does anyone think al quaeda is really a threat?

[datasuspect]

let me rephrase that, is it a threat of epic proportions? will al quaeda invade with great land armies, will their navy bombard our coastlines, will their airforce bomb our cities, can their ICBMs reach us in 40 minutes?

i get sick and tired of hearing people with this "we're under attack" mentality.

i don't think we're in any more danger than we ever have been. at least in the u.s. the police state is flowering here, but it hasn't blossomed yet, i think the machinery needs to fine tune its repression and dismantle what's left of the already meager constitutional protections we have.

sure, i wouldn't want to go to iraq, but al quaeda as an organization is actually pretty lackluster. what have they blown up lately on our soil? geez. i want my global threats red, nuclear capable, and spreading like wildfire through southeast asia, latin america, and eastern europe.

[Pavulon]

1. Bill Clinton did

African Embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc.

They are real, our MEDIA response is pretty stupid.

[datasuspect]

2. bill clinton is the boogeyman

so does bombing an embassy or a ship constitute a global threat that keeps us in war mode for the rest of our lifetimes?

[Pavulon]

19. You are changing your scope of interest

I answered your question.

Obviously the loaded second question's answer is no.

The collected acts of bombing the WTC, pentagon, cole, bali warrant a violent response by the US.

[datasuspect]

30. it's hard to take you seriously when the first

thing you have to say is "BILL CLINTON."

talk about loaded.

[The Stranger]

31. But you answered a different question.

You didn't answer the question of whether it is a threat of epic proportions. You responded that Bill Clinton reasonably thought it was simply a threat.

The fact that Bill Clinton didn't declare war on the entire world and his own citizens would indicate that he did not see it as a threat of epic proportions.

[undeterred]

46. This administration had a hand in the attacks on September 11

"The collected acts of bombing the WTC, pentagon, cole, bali"
I can't speak to the terrorist acts around the world, which al Quaeda may indeed have perpetrated. But I no longer believe that anyone but the Bush Cheney regime was responsible for the attacks on September 11. They either allowed it to happen or made it happen. And that changes everything. They created something so terrible that they could justify actions of their own which are even more terrible.

Read the September 11 forum. Its all there.

[Shalomar]

83. Secret Service 9/11 coverup

From what you said; this is an on topic reply. I can not yet start a thread of my own.

My name is Donald Robert Traill; I was an inflight caterer for all of 2001. I had to be cleared by the FBI to bypass airport security. In 2000 I catered Candidate Bush's plane; so I was trusted not to dump sand in an unguarded aircraft's hydraulic line by the Secret Service.

I saw and heard some things; and laid out my concerns in a Secret Service interview in Washington. Unfortunately; I failed to bring my own tape recorder. But SS interview tapes are never destroyed- I deliberately chose them so there WOULD be a record. Did they tell the BIG GUY? Either way; this is easy to disprove, I will sign whatever privacy waivers are necessary for my interview tape to be relesased to members of the 9/11 commision or the public. Put up or shut up; that's my line.

Best Regards; Donny

[zanne]

57. Wow--where did you come from, Pavulon?

You don't seem to like us very much.

[butterfly77]

59. Is KKK , Militias. Gangs

and other militant groups a threat, and is bush investigating them?

[ptolle]

78. to whom?

A violent response to whom? The first WTC bombers were all tracked down arrested tried and imprisoned without a patriot act or, to my knowledge, an innocent person dieing anywhere. And when Clinton went with the military response the tomahawks that missed a moving target all he got was loud screams of wag the dog from the repigliconnies.And a well-considered measured response to the Cole bombing was in progress until derailed by the chimperor's administration when they took over. My infantry experience causes me to believe that any violence ought to be a scalpel not a chainsaw.

[Bridget Burke]

85. But he did something about it.

Your President's response was even more stupid. Or extremely intelligent--when you remember that 9/11 got him a big boost in popularity.

[Nitrogenica]

3. The fact is Bush's Administration FAILED to stop 9/11.

terrorism...that was Clinton's deal to "distract from the Lewinski scandal". REMEMBER!!

Bin Laden determined to strike US was a "HISTORICAL DOCUMENT?!".

We are under attack only if our leaders are incompetent morans, so I would feel very nervous until January 20, 2009.

[janedoe]

29. Who is al-Qaeda?

Assuming you are referring to the al-Qaeda that works out of the White House, yes they are a threat.

[stray cat]

4. Yes

One person with a death wish can enter the US infected with smallpox and hang out in the NY subway system or hop on a few planes. Someone with sufficient money and connections can create a dirty bomb or smuggle in a suitcase bomb from Mexico or across the Canadian border - lots of space to cross un-noticed. I'm actually more worried about the damage individuals can do vs nations that are much easier to bomb.

[Shalomar]

10. Worry about drunk drivers

The average American has a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver than a member of Al-Queida. Or being murdered by their spouse. Do you know more people are killed by deer in the US each year than are killed by sharks worldwide? What do most people fear more? Why don't we lock up tobacco execs if we can do it without trial; who killed more people so far?

Yes, Bush failed to prevent 9/11. But Clinton was of no help in the fact of mental patients being treated as second class citizens. It was under him the FBI quit being interested. No Miranda; right to face your accuser in PA and NY- you get put in a mental ward, aren't you deprived of your liberty? Does the Constitution differentiate???

Best Regards, Donny

[Clark2008]

23. So, Donny - do you think the American people have

been sold a bill of goods since the Kennedy assissination?

What I mean is that it seems nearly every president we've had since - with the exception of Jimmy Carter - has been beholding to corporations that don't care who gets hurt, killed or maimed as long as their profits grow each quarter.

It seems "national security" is only important if it effects the bottom line or helps someone get elected to office.

[Shalomar]

47. Glad to be on the same page

with you kind sir. I agree totally. Last time the Left had the start of a dynasty; the paralells are striking. Though I do think that the debate over the war in Iraq is over. Leaving too soon would be a greater mistake. The attrition rate is vastly different; we are not carpet bombing. After all, we Stood with Germany. Could we not once more turn an enemy into a close ally? The true mark of greatness.

"Manufacturing Consent" is a good read by Edward S Herman and Noam Chomsky. About "The political economy of the mass media". "Trading with the enemy" forget the author- some names you know coordinated with the U-boats as to which ships carried their cargo destined for the Germans!

History will be kind to Carter I hope. He was one of the "Before and after" pics that showed he bore the weight of his decisions. Some people look fresh as a daisy when their successor comes in.

However- WHAT IF??? If Carter had publicly admonished the Shah; would we have lost Iran as an ally? Then Bethlehem Steel started selling heavy forging to SAddam to shore up the "balance of power". He rolled over Kuwait; and the Saudis chose the U.S. over Al queida for their defense. The convenient vaccuum we left in Iraq they did their best to fill. No connection before though, none at all. It might take some of the fire out of our adversaries to know they are feeding a massive ego trip on Bin Laden's part, but the truth doesn't make U.S. look good either.

Enough Preaching

Best Regards, Donny

[Clark2008]

76. You weren't preaching. I love Chomsky

And... I'm a "ma'am." ;)

But, I appreciate your fleshing out what you meant. I thought that was what you were driving at, but wanted to make sure.

And... :hi: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Shalomar]

82. Whoops!!!!

I am used to avsim.com; a flight sim forum where 90% of the traffic is men. I really am not a male you-know-what. Whenever I had a lawyer really fight for me; it was always a woman. And I just hooked up with one on retainer.

I was recently banned from Freepers; you might find my post "an open letter to my president" there interesting. It's the God's honest truth; if they don't like it it must be good.


Best Regards, Donny

[stray cat]

39. I am capable of being concerned about more than 1 thing at a time

A great ability to multitask.....I can even be concerned about the national debt and staying employed at the same time.

[devilgrrl]

79. Some person born here of non-middle eastern origin can do that NOW!

eom

[kentuck]

5. Not as big a threat as George W Bush...

and his secret government..

[Greyhound]

66. Exactly! n/t

[MercutioATC]

6. Nobody's suggesting THAT kind of threat...

...which is the center of the issue. There's no centralized threat for us to deal with. The danger isn't posed by armies or ICBMs. Those would be easier to deal with. I don't think it's accurate to downplay the threat based simply on the fact that they have no armies to invade us with.

That said, I also don't feel that we're in any more danger that we used to be (or, at least, we wouldn't be had we not thumbed our nose at the world and invaded Iraq).

[datasuspect]

8. the bombast from the right screams THAT kind of threat

the neocons and their supporters really believe that 9/11 and the abortion in iraq are this generation's pearl harbor and wwII, respectively.

[MercutioATC]

13. I don't know of a single rightie who's suggesting that we're going to be

invaded...

Again, I agree with your premise, just not your characterization that an enemy needs large armies or ICBMs to be a formidable threat.

[datasuspect]

27. a formidable threat would be one to take seriously

but when more people die from drunk driving deaths, aids, or hunger than terrorism, kinda makes me question what the real threat is. and i don't think it is al quaeda.

and i'm not sure if you ever listen to AM radio, but the majority of the lunatic mainstream of the republican party and its supporters actually believe we have to fight al quaeda in iraq BEFORE or SO WE DON'T have to fight them here. i've heard bush, cheney, and other administration hacks say this.

[dweller]

7. the base

aka: al queda

"the haves and the have-mores," quipped the GOP
standard-bearer. "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

you bet we're under attack.

dp

[Al-CIAda]

15. Very good.

[earth mom]

35. Word. The elites are trying to kill off the rest of us-one way or another

Al Qaeda (very doubtful it even exists) is just a very convenient bogeyman for the elite bastards to pin it on. :grr:

[nolabels]

80. Yep just like every other freaking push, crusade, war or what have you

It's so much harder for them smarmy starchy pigs to steal from the poor when everybody else is looking straight at them :mad:

[USA_1]

9. take a look at this ...

http://www.aztlan.net/berg_abu_ghraib_video.htm


Recall that the killer was reportedly al-Zarqawi. But as noted by more than enough people, the killer on the Berg tape had 2 legs whereas Zarqawi has only one. Moreover, the killer spoke with an Arabian accent while Zarqawi speaks with a Jordanian accent.

AQ a threat? Are you sure that it even exists? More likely it is a CIA invention?

[datasuspect]

17. the cia?

there is no cia, what is a COINTELPRO?



in all truth, terrorism is the new communism.


funny in a way, sad because so many people fall for it.

[William769]

11. I do believe they are a threat to us,

I also believe that America has not handeled very well how to deal with them.

[Swamp Rat]

12. YES!!!

And their accomplices too!

[wuushew]

14. No

Heart disease 699,697
Cancer 553,251
Diabetes 71,252
Alzheimer's 53,679
Suicide 29,423
Homicide (not counting terrorism) 16,748
Terrorism 2,979


Deaths per year:
Auto accidents 42,000
Homicide 20,000
Weather-related 611
Fall from a ladder 317
Fall/drown in bathtub 312
Terrorism 287


http://students.washington.edu/brandond/terror.html

[datasuspect]

18. thank you

thank you

[melody]

16. Beats me

I don't have enough information to give an intelligent response to that, as a fellow mushroom -
kept in the dark and fed shit.

All I can offer is "could be".

[datasuspect]

21. fair enough

[OregonBlue]

20. Pakistan President says they have won the war on Terrorism, Al Qaeda

forced to flee.

DAWN – Pakistani English Language Newspaper – December 17, 2005

ISLAMABAD, Dec 16: President Gen Pervez Musharraf has denied presence of US soldiers or secret jails in Pakistan, saying that no accord has been made to establish such jails in the country in collaboration with the US.

“There is no presence of US soldiers or secret jails on our soil. No agreement has been signed to set up secret jails in the country in collaboration with the US,” he said in an interview with Saudi newspaper Al-Watan here on Friday.

ON WAR AGAINST TERRORISM, HE SAID: “WE HAVE WON THIS WAR BY THE GRACE OF ALMIGHTY ALLAH. AL-QAEDA HAS BEEN FORCED TO FLEE FROM THE COUNTRY AND IT IS NO MORE AN ORGANIZED GROUP. ITS NETWORK HAS BEEN DISMANTLED.”

He said that Pakistan should not be considered a soft country. “Our armed forces are very strong and fully vigilant. We can face every situation. There is presence of only one army, Pakistan Army, here. There is no room for the presence of any other ‘Sipah’ nor any ‘Sipah’ will be allowed to come into being.”

Referring to the Waziristan situation, he said: “I don’t have a shadow of doubt on the patriotism of the tribesmen. They are loyal. However, presence of foreign militants (in the tribal area) is posing threats. They could have posed serious threat to the national integrity if we had not taken timely steps against them.”

President Musharraf categorically denied that the operation in the tribal area was being conducted at the behest of the US.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/17/top1.htm

[oblivious]

68. I notice Pakistan's ambassador says Al-qaeda is no longer a threat.

Pakistan envoy sees no major Taliban resurgence
Fri Dec 16, 2005

In an interview with Reuters, Jehangir Karamat said Osama bin Laden has lost effectiveness, that his al Qaeda organisation has no overarching leadership capable of directing attacks worldwide and that it would be unwise to become "obsessed" with capturing the Islamist militant who directed the September 11, 2001, attacks.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-12-16T001914Z_01_DIT601079_RTRUKOC_0_UK-PAKISTAN-USA-ENVOY.xml

[LunaC]

22. NO ----PNAC is the threat!

Osama and al-Qaeda are just bogeymen created by the PNAC/WH/Pentagon to keep the citizenry constrained. Read the link in my sig line and the part about "Fear" being used as a strategic tactic to control the population.

[Armstead]

24. They are a threat but w've lost prspective

But not a big enough threat to justify upending our own way of life and values and becoming obsessive and fearful.

[Perky]

25. Your view is Naive.

Look the Al Qauda movement has several objectives none of which are terrorism. They mean to install a Pan Islamic cultural view that is isolationist, that is certainly anti-crusader. and that "restores" their brand of Islamic fundamentalism for Mecca to Kabul.

We, Israel and the Saudi royals stand in the way.


I do not fear the type of attack you suggest , nor do I ultimately fear another 9-11 Fiasco. I fear suitcase nukes and radiologic; weapons.

To the extent that they want to attack us , I think we need to kill them. I d ont believe that the threat is so large and pervasive that it ought to be more important then our civil liberties and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The laws of this country are there for a reason and they are wholly adequate to meet the investigative requirements of the federal government.

WHile I don't believe that the Bushies take in great glee in trampling on fundamental rights of AMerican, I think they are way over the top too zealous in abandoning founding principle for a threat that they tend to overblow.

It is most likely driven by a venal fear of being attacked and at many levels I can appreciate that. but to violate civil liberties in the name of civil liberties is wrong and it diminished us all by elevating the presidency to the status of an emperor.

THis is the type of stuff we use to vilify the communists for.

[datasuspect]

28. your view is naive

and misguided.

you have a better chance of getting hit by car than killed by a terrorist.

and if you haven't noticed, a great many arabic/islamic people support the ideals of al quaeda. it might be abhorrent to you, but then again our culture is abhorrent to them.

[Perky]

32. I never suggested that al Queda was not making a

valid statement in what they beleieve...Nor did I suggest that they did not have legitimate beeds. I never suggesed that the movement doe not not have many many adhrants , but the brand of Islam rep
You apprently chose not to bdeal with the sutitcase nukes issue I raise.

[datasuspect]

33. the suitcase nukes issue

is more than likely hype at best or straight up marketing bullshit at worst.

sorry, if someone was inclined to do that, they could (would?) have done it by now. suitcase nukes, amateur biological warfare sounds way too much like fear mongering for my tastes.

[Perky]

38. Agree in part.

I amnot saying that unconventional atacks are not being over hyped. , I am saying that is what we should be worried avout with Al QUeda. But it does not reise to the level of spying with out judicial consent and overview.

[stray cat]

42. Just like no one could imagine using a plane as a weapon.

(sarcasm) There are lots of relatively easy ways to kill large numbers of people if anyone really wants to do it that don't require a great deal of support. I actually believe you can find one or two people worldwide who are homicidal and creative. Bottom line is that it will be difficult if not impossible to stop it.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. well yes that is true.

However we are constantly getting terrified by our government with images of suitcase nukes or bio-bombs when in fact it is very unlikely that al qaeda or any non-state entity has the resources for that sort of attack. The high tech weapon of 9-11 was the box cutter. I would expect future attacks from al qaeda to be on that order - and we have seen such attacks, and they have been bombs that kill tens or hundreds, not city destroying high tech weapons that kill millions. That sort of epic threat continues to require a major power to enable it.

Instead our moronic depraved leaders terrorize us with threats of city-wide death and use those threats to justify their hideous agenda. Who exactly are the terrorists?

[Zynx]

56. Suitcase nukes are generally complete BS.

Nuclear charges that small require a great deal of upkeep, which can only be done in the arsenal of a major nuclear power - the US or Russia.

If someone claims to have a Cold War era Soviet suitcase nuke, it's complete crap because it would have long ago degraded to uselesness.

[AntiFascist]

43. You are falling for propanga.....

Al Qaida may be dangerous in that it may ultimately be state-sponsored, by the dark forces in common between we, the Saudi Royals, and Israel. Why? Because it is the raison d'etre of neocons.

[dusmcj]

26. you betcha, but what is the administration doing right in the WOT ?

One dirty bomb in a major metro area could litter several square miles with radioactive waste which in some cases stays dirty for thousands of years. The economic costs of a well-placed radiation weapon in a center of trade activity like Wall Street say, not to speak of the cleanup and health costs, could be immense.

Further, the US invasion of Iraq has provided motivation for thousands of angry Muslims to participate in jihad where they may not (don't know, but don't know that they did either) have had it before. AQ was already decentralized and has become more so. Per the mainstream media, cells operate with significant autonomy and latitude for action for the local leader. They have the skills (whoever constitutes "they") to carry off synchronized attacks, in some cases with very significant technological obstacles to their execution (e.g. taking control of airliners and being able to fly them into buildings). Do not discount them or the threat they present for an instant.

Instead, ask the question, what policies has this administration made and is implementing which are reducing the AQ threat (the threat of global terrorism, to broaden it out, giving the administration the benefit of the doubt for the moment that there is at least some unified character to international terror). Iraq is at best an extraordinarily risky gamble, where to draw terrorists and potential terrorists into a kill box where we can attrit them a la Vietnam (not a strategy with a good historical record), we place ourselves into a tenuous tactical position in a place where our presence also has major geostrategic drawbacks - we are confirming the world's opinion of us as blowhard bullies who will secure their economic advantage by any means necessary. Since the only people who believe that democracy and the free market as currently implemented are a unified and positive whole are the people who profit from that market, in and outside the administration.

We fail to set national policies which will reduce our need to engage in foreign military action in order to secure our economic health. Such policies as abandoning the petroleum and auto industries to their fate if they fail to prioritize fuel efficiency and conservation highest keep us in a literally addictive dependent relationship to petroleum acquisition and consumption. Where such wiser policies to be implemented, major environmental concerns such as preserving unpolluted wilderness, and alleviating the proven phenomenon of waste-induced global atmospheric warming would also be alleviated.

We establish domestic security policies at home which treat the home public as as much of an adversary as any foreigner. Those policies abrogate inherent (! NOT granted, by any man, including the President) RIGHTS which also happen to be guaranteed us by our national governmental structure. The administration's approach to security is amateurish and confrontational, rather than clearly demonstrating that they act at the behest of, and in the interest of, the People, against an external enemy.

The problem is correctly assessed, the policy formulated in response is wrong. The issue is politics and politicians. Plus an inactive and too frequently ignorant, as well as obedience-inclined and therefore not autonomous, public.

[AZBlue]

70. Well said!!

[xchrom]

34. they are a criminal organization that needs police work

not a war.

it's exactly the kind of overkill{the war} that is creating more criminals than getting rid of them.

good sturdy police/covert work would have had osama by now.

[datasuspect]

37. i agree with you

but what's in it for halliburton or the extensive network of wealth, power, and greed that defines the so-called "elite" culture in which dubya thrashes about like king baby?

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Exactly

Were Al Capone and his followers dangerous? Yes, they were. Did we bomb a country to defeat them? I don't think so.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Epic proportions? no.

First of all, the WTC attack was a one shot deal: that is not going to happen again unless they figure out a way to kill the entire crew and most of the passengers. Second, despite the rather incredible (and I mean that literally) damage done by that attack, in reality a few big buildings got knocked down and a few thousand people died. Compare that to, for example, the tsunami last year or the pakistan earthquake, or even new orleans, which although with a lower death toll wiped out an entire city. Clearly while 9-11 was shocking, the real damage caused directly by the attack, spectacular as it was, was not all that significant. Our reaction to that attack on the other hand was and has been epic: epically stupid. It caused our economy to go into the shitter for two years and has resulted in a truly insane political response that boggles the minds of those of us who have bothered to remain rational, which would be a rather small minority of the population.

Al qaeda, if it really exists other than as a creation of a depraved ruling elite, is really a threat more on the order of a painful nuisance rather than 'epic'. The worst case scenarios for something that they might have the capacity to accomplish are on the order of a dirty bomb device shipped into a major city via a cargo container. (Of course that happens to be a major threat vulnerability that we basically have done nothing about despite spending tens of billions annually on something called 'homeland security'.) Depending on just how dirty this bomb was it could render unusable for many years part or all of a city. As we have recently seen - most of the damage would result from our inability to evacuate even a small city, and in the gross overreaction that our moronic leaders would engage in as a reaction to such an event.

But one has to ask why, if al qaeda represents a real threat, even a threat on the level of the dirty bomb scenario, have we done nothing since the initial afghanistan campaign, to eliminate that threat? Why didn't we declare war against al qaeda? Why haven't we invaded and surrounded the border region of afghanistan/pakistan where we are assured the al qaeda leadership remains in hiding?

At what level of total bullshit are we going to be willing to admit that the entire last 5 years has been a fraud, a massive deception planned and perpetrated in order to justify the neocon folly?

[datasuspect]

40. follow the money

the age old dictum is as true as it ever was.

i like what you had to say.

[Zynx]

41. I think their threat is overstated.

September 11th was far and away the biggest thing they've ever pulled off and they were only able to do so because of the incompetence of our airport security and airline regulations as well as sloppy FBI investigations. Their activities, generally speaking, are not a major threat to this country.

[savemefromdumbya]

44. Al Cheney/Dick Quaeda

Some people think that Dick Cheney is the 'godfather' for al Quaeda? Anyone else heard this?

[dweller]

54. ...

dp

[oasis]

45. If the Islamo-facists want to "rule the world" why not start with Peru or

another small nation and take on the superpowers later? :shrug:

[Al-CIAda]

48. Rigorous Intuition- Friday, December 16, 2005 -The King of Terror

..."Like the palid "strangers" of the film Dark City who are forever recasting reality, our masters of war are forever erasing distinctions and disappearing details. Little things, like deaths and resurrections, vanishing accents and the regeneration of amputed limbs. To any who pay attention to the changing narrative, the spin must sound like magic realism."...

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/

[leftofthedial]

49. it is all a lie

they are a drummed-up PR campaign, a faux boogeyman, a brand created by the neocon media to mask the neocon's crimes

neocons and domestic fundies are dangerous

[H2O Man]

51. While I disagree with

what your interpretation of al Qaeda appears to be, I do recognize that they are very real, and pose very real dangers to the United States. The two best books on the topic, in my opinion, are "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris," both by Michael Scheuer.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Imperial Hubris is an excellent book.

I haven't read Through Our Enemies' Eyes. Perhaps I'll run through it over the holiday break.

I am not convinced however that al qaeda does not represent, at the minimum, an alliance of convenience - they need the neocons and the neocons need al qaeda. That doesn't make 'them' non-dangerous, it just calls into question exactly who 'them' is.

[H2O Man]

53. I would be surprised

if there was any serious connection to be made between al Qaeda and the neocons. Certainly if Imperial Hubris is accurate, there is none.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. an alliance of convenience would not require a direct connection

We simply don't do everything we could do to eliminate al qaeda. The 500lb gorilla is sitting in the room: our failure to seriously go after the sanctuary on the pakistan afghan border, and nobody talks about it, nobody asks why.

We have the ever mutable al zarqawi: one legged, bipedal, dead, near death, alive, captured, released, and nobody asks how he regenerated a leg or how he could be captured and released or how he could be dead and not dead.

I'm just saying that so far the administration has lied about everything they've done since 9-11, but nobody outside of us tinfoil hat types dares to speculate that the lies started long before that and perhaps go back to the prior administration as well.

Anyhow I look forward to a good read.

[oblivious]

69. 'Imperial Hubris' was written by a CIA man with the CIA's blessing.

Why would you believe it was accurate and not just more CIA al-qaeda propaganda?

[Al-CIAda]

75. Yes, Hubris is suspect ,IMO....

I would suggest "The Power of Nightmares" as someone else posted, and a second course of "Hijacking Catastrophe".

[H2O Man]

81. Simple enough.

I do not believe that the CIA is the puppeteer, and al Qaeda is somehow under its control. I do not think there is any evidence that can be taken seriously that would support that theory. Scheuer's books are very detailed, and well documented with extensive footnotes etc that check out quite well. If you could name the parts of it you disagree with, I'd be curious to know what they are.

[datasuspect]

63. i think the u.s. is more a threat

to itself. kind of like a drug addict on a spree.

[H2O Man]

64. We likely agree on that.

However, it is distinct from al Qaeda.

[AntiCoup2K4]

55. No matter how you look at it, the Bush Criminal Empire is to blame.....

....for 9/11/01.

At the very LEAST, they created "Al Qaeda" in the first place, armed them, and trained them to be terrorists, for the purpose of keeping the Russians occupied in Afghanistan back in the 80's.

At the very WORST, the current Chimpministration was directly involved in the planning and execution of the events of 9/11/01.

Most people probably believe the truth lies somewhere in between those two statements, but the fact is that WHATEVER Al Qaeda is, in reality, it is a creation of the CIA and the Bush Criminal Empire.

So as to the question of what Al Qaeda is.... I can tell you what it is NOT. It is not a "worldwide network of terraists". There is no such fucking thing. Anyone who still buys that horseshit at this point needs to seek a mental health professional.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a lie, as is most probably the existence of Hopalong Zarqawi. Yes there are "insurgents" in Iraq. They are Iraqis who are sick of their country being occupied. Does that make them "terrorists"?? Well, I'm sure the British said the same thing back in 1776. The Murdoch owned Times of London was even trying to float a story the other day that the "Insurgents" were celebrating the fact that American Democrats were discussing troop withdrawals......

Fucking please... :eyes: Like these stuck in the 12th century people, whose country has been ripped apart by a useless war are going to pay attention to political parties on the other side of the planet??

Terrorism exists all over the world. But terrorists act locally. Back in the 80's, the Irish Republican Army never concerned themselves with what Hezbollah was doing, and Hezbollah only worried about the Contras because Reagan and Ollie North hooked them up for weapons trading. There was no connection between these groups then, and there is no connection now.

Fear. Paranoia. Fascism. Bullshit. that's the real truth about "Al Qaeda".

[oblivious]

72. What a sensible post.

[FreedomAngel82]

58. Nope

Why? Watch "The Power of Nightmares."

[cire4]

60. Al Qaeda the GROUP is NOT a threat....

The idea of Al Qaeda (which Bush has helped propogate with his stupid war) is, and will continue to be, a huge threat for many years to come.

[tinrobot]

65. Global Warming is a bigger threat.

Just putting it in perspective.

[Raydawg1234]

67. The "War on Terror" is bulshit

I was discussing this before in a related thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5622253&mesg_id=5622253

[Dr. Death]

71. Of course Emmanuel Goldstein is a threat!!!

errr, I mean Al Quaeda...

[LaurenG]

73. I don't

But it's because of something Bin Ladin said on his video around the time of the debates. He pretty much blamed Bush and said something about the American people just not getting it. I'd like to see that in English.

[umtalal]

74. No, I think it is used as an excuse to declare war and make money. n/t

[Mr_Spock]

77. They are a bunch of thugs

Of course we need to take them seriously BUT, if we give up our constitution based on one attack, we have lost. We have lost already.

[Shalomar]

84. WMD from Iraq?

Bin Laden offered to defend Saudi Arabia from attack. Either he is in cahoots or there was no love lost; and I believe the latter. Saddam has no ideology; he is secular. He wanted power; now he wants his life. He was cooperating with the inspectors so he could hold on to power. He did not want to go the way of the Taliban. If he had had WMD, he would have held on to them if he could and not distributed them for fear of reprisal.

If Al Queida gets WMD; the Russian Mafia is the most likely source. Or they could scuba dive to one of the spots chemical weapons were dumped in the ocean by our own government- a practice not outlawed till 1972.

Best Regards; Donny