Looks like another terror attack in London train stations

[Bootlegged]

Reports coming out now that there were 3 different explosions this morning in train stations.

[Saulbadguy]

CNN and Foxnews are both reporting it as breaking news.


Smoke, Evacuations in Three London Subway Stations


LONDON (Reuters) - A London underground station was being evacuated on Thursday after reports that smoke was seen coming out of a train, a fire brigade spokeswoman said.

[Phobia]

Unbelievable.

[Electric]

Reports coming out now that there were 3 different explosions this morning in train stations.

If this is a continuation of the terrorist attacks, hold your breath boys and girls, it may be coming our way.

[Saulbadguy]

Speaking to Sky News, one witness who was travelling on one of the trains said a man told him that a passenger carrying a rucksack made an exclamation and then the rucksack exploded.

[Mile High Mania]

While we're all focusing on this and our own issues... my fear is that one of the larger US cities (not NY) is next up.

We can only hope that our cities are doing what they can to prevent these things.

[Electric]

While we're all focusing on this and our own issues... my fear is that one of the larger US cities (not NY) is next up.

We can only hope that our cities are doing what they can to prevent these things.

The problem in the world is that keeping track of these wacko's is virtually impossible. Remember the Patriot Act? It seems as if we want security but want to keep total privacy as well. That might be somewhat of an exaggeration, but it seems as if we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Bottom line: Feces is probably going to make contact with the rotary oscillator. ($#!t is about to hit the fan)

[keg in kc]

Unbelievable.

I'm still surprised nothing more has happened here in the last four years. Hopefully we're that good, rather than lulled into a false sense of security.

[Radar Chief]

Unbelievable.

I'm still surprised nothing more has happened here in the last four years. Hopefully we're that good, rather than lulled into a false sense of security.

That’s my opinion.

[keg in kc]

That’s my opinion.Mine, too. I'm going to hope for the best until the worst happens, however.

[Radar Chief]

Mine, too. I'm going to hope for the best until the worst happens, however.

Good choice, lets just hope they don’t hit the Boulevard Brewing Company. :BLVD:

[ROYC75]

This will be an ongoing affair for another 100 years, even then, I'm not sure it will ever end .

[ptlyon]

This will be an ongoing affair for another 100 years, even then, I'm not sure it will ever end .

Never

[Duck Dog]

Unbelievable.

I'm still surprised nothing more has happened here in the last four years. Hopefully we're that good, rather than lulled into a false sense of security.


Good post. I think that is their MO. I think it would be very easy to have suicide bombers here weekly if they wanted to.

Perhaps the Brits will re-think the free flowing exchange of hate they allow the Islamists to spread in their country.

[Duck Dog]

This will be an ongoing affair for another 100 years, even then, I'm not sure it will ever end .


Not if they don't stop teaching hate to their children in schools.

[Otter]

While we're all focusing on this and our own issues... my fear is that one of the larger US cities (not NY) is next up.

We can only hope that our cities are doing what they can to prevent these things.

With support for the war in Iraq falling to all-time lows I would doubt that terrorist groups would want to do anything to boost the fighting spirits of Americans back up to post 9/11 levels.

Groups such as Al Qaeda and the Iranian MEK have a great interest in the effort in Iraq failing to the greatest degree possible for their long-term goals.

I’m sure if they had a chance to unleash hell on the levels of 9/11 they would but their not going to poke a sleeping lion with a stick.

Just an educated guess however.

[Bootlegged]

Hazmat teams on the scene- report of a "nail bomb". Whatever that is.

[keg in kc]

With support for the war in Iraq falling to all-time lows I would doubt that terrorist groups would want to do anything to boost the fighting spirits of Americans back up to post 9/11 levels.

Groups such as Al Qaeda and the Iranian MEK have a great interest in the effort in Iraq failing to the greatest degree possible for their long-term goals.

I’m sure if they had a chance to unleash hell on the levels of 9/11 they would but their not going to poke a sleeping lion with a stick.

Just an educated guess however.I think that's valid, but it does raise the question of why they would be prodding any European country with same said stick. Europe is even less interested in the fight than we are, are they not? Even Britain.


And it's just a wild guess on my part, but I bet a nail bomb involves nails. And maybe explosives.

I hope I didn't just put myself on another FBI watch list with that spark of brilliance.

[Sam]

Have you seen this website? Sorry if it's a repost.

WERENOTAFRAID.com (http://www.werenotafraid.com/)

http://www.werenotafraid.com/images/210/Brian_P.jpg

[Radar Chief]

Hazmat teams on the scene- report of a "nail bomb". Whatever that is.

I’d assume a bomb wrapped with nails as shrapnel.

[beavis]

I’d assume a bomb wrapped with nails as shrapnel.
Used often in attacks on Israel, if I'm not mistaken.

[Radar Chief]

I think that's valid, but it does raise the question of why they would be prodding any European country with same said stick. Europe is even less interested in the fight than we are, are they not? Even Britain.


Ah, but we have recent evidence that if smacked hard enough a European country would/could cut and run, see Spain.

[Baby Lee]

Interesting, tragically ironic, info on Galloway from puntida.com

On Jan. 25, 1997, Tory Member of Parliament Nigel Waterson introduced legislation to ban foreign terrorists from operating on British soil. His "Conspiracy and Incitement Bill," according to his press release, would have for the first time banned British residents from plotting and conducting terrorist operations overseas.

Waterson proposed the bill in the aftermath of a scandal over Britain providing safe haven for Saudi terrorist Mohammed al-Massari, who claimed credit for the bombing of U.S. military sites in Saudi Arabia in June 1996.

On Feb. 14, 1997, Labour MP George Galloway succeeded in blocking Waterson's bill from getting out of committee.

Galloway, in a speech before the committee that was printed in the House of Commons official proceedings, stated, "The Bill will change political asylum in this country in a profound and dangerous way. It will change a state of affairs that has existed since Napoleon's time. . . . We are all in favor of controlling terrorism in Britain. Surely not a single honorable Member has any truck with terrorism here, but we are talking about terrorism in other countries. . . .

"The legislation is rushed in response to a specific, and, for the government, highly embarrassing refugee case--that of Professor al-Massari, who was a thorn in the side of the government of Saudi Arabia. . . .

"By definition, a tyranny can be removed only by extraordinary measures. Inevitably, in conditions of extreme repression, the leadership of such movements will gravitate to countries such as ours where freedom and liberty prevail.

"The bill will criminalize such people, even though they have not broken any law in Britain or caused any harm to the Queen's peace in her realm. They will fall open to prosecution in this country under the Bill because they are inciting, supporting, or organizing events in distant tyrannies, which are clearly offenses under the laws of such tyrants."

[keg in kc]

Ah, but we have recent evidence that if smacked hard enough a European country would/could cut and run, see Spain.Yes, but common sense (and I think that even applies in Europe) would dictate that more attacks would equal more of a chance you piss somebody off enough to get them involved. I'm assuming that sentiment in Britain at best reflects sentiment here in the US, meaning lukewarm support of the war, so I wonder what the logic behind multiple attacks is. Why would you (meaning terrorists) want to chance galvanization of one of our staunchest allies?

Part of the logic is I'd assume is to attack them because they're our ally. Sort of a "this is what you get" attitude, trying to make their war effort even unpopular. Scare them, in other words. But this seems more along the lines of "annoy them".

Ah, who knows. I don't think these folks are exactly guided by rational thought, at least not the rational thought I'm accustomed to.

[ChiefsCountry]

Ah, but we have recent evidence that if smacked hard enough a European country would/could cut and run, see Spain.

Big difference between Britan and Spain though.

[Bwana]

Big difference between Britan and Spain though. Or the French. :shake:

[dollar1]

I told the wife, who is German, the terrorist need to get Paris then Berlin. Hopefully (bad to say) then the whole world will be against them.

Wifes mother is in country. Spoke with her briefly this morning. In theory the Germans are against this war BECAUSE NOTHING HAS HAPPENED TO THEM. She stated that if there were an attack against Germans....they would be all for the war.

~Under Rock~

[Radar Chief]

Big difference between Britan and Spain though.

Yes, but common sense (and I think that even applies in Europe) would dictate that more attacks would equal more of a chance you piss somebody off enough to get them involved. I'm assuming that sentiment in Britain at best reflects sentiment here in the US, meaning lukewarm support of the war, so I wonder what the logic behind multiple attacks is. Why would you (meaning terrorists) want to chance galvanization of one of our staunchest allies?

Part of the logic is I'd assume is to attack them because they're our ally. Sort of a "this is what you get" attitude, trying to make their war effort even unpopular. Scare them, in other words. But this seems more along the lines of "annoy them".


True, and it’s not like terrorist attacks are anything new to the British either.
I’m not try’n to claim that this is their thought process just throw’n it out as a possibility.

Ah, who knows. I don't think these folks are exactly guided by rational thought, at least not the rational thought I'm accustomed to.

Agreed.

[Electric]

Mine, too. I'm going to hope for the best until the worst happens, however.

I think the worst may not be something that we will want to wait on. We have to be as pro-active as we can in rooting out the terrorist whenever possible.

If you haven't read, or seen the movie version, of Tom Clancy's book "The Sum of all Fears", you need to read/watch it. Not because it is a good book/movie, but because it shows you how easy it would be to get a dirty nuke into the country. That one point should get every one living in this country concerned about how we can protect our shores.

It would be nice if there were an easy answer, but as we all know there is not.

[BIG_DADDY]

I almost puked when I saw the liberal slant put on the first bombings:

The Muslims are just disenfranchised. Give me a fuggin break. I am beginning to think that liberalism is a mental disease.

[Brando]

Hazmat teams on the scene- report of a "nail bomb". Whatever that is.

Pipe Bombs are typically filled will nails. I would assume that it was a pipe bomb. Maybe it's the limey way of saying "pipe bomb."

[StcChief]

Muslims disenfranchise themselves, they don't want to be involved with country they live in. US,Britian,France,etc.

they wonder why people suspect them?

IF someone of any race,color,creed moves/lives in your neighborhood and no one sees them out, or talks with them and they don't try and get to know the folks living around them.

That's a giant RED FLAG of an issue with the person(s) living there.

Everyone is on guard these days.

[Electric]

Pipe Bombs are typically filled will nails. I would assume that it was a pipe bomb. Maybe it's the limey way of saying "pipe bomb."

And to think that I always thought the limeys were Austrailian.

[Rausch]

While we're all focusing on this and our own issues... my fear is that one of the larger US cities (not NY) is next up.

We can only hope that our cities are doing what they can to prevent these things.

9/11 was the greatest lesson to Terrorists the world has ever seen.

Destruction and lives taken won't bring this country to its knees, but economic destruction can.

You target Vegas, Hollywood, or financial districts instead of the short-term impact of a skyscraper...

[Jenny Gump]

9/11 was the greatest lesson to Terrorists the world has ever seen.

Destruction and lives taken won't bring this country to its knees, but economic destruction can.

You target Vegas, Hollywood, or financial districts instead of the short-term impact of a skyscraper...

I agree...also, add to that list, a mild bioweapon that the public has little understanding of, and it will cripple our healthcare system. I'm thinking of mild antigen cultures that can be purchased easily such as botulinum, salmonella, and even enterotoxins. One small sarin gas attack, and our transit system will be crippled, even with no casualties.

[Eye Patch]

It is not up to the U.S, Britain, and any other Western country to stop the spread of radical Islam… that is up to the larger majority of Muslims who say they are a peace loving religion.

It’s time they take back their religion from those who have hijacked it. The job is theirs.. not ours.

[Jenny Gump]

It is not up to the U.S, Britain, and any other Western country to stop the spread of radical Islam… that is up to the larger majority of Muslims who say they are a peace loving religion.

It’s time they take back their religion from those who have hijacked it. The job is theirs.. not ours.

I understand your point. But that is assuming it will happen that way. The ideal rarely happens in the world view though.

[|Zach|]

9/11 was the greatest lesson to Terrorists the world has ever seen.

Destruction and lives taken won't bring this country to its knees, but economic destruction can.

You target Vegas, Hollywood, or financial districts instead of the short-term impact of a skyscraper...
If there is another attack it will be in Springfield, Missouri. This is the cultural epicenter of our country.

[Eye Patch]

I understand your point. But that is assuming it will happen that way. The ideal rarely happens in the world view though.

Never said it would happen... I said it must happen.

but counting on those "moderate, say nothing, do nothing muslims" is part of your rarely happens in the world view.

Radical Islam is the Muslims worst enemy... not us.

[Electric]

If there is another attack it will be in Springfield, Missouri. This is the cultural epicenter of our country.


For what? If Springfield was destroyed it might not be missed for years!!!

[Electric]

It is not up to the U.S, Britain, and any other Western country to stop the spread of radical Islam… that is up to the larger majority of Muslims who say they are a peace loving religion.

It’s time they take back their religion from those who have hijacked it. The job is theirs.. not ours.

Doesn't their religion require them to kill infidels? Last I heard that was their motive, or at least one of them.

[memyselfI]

9/11 was the greatest lesson to Terrorists the world has ever seen.

Destruction and lives taken won't bring this country to its knees, but economic destruction can.

You target Vegas, Hollywood, or financial districts instead of the short-term impact of a skyscraper...


Actually, I think it's proved that smaller and more frequent attacks (like most of the world live with) are more feasible and provide longer term instability than does a major attack like 9/11. The US might have waged 'war' against terrorists post 9/11 but they've done little to actually stop the spread of it outside of the US borders. Thus, their long term emphasis won't be on largescale 9/11 events but rather smaller and more frequent attacks in different regions such as we've seen in Spain, the UK, Bali, etc. In other words, attack US interests regularly vs. the US spectacularly.

[Electric]

Actually, I think it's proved that smaller and more frequent attacks (like most of the world live with) are more feasible and provide longer term instability than does a major attack like 9/11. The US might have waged 'war' against terrorists post 9/11 but they've done little to actually stop the spread of it outside of the US borders. Thus, their long term emphasis won't be on largescale 9/11 events but rather smaller and more frequent attacks in different regions such as we've seen in Spain, the UK, Bali, etc. In other words, attack US interests regularly vs. the US spectacularly.

I don't remember ever sitting in on a briefing that declaired that our involvement in the GWOT was to protect anyone but the U.S. and her possessions.

[BIG_DADDY]

I don't remember ever sitting in on a briefing that declaired that our involvement in the GWOT was to protect anyone but the U.S. and her possessions.

You have to look at the big picture.

[memyselfI]

I don't remember ever sitting in on a briefing that declaired that our involvement in the GWOT was to protect anyone but the U.S. and her possessions.

Ah, so that is why we wanted and asked for allies in the 'global war on terror.' :hmmm:

And they agreed because they wanted to risk their safety and/or political lives simply to make the US safer... :hmmm:

[Electric]

You have to look at the big picture.

We are protecting Denisse and her kid?

[BIG_DADDY]

We are protecting Denisse and her kid?

No, you have to look at it from a terrorist supporters standpoint. The US has done nothing, they must go with more efficient smaller bombings in the future.

[Electric]

Ah, so that is why we wanted and asked for allies in the 'global war on terror.' :hmmm:

And they agreed because they wanted to risk their safety simply to make the US safer... :hmmm:


Gee duhnese, why does anyone ask for allies? I'd bet this time it was more of a way to appease those like you that would have gone ballistic if we were alone in the venture.

In actuality, we provided means for countries that were concerned about their country to help us so that we might be inclined to help them if they should ever be in the same position as we were/are.

[Electric]

No, you have to look at it from a terrorist supporters standpoint. The US has done nothing, they must go with more efficient smaller bombings in the future.



;)

[memyselfI]

Gee duhnese, why does anyone ask for allies? I'd bet this time it was more of a way to appease those like you that would have gone ballistic if we were alone in the venture.

In actuality, we provided means for countries that were concerned about their country to help us so that we might be inclined to help them if they should ever be in the same position as we were/are.

That sounds all well and good but the reality has been (according to the State Department's and CIA's own reports) that terrorism has actually proliferated and that Iraq is now the main training ground. You can try to convince yourself all you want that this was the plan but it's actually unintended consequences.

[BIG_DADDY]

That sounds all well and good but the reality has been (according to the State Department's and CIA's own reports) that terrorism has actually proliferated and that Iraq is now the main training ground. You can try to convince yourself all you want that this was the plan but it's actually unintended consequences.

Link

[Electric]

That sounds all well and good but the reality has been (according to the State Department's and CIA's own reports) that terrorism has actually proliferated and that Iraq is now the main training ground. You can try to convince yourself all you want that this was the plan but it's actually unintended consequences.

How about explaining your response to:

we provided means for countries that were concerned about their country to help us so that we might be inclined to help them if they should ever be in the same position as we were/are.

The comment had nothing to do with Iraq, it was the GWOT. And by the way, the briefings I sat in on were before we went to Iraq.

[Calcountry]

While we're all focusing on this and our own issues... my fear is that one of the larger US cities (not NY) is next up.

We can only hope that our cities are doing what they can to prevent these things.I noticed a 20K dollar bomb sniffing german shepherd in the flat on the floor "standby" position at the BART station. That and a few extra uniformed police, thats it.

Everyone has backpacks and brief cases on the thing. There is no way they can search them all.

In the meanwhile. Fug the terrorists, I have to die sometime, and I am not going to change how I live to suit them lousy cocksu#kers.

[Calcountry]

Unbelievable.

I'm still surprised nothing more has happened here in the last four years. Hopefully we're that good, rather than lulled into a false sense of security.You see, Bush lied and people died. We are not really at war, the thing In Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terror, that was over and already won in Afghanistan.

[Calcountry]

Mine, too. I'm going to hope for the best until the worst happens, however.I am going to live until I die.

[Electric]

I noticed a 20K dollar bomb sniffing german shepherd in the flat on the floor "standby" position at the BART station. That and a few extra uniformed police, thats it.

Everyone has backpacks and brief cases on the thing. There is no way they can search them all.

In the meanwhile. Fug the terrorists, I have to die sometime, and I am not going to change how I live to suit them lousy cocksu#kers.

Do they have the electronic explosives sniffers in Bart, the trains or in the stations?

[Calcountry]

Good post. I think that is their MO. I think it would be very easy to have suicide bombers here weekly if they wanted to.

Perhaps the Brits will re-think the free flowing exchange of hate they allow the Islamists to spread in their country.I don't think we are communicating effectively with the Islamic countries.

How about this:

"This shit stops, or else."

Or, how about this:

"Blow up a train station, we blow up a city."

[Calcountry]

Do they have the electronic explosives sniffers in Bart, the trains or in the stations?If they do, it is not made apparent. There are like 60 or more stations in that system, the roaches can access it from any point in the chain.

The weakest point is all they need.

[vailpass]

Keep on poking the sleeping bear you ****ing towel headed cowards who lick my left hand while I beat you with my shoe. Just keep on poking.....and see what happens.

[memyselfI]

How about explaining your response to:

we provided means for countries that were concerned about their country to help us so that we might be inclined to help them if they should ever be in the same position as we were/are.

The comment had nothing to do with Iraq, it was the GWOT. And by the way, the briefings I sat in on were before we went to Iraq.

Look, DUHbya numerous times not only said the world would be safer but also that it would win the WOT....

that is before he flip-flopped and said the WOT was 'unwinnable.'

[Otter]

Look, DUHbya numerous times not only said the world would be safer but also that it would win the WOT....

that is before he flip-flopped and said the WOT was 'unwinnable.'

After several years of military intel service, then FBI field work and then counsol on the national security committee how can you doubt this person?

Somone with this much to say HAS to have some first hand knowlege and experience or they would look like a moron trying to act this way.

[Electric]

If they do, it is not made apparent. There are like 60 or more stations in that system, the roaches can access it from any point in the chain.

The weakest point is all they need.

I'm pretty familiar with the system, I was in the Bay Area when it was being built and then again shortly after it started running. Great system then, is it still as good now?

The new sniffers can be quite unobtrusive.

[Electric]

Look, DUHbya numerous times not only said the world would be safer but also that it would win the WOT....

that is before he flip-flopped and said the WOT was 'unwinnable.'

I'm still having a problem with the last comment you made and how you arrived at the point you did from what I said!!

[AustinChief]

I don't think we are communicating effectively with the Islamic countries.

How about this:

"This shit stops, or else."

Or, how about this:

"Blow up a train station, we blow up a city."
The problem is that we are dealing with a sub-culture of a religion and not governments.

The religion of Islam is basically a religious version of Communism, when it comes to expansion. Historically, it's PRIMARY method of spreading itself was through conquest of non-Muslim countries. That did not change until recently, with the exception of Africa where you can see that method still used today (Sudan).

I love how people tend to totally disregard that fact. The CRUSADES, for example, were a direct result of Islamic expansion (through captured territories) into the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Emporer sent pleas for help to the west , which resulted in the First Crusade.

People tend to forget that the Middle East was PRIMARILY Christian before Islam waged a war against "infidels" in the region.

I am not a big Christian apologist but let's at least get our facts straight.

[Calcountry]

The problem is that we are dealing with a sub-culture of a religion and not governments.

The religion of Islam is basically a religious version of Communism, when it comes to expansion. Historically, it's PRIMARY method of spreading itself was through conquest of non-Muslim countries. That did not change until recently, with the exception of Africa where you can see that method still used today (Sudan).

I love how people tend to totally disregard that fact. The CRUSADES, for example, were a direct result of Islamic expansion (through captured territories) into the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Emporer sent pleas for help to the west , which resulted in the First Crusade.

People tend to forget that the Middle East was PRIMARILY Christian before Islam waged a war against "infidels" in the region.

I am not a big Christian apologist but let's at least get our facts straight.All I can say at this point is, I have hit the backspace key many times with respect to what I think should be done about this "war". I am just going to leave it at that.

Rock on.

[Raiderhater]

Don't do it. Don't do it. Do NOT do it. Just walk away Jamie......


Look, DUHbya numerous times not only said the world would be safer but also that it would win the WOT....

I did it.....


Link please.

[memyselfI]

After several years of military intel service, then FBI field work and then counsol on the national security committee how can you doubt this person?

Somone with this much to say HAS to have some first hand knowlege and experience or they would look like a moron trying to act this way.

:rolleyes:

It's called news sources other than Fox News...

Try it sometime. You might learn something new.

[AustinChief]

Here are some quotes I found...

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)
...
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
...
The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)



Sounds to me like he is saying we will win the WOT AND make the world safer AFTER a long capmaign... I don't recall him EVER saying the WOT was "unwinnable" nor that we would see immediate results in regards to safety.

--Kyle

[memyselfI]

Don't do it. Don't do it. Do NOT do it. Just walk away Jamie......




I did it.....


Link please.

I'm sure you can google it yourself. But, one such instance is him claiming that the world will win and be safer because of his WOT is when he compared his WOT to WWII.

[Lzen]

:rolleyes:

It's called news sources other than Fox News...

Try it sometime. You might learn something new.

It's called new sources other than liberal outlets like CNN or the NY Times. Try it sometime. You might learn something new.

[|Zach|]

"Make no mistake about it: We are winning and we will win," Bush told the 86th annual convention of the American Legion as he continued his journey toward the Republican National Convention for his acceptance speech Thursday night. He said that "in this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49035-2004Aug31.html

[Raiderhater]

I'm sure you can google it yourself. But, one such instance is him claiming that the world will win and be safer because of his WOT is when he compared his WOT to WWII.


You threw out this silly claim, now back it up and provide a link. Show me where Bush has ever said that winning in Iraq would win the WOT.

[memyselfI]

You threw out this silly claim, now back it up and provide a link. Show me where Bush has ever said that winning in Iraq would win the WOT.

Where did I say that?

[AustinChief]

I'm sure you can google it yourself. But, one such instance is him claiming that the world will win and be safer because of his WOT is when he compared his WOT to WWII.
I have no clue if that was said or not.. but what is so remarkable about that? Has he ever claimed the war on terror is OVER? When radical fundamentalism amongst Muslims has been quelled to the levels that it exists among other religions (Christians, Jews, etc) than I will believe the "war" to be won and the world at that time WILL be a safer place. ...but as it stands Islam still harbors a massive radical "minority" that needs to be dealt with... either through cultural, educational means or less "civilized" ways.

--Kyle

[memyselfI]

http://usembassy.state.gov/nigeria/wwwhp071404d.html


"To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We're determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We're helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments.

Second, we're protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation. We're working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action in our common security. The global threat of terrorism requires a global response. To be effective, that global response requires leadership -- and America will lead.

Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy, and the hope and progress that democracy brings, as the alternative to hatred and terror in the broader Middle East. In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their neighbors. When justice and democracy advance, so does the hope of lasting peace.

We have followed this strategy -- defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace -- for nearly three years. We have been focused and patient, firm and consistent. And the results are all now clear to see. "

[Lzen]

Actually, I think it's proved that smaller and more frequent attacks (like most of the world live with) are more feasible and provide longer term instability than does a major attack like 9/11. The US might have waged 'war' against terrorists post 9/11 but they've done little to actually stop the spread of it outside of the US borders. Thus, their long term emphasis won't be on largescale 9/11 events but rather smaller and more frequent attacks in different regions such as we've seen in Spain, the UK, Bali, etc. In other words, attack US interests regularly vs. the US spectacularly.

We should all listen very carefully to what Duhnise is saying here. I'm sure she is relaying this is from her notes at the meeting of terrorists she attended last night.

[Coach]

I get the feeling this one will be heading to either the DC Forum or the Romper Room.

[Calcountry]

Here are some quotes I found...

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism
:hmmm:, He didn't say that the nexus was that the country HAVE WMD now did he?

[memyselfI]

I have no clue if that was said or not.. but what is so remarkable about that? Has he ever claimed the war on terror is OVER? When radical fundamentalism amongst Muslims has been quelled to the levels that it exists among other religions (Christians, Jews, etc) than I will beleive the "war" to be won and the world at that time WILL be a safer place. ...but as it stands Islam still harbors a massive radical "minority" that needs to be dealt with... either through cultural, educational means or less "civilized" ways.

--Kyle

Well, he said the WOT was winnable and the world would be safer and then he said the WOT was NOT winnable but that making the world safer is basically diminishing terrorism's impact on the world.

My point was the WOT has made the world more dangerous (and Iraq is now a training ground for terrorists as has been reported by the US governments own reports) and simply pretending that is not true because the US has not been hit is delusional. The State Department and the CIA have both reported INCREASES in terrorism the past few years....

so if the criteria is lack of attack on the US then, ok, some claim of victory could be made. But, if DUHbya is going to say the WORLD is going to be safer because of the WOT then no such victory can be proclaimed because it's not. And by most projections of the situation it won't be anytime soon.

[Lzen]

http://usembassy.state.gov/nigeria/wwwhp071404d.html


"To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We're determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We're helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments.

Second, we're protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation. We're working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action in our common security. The global threat of terrorism requires a global response. To be effective, that global response requires leadership -- and America will lead.

Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy, and the hope and progress that democracy brings, as the alternative to hatred and terror in the broader Middle East. In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their neighbors. When justice and democracy advance, so does the hope of lasting peace.

We have followed this strategy -- defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace -- for nearly three years. We have been focused and patient, firm and consistent. And the results are all now clear to see. "


That does not prove your claim in any way.

[memyselfI]

We should all listen very carefully to what Duhnise is saying here. I'm sure she is relaying this is from her notes at the meeting of terrorists she attended last night.

Actually, I said this shortly after 9/11 happened. That we would be planning for large scale attacks and logic (it was reported the 9/11 attack took 5-7 years to plan) would state that is unlikely and poor strategy...

especially when the President had stated his intention to fight terror anywhere in the world BUT here.

[AustinChief]

http://usembassy.state.gov/nigeria/wwwhp071404d.html


"To overcome the dangers of our time, America is also taking a new approach in the world. We're determined to challenge new threats, not ignore them, or simply wait for future tragedy. We're helping to build a hopeful future in hopeless places, instead of allowing troubled regions to remain in despair and explode in violence. Our goal is a lasting, democratic peace, in which free nations are free from the threat of sudden terror. Our strategy for peace has three commitments: First, we are defending the peace by taking the fight to the enemy. We will confront them overseas so we do not have to confront them here at home. We are destroying the leadership of terrorist networks in sudden raids, disrupting their planning and financing, and keeping them on the run. Month by month, we are shrinking the space in which they can freely operate, by denying them territory and the support of governments.

Second, we're protecting the peace by working with friends and allies and international institutions to isolate and confront terrorists and outlaw regimes. America is leading a broad coalition of nations to disrupt proliferation. We're working with the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and other international organizations to take action in our common security. The global threat of terrorism requires a global response. To be effective, that global response requires leadership -- and America will lead.

Third, we are extending the peace by supporting the rise of democracy, and the hope and progress that democracy brings, as the alternative to hatred and terror in the broader Middle East. In democratic and successful societies, men and women do not swear allegiance to malcontents and murderers; they turn their hearts and labor to building better lives. And democratic governments do not shelter terrorist camps or attack their neighbors. When justice and democracy advance, so does the hope of lasting peace.

We have followed this strategy -- defending the peace, protecting the peace and extending the peace -- for nearly three years. We have been focused and patient, firm and consistent. And the results are all now clear to see. "

So you say that the war in Iraq has made the world less safe?

[memyselfI]

That does not prove your claim in any way.

What claim?

That DUHbya claimed the world would be safer with a GWOT? He compared his efforts to that of eliminating Hitler. Can't get more global or victorious than that. :hmmm:

[memyselfI]

So you say that the war in Iraq has made the world less safe?

That argument could be made simply by reading the US governments own reports.

[AustinChief]

Well, he said the WOT was winnable and the world would be safer and then he said the WOT was NOT winnable but that making the world safer is basically diminishing terrorism's impact on the world.

My point was the WOT has made the world more dangerous (and Iraq is now a training ground for terrorists as has been reported by the US governments own reports) and simply pretending that is not true because the US has not been hit is delusional. The State Department and the CIA have both reported INCREASES in terrorism the past few years....

so if the criteria is lack of attack on the US then, ok, some claim of victory could be made. But, if DUHbya is going to say the WORLD is going to be safer because of the WOT then no such victory can be proclaimed because it's not. And by most projections of the situation it won't be anytime soon.

I want to see these reports showing increases in terrorism. What is the time frame? Year over year? By decade? By month?

The "unwinnable" comment you are talking about is from ONE interview where Bush (who is not known for being able to state his thoughts very clearly through the use of clever speach... "them wurds can be tricky!") MISPOKE and didn't fully explain himself.

When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”

The truth is, he later clarified this by saying we can't "win" in terms like past wars where a surrender happens and we go back to life as usual. "Winning" is defined by completely different parameters this time... parameters which he explained in the comment by saying we needed to "create conditions" where terrorism can no longer thrive unchecked.

--Kyle

[Electric]

We should all listen very carefully to what Duhnise is saying here. I'm sure she is relaying this is from her notes at the meeting of terrorists she attended last night.

I understand she even bosses the guys around at those meetings. Is she really a she? Women don't usually do well in those circles.

[memyselfI]

I want to see these reports showing increases in terrorism. What is the time frame? Year over year? By decade? By month?

The "unwinnable" comment you are talking about is from ONE interview where Bush (who is not known for being able to state his thoughts very clearly through the use of clever speach... "them wurds can be tricky!") MISPOKE and didn't fully explain himself.

When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”

The truth is, he later clarified this by saying we can't "win" in terms like past wars where a surrender happens and we go back to life as usual. "Winning" is defined by completely different parameters this time... parameters which he explained in the comment by saying we needed to "create conditions" where terrorism can no longer thrive unchecked.

--Kyle

Funny, his most honest assessment was a mis-speak. :hmmm:

Anyway, I'm not sure what you want to read but here is an article about the State Departments most recent assessment. Granted, the article is almost three months old so perhaps there have been sharp decreases in terrror since their report. Somehow, I doubt it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report

By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01

The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.

The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.

Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.

The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

The administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons "increasingly problematic," sources said.

In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that "the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people."

Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."

Aguilar, according to Hill aides, told them that Rice decided to withhold the statistics on the recommendation of her counselor, Philip D. Zelikow. He was executive director of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the United States.

The terrorism statistics provided to the congressional aides were not classified but were stamped "for official use only." Last week, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the government would publish "all the facts," but at Monday's session Aguilar told the staff members that even if the NCTC decided not to release the data, the State Department would not reconsider and publicly do so itself.

A State Department spokesman said last night that he is confident the data will be officially released. He said the government is committed to "providing the public all the information it needs to have an informed debate on this issue."

Under the standards used by the government, "significant" terrorist attacks are defined as those that cause civilian casualties or fatalities or substantial damage to property. Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included.

The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead.

The State Department did not disclose to the aides the overall number of those killed in incidents last year. Johnson said his count shows it was well over 1,000.

[AustinChief]

Ah the beauty of statistics... so 655 in '04 and 173 in '03 .. We aren't told previous years nor are we told what constitutes a "significant" attack and whether that criteria has been "adjusted" at all during the time period over which the data was collected.

Bad reporting aside...

My take: If Bush is claiming that the world is CURRENTLY safer then he is probably wrong. That is like saying Europe was safer DURING WWII. To say that the world will END UP safer is probably correct... that is UNLESS we stand down or waiver from our current position.

I am no fan of Bush or most of the administration... but rolling over like a bunch of hypocritical Euros and letting Islamic radicals dictate policy is not an option for me.

The solution is simple... a complete and total ZERO TOLERANCE policy. Saudi Arabia would have been wiped clean off the map by now if I were in charge. Unfortunately, we continue to prop up the same governments that allow terrorism to thrive.

This, unfortunately, is true of BOTH parties without exception.

--Kyle

[memyselfI]

Ah the beauty of statistics... so 655 in '04 and 173 in '03 .. We aren't told previous years nor are we told what constitutes a "significant" attack and whether that criteria has been "adjusted" at all during the time period over which the data was collected.

Bad reporting aside...

My take: If Bush is claiming that the world is CURRENTLY safer then he is probably wrong. That is like saying Europe was safer DURING WWII. To say that the world will END UP safer is probably correct... that is UNLESS we stand down or waiver from our current position.

I am no fan of Bush or most of the administration... but rolling over like a bunch of hypocritical Euros and letting Islamic radicals dictate policy is not an option for me.

The solution is simple... a complete and total ZERO TOLERANCE policy. Saudi Arabia would have been wiped clean off the map by now if I were in charge. Unfortunately, we continue to prop up the same governments that allow terrorism to thrive.

This, unfortunately, is true of BOTH parties without exception.

--Kyle

In response to bolded: See basis of contempt for the US throughout the ME region...

As far as not having the statistics from previous reports, as the article states, the SD was forced to amend their previous report when it became known that they understimated the number of terror attacks reported upon. Thus, the increase last reported was based on an even bigger increase of a previous increase.

[StcChief]

Good choice, lets just hope they don’t hit the Boulevard Brewing Company. :BLVD:
Pretty soft target....

Piss off enough KC folks they wouldn't be able get out of town.

My guess would be likely a larger city transportation system that is slow to protect itself, or something completely unrelated to transportation.
Who knows.

Just have every citizen be watchful of everybody,everything like it could happen anywhere (post 9/11 mentality).

[Electric]

Actually, I said this shortly after 9/11 happened. That we would be planning for large scale attacks and logic (it was reported the 9/11 attack took 5-7 years to plan) would state that is unlikely and poor strategy...

especially when the President had stated his intention to fight terror anywhere in the world BUT here.

I'd like to see the link to that one.

I'm sure you must have twisted the concept if something along those lines were said.

Would you rather we let them all in and then have to put up with the car bombs in your back yard?

Who am I talking to!!! Of course you wouldn't care.

[WolfDawg]

It is not up to the U.S, Britain, and any other Western country to stop the spread of radical Islam… that is up to the larger majority of Muslims who say they are a peace loving religion.

It’s time they take back their religion from those who have hijacked it. The job is theirs.. not ours.


Bullseye