up. Bin Laden drew the Russians into a quagmire and it broke the U.S.S.R. and it will do the same to this country.

And before we start placing blame on a particular administration there's plenty of blame to go around since 1979 (even before then) and most of the administrations since that time have been republican. ( 20 years to 10 )


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35212549/ns/us_news-washington_post/

:cool:

[MinionZombie]

I think the whole Afghan/Iraq war situation has been a fuck up from the start from a government level across the globe.

Speaking of such things, the UK's terror threat level was upped to "severe" (only "critical" remains) ... yet, weirdly, nobody would explain why, and were basically saying 'be vigilant for anything that will-but-won't happen, but you know, eyes open yeah, but don't worry ... WORRY ... no, don't worry' ... in fact it was brilliantly lampooned on Newswipe last night.

[darth los]

I think the whole Afghan/Iraq war situation has been a fuck up from the start from a government level across the globe.

Speaking of such things, the UK's terror threat level was upped to "severe" (only "critical" remains) ... yet, weirdly, nobody would explain why, and were basically saying 'be vigilant for anything that will-but-won't happen, but you know, eyes open yeah, but don't worry ... WORRY ... no, don't worry' ... in fact it was brilliantly lampooned on Newswipe last night.

That's a common practice over here, normally when elections are close and in a parliamentary system, when are they not?

They seem to want to create an atmosphere of fear without the chaos that panic causes. Because after all, if the populace is afraid they will willingly cede more and more of their blood earned freedom for merely the perception of security.

As our founding father's said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Truer words were never spoken.

:cool:

[MinionZombie]

It's just a shame general elections are so hard to come by at the moment in the UK, as well as freedoms that haven't somehow been removed or trampled or pissed on.

There's definitely been increasing posturing from Brown to try and look 'tough on terrorism' ... all of it wank, mind.

[MikePizzoff]

:rockbrow: I'd like to know how they have this information that we'll be "certainly attacked", then why the hell aren't they doing anything to stop it? There's no way you could know that there are "terrorists" in the country planning shit, if one of them didn't slip up and tell you.

[bassman]

To quote Robin Williams' Broadway stand up show:


Colin Powell comes out..."I don't know where. I don't know when. But something awful is going to happen. Thank you, that's all for today, no further questions." Well, could you give us a clue? What is this, the Central *Intuitive* Agency now? Are you working with Miss Cleo?

[SRP76]

Yes, let's give details to the numbnuts sitting at home. Because everyone knows terrorists don't watch tv. By all means, give away exactly what the authorities are up to, and how they're coming by their information; terrorists are incapable of using that information. They can plan and coordinate complex hijack/crashings, bombings, embassy attacks, etc., but that Dish Network remote just kicks their ass.

[blind2d]

I see your point, Ace Freely, but the fact is... well the fact is(damn, now I can't remember his line! And it's one of my favorites!)
Anyhow, yeah, fear leads to submission, submission leads to fascism, and fascism leads to despair, so... I dunno... don't change your normal behavior, just be prepared for... the unexpected, I guess... become a vegetarian...?

[AcesandEights]

Possibility of an "attempted attack is certain."

If an attack does happen and is successful people better hold feet to fire to see what was known ahead of time and what was done.

[capncnut]

Let me look into my crystal ball... erm, yeah, Al Quaeda will most certainly attack America again in the near future.

How unexpected... :rolleyes:

[krakenslayer]

Yes, let's give details to the numbnuts sitting at home. Because everyone knows terrorists don't watch tv. By all means, give away exactly what the authorities are up to, and how they're coming by their information; terrorists are incapable of using that information. They can plan and coordinate complex hijack/crashings, bombings, embassy attacks, etc., but that Dish Network remote just kicks their ass.

The point is, if they can't give us any dtails, what's the point in telling us? There's always someone, somewhere, planning something. Why bring it up now, when they can't discuss it for whatever reason? The only possible outcome is fear. Therefore fear must be the intended outcome.

[blind2d]

Mind sharp as a knife as per usual, kraken. Well said. And the media always tries to control the public in this way... so maybe the question is not what some terrorist group has in store, but what the media has... nah, they just want our money and free time, that's all. Hardly terrorism.

[strayrider]

The point is, if they can't give us any dtails, what's the point in telling us? There's always someone, somewhere, planning something. Why bring it up now, when they can't discuss it for whatever reason? The only possible outcome is fear. Therefore fear must be the intended outcome.

Right. One great fear at this point (in the US, in certain circles) is that Republicans are about to make a major sweep in the next round of elections.

;)

-stray-

[MikePizzoff]

I see your point, Ace Freely

That's Paul Stanley! :mad:

[blind2d]

Is it? My bad, sorry. My dad would know... Hey, at least I got the same band!

[Skippy911sc]

Coming up after the commercial break we will tell you how we are all going to die from the next terrorist attack... don't go anywhere we will be right back. Now go wait 30 minutes for the news that will save you...oh wait it was all rubbish!

The administration will wait for the 2010 election before it gives any info to scare the hell out of us. They learned it from the last administration. ;)

To live in fear is to not live at all.

[darth los]

Right. One great fear at this point (in the US, in certain circles) is that Republicans are about to make a major sweep in the next round of elections.

;)

-stray-


That's if the tea party doeasn't run a candidate that will either take their seat in the primary or siphon off enough votes if they run as a third party candidate to give the election to the dem.

:cool:

[strayrider]

That's if the tea party doeasn't run a candidate that will either take their seat in the primary or siphon off enough votes if they run as a third party candidate to give the election to the dem.

:cool:

This is a very good point! Using the Tea Party against the Republicans...you might be onto something here, Darth!

:D

-stray-

[Philly_SWAT]

The link to that article is no longer there. But the very idea of this topic is wrong. The guy who just took over Ted Kennedy's seat, in his speech today, said something to the effect that "intelligence says an attack this year by al-keida is certain". The dude totally mispoke. Intelligence said they were certain (and of course, that is even wrong cuz you can never be "certain" beforehand) that an ATTEMPT at an attack would occur, not that an attack itself would occur.

[SymphonicX]

You know what, I get the feeling that we're no closer to knowing the truth than ever before. And these "threat" levels...they feel totally arbitrary.
So we go up from "might happen" to "teal coloured warning" overnight and to be honest I get the feeling that none of us have the slightest f**kin clue just how likely a terror attack is.
And also, believe it or not, the chances of anyone here getting killed in such an attack is so slim that you'd probably die from tasting a 12v battery first.

[shootemindehead]

The point is, if they can't give us any dtails, what's the point in telling us? There's always someone, somewhere, planning something. Why bring it up now, when they can't discuss it for whatever reason? The only possible outcome is fear. Therefore fear must be the intended outcome.

Control by fear. The best way to do it.

[Danny]

Control by fear. The best way to do it.

isnt that what terrorists aim for though? control your enemies actions by instilling terror in them?

[SymphonicX]

Also works when your allies do it...in fact it works better really.

[darth los]

This is a very good point! Using the Tea Party against the Republicans...you might be onto something here, Darth!

:D

-stray-


I really tinkk there's something to that. The reps are going through a period cleansing/internal stryfe
.

Even Their saint, Ronald Reagan, would fail their "purity test". The man raised taxes, gave amnesty to illegal imigrants and appointed a pro life Justice (Sanda Day O'connor) to the Supreme court. I mean by their standards the guy was a closet socialist.


You know what, I get the feeling that we're no closer to knowing the truth than ever before. And these "threat" levels...they feel totally arbitrary.
So we go up from "might happen" to "teal coloured warning" overnight and to be honest I get the feeling that none of us have the slightest f**kin clue just how likely a terror attack is.
And also, believe it or not, the chances of anyone here getting killed in such an attack is so slim that you'd probably die from tasting a 12v battery first.

Check this out. I illustrates how our gov't has been using terror to , uh terrorize us for political gain the past decade. Now some of it might be coincidence but all of them? I think not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7yl-UnsQQ

:cool:

[thxleo]

Even Their saint, Ronald Reagan, would fail their "purity test". The man raised taxes, gave amnesty to illegal imigrants and appointed a pro life Justice (Sanda Day O'connor) to the Supreme court. I mean by their standards the guy was a closet socialist.



Gee Darth, did you watch Hardball w/ Chris Matthews last night? Those words sound VERY similar to what he was shilling on his program last night.
Ronald Reagan was hardly a socialist, that's absurd. No one could ever pass their own party's "purity test", as your spit slinging liberal host Matthews phrased it on MSNBC last night, not even the savior who gives him a tingle up his leg.

[darth los]

Gee Darth, did you watch Hardball w/ Chris Matthews last night? Those words sound VERY similar to what he was shilling on his program last night.
Ronald Reagan was hardly a socialist, that's absurd. No one could ever pass their own party's "purity test", as your spit slinging liberal host Matthews phrased it on MSNBC last night, not even the savior who gives him a tingle up his leg.


What's more interesting is that you apparently watched it as well. :p

Pure research I'm sure.

And just because he said it and you don't like him doesn't mean it's not true.

The point was Reagan would have been bashed ala John McCain And Lindsay grahm for not being conservative enough and taken right out by a tea party candidate. Because in today's republican party there's no room for independant thinking, just a united, NO!.

Socialist might have been a strong word but liberal is not. And that's what he would have been considered today, not conservative enough to run on the rep platform.

:cool:

[thxleo]

What's more interesting is that you apparently watched it as well. :p

Pure research I'm sure.

And just because he said it and you don't like him doesn't mean it's not true.

The point was Reagan would have been bashed ala John McCain And Lindsay grahm for not being conservative enough and taken right out by a tea party candidate. Because in today's republican party there's no room for independant thinking, just a united, NO!.

Socialist might have been a strong word but liberal is not. And that's what he would have been considered today, not conservative enough to run on the rep platform.

:cool:

Yes, I watch MSNBC. Unlike most liberals, who say they never watch FOX news, I watch and listen to people I don't agree with! That way I actually know what they are really about. The most entertaining personality on MSNBC is Ed Schultz. That guy is hilarious, because he's such a die hard liberal who openly hates conservatives. He makes me laugh.

So by your logic, then Clinton was really a conservative since he bombed an aspirin factory in 1998. Obama is actually a conservative since he sent more troops to Afghanistan. We can play this game all day.

Saying Reagan could not run on his own party's platform today is ridiculous. Reagan is an untouchable to conservatives, regardless of what the spit slinging hack Matthews says. Matthews is the same guy who asked if it's illegal to call Al Queda. He forgets Obama is black sometimes. In Pittsburgh, the term used for Matthews would a "jag off".

[AcesandEights]

So by your logic, then Clinton was really a conservative...

I've actually heard a lot of people claim this for various (some of them, I felt, were decent) reasons. This is not to say that I feel Clinton was actually a conservative, only that some of his actions could be viewed as conservative or less liberal in nature, which is--of course--going to happen in our political system. More to the point, I think this illustrates something you mentioned, that I agree with quite a bit, and that is most politicians will not live up to their own parties 'litmus test', especially with the varieties of opinion under the two major tents and the sobering effect political reality has on many of our elected representatives. I actually find this a good thing in many respects.

[darth los]

and that is most politicians will not live up to their own parties 'litmus test', especially with the varieties of opinion under the two major tents and the sobering effect political reality has on many of our elected representatives. I actually find this a good thing in many respects.


I actually made that point, he's arguing that it doesn't matter what reagan did, he's untouchable to them, which is sad but true.

You and I are on the same page. All I'm saying is that by the standards of today's republican party's "purity test" on which you have to to agree with 8 or 9 points regan's positions only coincided with like 6 or seven of them.

Therefore, he would not recieve the support of the republican national comittee. It's true, like it or not.

:cool:

[EvilNed]

I love it how conservatives are suddenly the ones defending the government, and the leftists are the ones questioning it. What is this, bizarro world?

This smells of classic propaganda, by the way. I don't think they have anything to go on... At all.

[darth los]

I love it how conservatives are suddenly the ones defending the government, and the leftists are the ones questioning it. What is this, bizarro world?

This smells of classic propaganda, by the way. I don't think they have anything to go on... At all.


No it's always been bizarro time.

During normal/peacetime conservatives are always rallying against gov't yet want a big strong military as if the gov't doesn't have anything to do with that. These are the same people that can't stand gov't run programs yet will march to washington with their guns (the ones that Obama hasn't taken away ...yet :stunned: ) if someone tries to take their medicare or social security. :rolleyes:

Bizarro world indeed.

:cool:

[_liam_]

isnt that what terrorists aim for though? control your enemies actions by instilling terror in them?

Are you appreciating the irony or expressing disbelief?