• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda, yet again

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Could this be calm before terrorism storm?
Thomas L. Friedman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here's a question I've been wrestling with lately: with all these reports about the bungling of U.S. intelligence, and the CIA relying on bogus informants with names like "curveball" or "knucklehead," why have there been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11?

I've got my own theory about what's produced this period of calm ? and, more important, why it may be coming to an end.

Let's start with the facts.

Despite all the code reds and code oranges, and despite the mountain of newspaper articles about how underprotected our ports and borders are, the fact is that not only has there not been another 9/11, but there has not even been a serious failed attempt that we know of.

I'm not complaining ? I'm just wondering why. It still seems to me ridiculously easy to blow up a car in the heart of Chicago.

And anyone who has flown on a private jet since 9/11 can tell you that security at these private terminals is still so lax that, if you showed up in a Saudi headdress with a North Carolina driver's licence under the name of "Billy Bob bin Laden" and asked for directions for your chartered Lear jet to Lower Manhattan, there's a good chance no one would stop you.

So, how do we explain the calm? To begin with, I'd give a tip o' the hat to the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

I have no doubt their increased vigilance ? and co-ordination with European and Arab intelligence services ? has made it much harder for terrorists to organize.

Moreover, thanks to Gen. John Abizaid's Centcom forces in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda no longer has a whole country from which to plan, train and co-ordinate terrorist attacks with impunity.

The fact that Al Qaeda effectively controlled a country is what made it unique. Also, new U.S. visa policies have made it much harder for bad guys to get into America.

If your name is Mohammed and you are a 21-year-old single Arab man and you have not visited Disney World yet, well, you may want to consider Euro Disney, because your chances of getting a tourist visa are very low.

Frankly, I wish this were not the case, because we are preventing a lot of good, talented Arab men and women from getting educated in America, which is the best way of building friends.

This is one of the sad byproducts of 9/11 ? but it has undoubtedly made it more difficult for the few bad apples to get in. Despite all that, I fear we may be entering the most dangerous period since 9/11.

Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.

The reason things may be getting more dangerous now is that the formation of a freely elected government in Iraq could signal that the insurgency is being gradually defeated.

The U.S. may even be able to withdraw some troops. And there is nothing worse for the Baathists and Jihadists than to be defeated in the heart of their world by other Arabs and Muslims who are repudiating their vision and tactics.

I fear that when and if the Jihadists conclude they have been defeated in the heart of their world, they will be sorely tempted to launch a spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America that tries to mask, and compensate for, just how defeated they are at home.

In short, the more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the more likely they are to use their rump forces to try something really crazy in America to make up for it.
So the New York Times columnist thinks Iraq has kept America safe, that policies effectively barring young Arab males from America, are on balance, a good thing, and strongly implies that Baathists and Islamic terrorists have strong connections.

Yup, Liberal media bias for sure. No question.

linky - requries registration
 
"Despite all the code reds and code oranges, and despite the mountain of newspaper articles about how underprotected our ports and borders are, the fact is that not only has there not been another 9/11, but there has not even been a serious failed attempt that we know of."

"that we know of" is not entirely accurate. I am unable to give any details about any incidents since I have none, but last year I found out through a FEMA employee I saw regularly at my job, that there was an incident in one of our port cities that was kept quiet. There are a number of incidents that don't get publicized for security reasons. You can bet Bush and Co. would love for some of these to get some publicity so they could claim that their efforts against terrorism are working to keep us safe. The truth is that we are not safe, our ports in particular are vulnerable to attack each and every day.
 
Originally posted by: conehead433
"Despite all the code reds and code oranges, and despite the mountain of newspaper articles about how underprotected our ports and borders are, the fact is that not only has there not been another 9/11, but there has not even been a serious failed attempt that we know of."

"that we know of" is not entirely accurate. I am unable to give any details about any incidents since I have none, but last year I found out through a FEMA employee I saw regularly at my job, that there was an incident in one of our port cities that was kept quiet. There are a number of incidents that don't get publicized for security reasons. You can bet Bush and Co. would love for some of these to get some publicity so they could claim that their efforts against terrorism are working to keep us safe. The truth is that we are not safe, our ports in particular are vulnerable to attack each and every day.


Then why do we import so much? Wouldn't it be much safer for the country to make everything we need here? It might even help the economy, you think??
 
It would be impossible for America to be completely self efficient. And do you really think closing ourselves off to the world is the answer?
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: mhillary
You link Al Qaeda with anything..

I can link al Qaeda to Kevin Bacon, no problem.

Michael Moore made a movie with Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, in it.

Michael Moore also ate one of Kevin Bacon's children.

That's only 2 degrees if I count right
 
Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.
True. It was nice that the twin goals of taking it to the heart of "their own land" and dethroning a despot converged like they did. 🙂
I fear that when and if the Jihadists conclude they have been defeated in the heart of their world, they will be sorely tempted to launch a spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America that tries to mask, and compensate for, just how defeated they are at home.

In short, the more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the more likely they are to use their rump forces to try something really crazy in America to make up for it.
Also very true. Hopefully they'll keep at it in Iraq long enough that they become too weak or riddled with informants to launch anything too spectacular.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.
True. It was nice that the twin goals of taking it to the heart of "their own land" and dethroning a despot converged like they did. 🙂
YEE-HAW!! Goddamn right! $200 billion, 1560 dead American soldiers, 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 5,000 dead Iraqi military members, a country in disrepair and no solid government, human suffering on a grand scale, Iraqi citizens 58 times more likely to die a violent death than before the invasion, women's rights being suppressed, etc. Yeah...sure is fortunate!


I fear that when and if the Jihadists conclude they have been defeated in the heart of their world, they will be sorely tempted to launch a spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America that tries to mask, and compensate for, just how defeated they are at home.

In short, the more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the more likely they are to use their rump forces to try something really crazy in America to make up for it.
Also very true. Hopefully they'll keep at it in Iraq long enough that they become too weak or riddled with informants to launch anything too spectacular.
Hopefully? Hopefully?

Come on back down to earth.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: yllus
Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.
True. It was nice that the twin goals of taking it to the heart of "their own land" and dethroning a despot converged like they did. 🙂
YEE-HAW!! Goddamn right! $200 billion, 1560 dead American soldiers, 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 5,000 dead Iraqi military members, a country in disrepair and no solid government, human suffering on a grand scale, Iraqi citizens 58 times more likely to die a violent death than before the invasion, women's rights being suppressed, etc. Yeah...sure is fortunate!
I know you like to concentrate on the death and destruction on Iraq because it's helpful in propping up your personal political bias, but on the whole things do seem to be progressing. Freedom through democracy has a measure all of its own, and this columnist sees that as a possibility.

The government is coming together. Not like clockwork, but the multilaterial talks are occurring.

The judicial branch is putting together the cases to prosecute those who cooperated with the Hussein regime.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act By the Numbers
Total economic losses in New York City due to 9/11 attacks were $83 billion.
That's just material losses.
Experts looking broadly at the insurance market have developed plausible attack scenarios that could result in insured losses exceeding $250 billion, a figure well beyond what the private commercial insurance market could withstand. (Source: Tillinghast and Reinsurance businesses of Towers Perrin)
In my thinking, it is frankly better to centralize and spend both money and human lives the war on terror as it is being spent today in Iraq than to spend it in North America. Better to let the soldiers fight and die than us unprepared civilians. Not to mention it's easier there rather than here on the basis of population and geography.

If you want to rant on about doom and gloom, go for it. I need not argue - my stance on what should be happening is winning. Be a sore loser if you like. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: yllus
Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.
True. It was nice that the twin goals of taking it to the heart of "their own land" and dethroning a despot converged like they did. 🙂
YEE-HAW!! Goddamn right! $200 billion, 1560 dead American soldiers, 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 5,000 dead Iraqi military members, a country in disrepair and no solid government, human suffering on a grand scale, Iraqi citizens 58 times more likely to die a violent death than before the invasion, women's rights being suppressed, etc. Yeah...sure is fortunate!
I know you like to concentrate on the death and destruction on Iraq because it's helpful in propping up your personal political bias, but on the whole things do seem to be progressing. Freedom through democracy has a measure all of its own, and this columnist sees that as a possibility.

The government is coming together. Not like clockwork, but the multilaterial talks are occurring.

The judicial branch is putting together the cases to prosecute those who cooperated with the Hussein regime.
Terrorism Risk Insurance Act By the Numbers
Total economic losses in New York City due to 9/11 attacks were $83 billion.
That's just material losses.
Experts looking broadly at the insurance market have developed plausible attack scenarios that could result in insured losses exceeding $250 billion, a figure well beyond what the private commercial insurance market could withstand. (Source: Tillinghast and Reinsurance businesses of Towers Perrin)
In my thinking, it is frankly better to centralize and spend both money and human lives the war on terror as it is being spent today in Iraq than to spend it in North America. Better to let the soldiers fight and die than us unprepared civilians. Not to mention it's easier there rather than here on the basis of population and geography.

If you want to rant on about doom and gloom, go for it. I need not argue - my stance on what should be happening is winning. Be a sore loser if you like. 🙂

You remind me of that castle lord in Monty Python's Holy Grail movie. After Lancelot goes wild and kills or wounds everyone in the castle because he THOUGHT someone was in danger, leaving dozens bleeding or dead, the Lord of the castle, who is so smitten with Lancelot says something like "Oh, stop your complaining. This isn't a time to quibble about who killed who. This is supposed to be a HAPPY occasion!"
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: yllus
Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.
True. It was nice that the twin goals of taking it to the heart of "their own land" and dethroning a despot converged like they did. 🙂
YEE-HAW!! Goddamn right! $200 billion, 1560 dead American soldiers, 20,000 dead Iraqi civilians, 5,000 dead Iraqi military members, a country in disrepair and no solid government, human suffering on a grand scale, Iraqi citizens 58 times more likely to die a violent death than before the invasion, women's rights being suppressed, etc. Yeah...sure is fortunate!
I know you like to concentrate on the death and destruction on Iraq because it's helpful in propping up your personal political bias, but on the whole things do seem to be progressing. Freedom through democracy has a measure all of its own, and this columnist sees that as a possibility.
You've missed the sarcasm obviously evident in the article. Friedman is far from a supporter of the Propagandist. He's proposing a lose-lose situation:

Democracy goes well in Iraq = "spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America"

Democracy fails in Iraq = <insert obvious statement here>
 
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Could this be calm before terrorism storm?
Thomas L. Friedman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, here's a question I've been wrestling with lately: with all these reports about the bungling of U.S. intelligence, and the CIA relying on bogus informants with names like "curveball" or "knucklehead," why have there been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11?

I've got my own theory about what's produced this period of calm ? and, more important, why it may be coming to an end.

Let's start with the facts.

Despite all the code reds and code oranges, and despite the mountain of newspaper articles about how underprotected our ports and borders are, the fact is that not only has there not been another 9/11, but there has not even been a serious failed attempt that we know of.

I'm not complaining ? I'm just wondering why. It still seems to me ridiculously easy to blow up a car in the heart of Chicago.

And anyone who has flown on a private jet since 9/11 can tell you that security at these private terminals is still so lax that, if you showed up in a Saudi headdress with a North Carolina driver's licence under the name of "Billy Bob bin Laden" and asked for directions for your chartered Lear jet to Lower Manhattan, there's a good chance no one would stop you.

So, how do we explain the calm? To begin with, I'd give a tip o' the hat to the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

I have no doubt their increased vigilance ? and co-ordination with European and Arab intelligence services ? has made it much harder for terrorists to organize.

Moreover, thanks to Gen. John Abizaid's Centcom forces in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda no longer has a whole country from which to plan, train and co-ordinate terrorist attacks with impunity.

The fact that Al Qaeda effectively controlled a country is what made it unique. Also, new U.S. visa policies have made it much harder for bad guys to get into America.

If your name is Mohammed and you are a 21-year-old single Arab man and you have not visited Disney World yet, well, you may want to consider Euro Disney, because your chances of getting a tourist visa are very low.

Frankly, I wish this were not the case, because we are preventing a lot of good, talented Arab men and women from getting educated in America, which is the best way of building friends.

This is one of the sad byproducts of 9/11 ? but it has undoubtedly made it more difficult for the few bad apples to get in. Despite all that, I fear we may be entering the most dangerous period since 9/11.

Why? Because I've always believed that one of the most important reasons there has been no new terrorist attack in America has to do with the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only that the Bush administration has taken the fight to the enemy, but also that the enemy has welcomed that fight.

To the extent that the Baathists and Jihadists have a co-ordinated strategy, their first priority, I think, is to defeat U.S. forces in the heart of their world.

If the Jihadists can defeat us in the heart of their world, it will have a huge impact on the Arab street and shake every pro-American Arab regime.

The Jihadists have always understood that Iraq is the ballgame. Winning there is what really advances their agendas.

The reason things may be getting more dangerous now is that the formation of a freely elected government in Iraq could signal that the insurgency is being gradually defeated.

The U.S. may even be able to withdraw some troops. And there is nothing worse for the Baathists and Jihadists than to be defeated in the heart of their world by other Arabs and Muslims who are repudiating their vision and tactics.

I fear that when and if the Jihadists conclude they have been defeated in the heart of their world, they will be sorely tempted to launch a spectacular, headline-grabbing act of terrorism in America that tries to mask, and compensate for, just how defeated they are at home.

In short, the more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the more likely they are to use their rump forces to try something really crazy in America to make up for it.
So the New York Times columnist thinks Iraq has kept America safe, that policies effectively barring young Arab males from America, are on balance, a good thing, and strongly implies that Baathists and Islamic terrorists have strong connections.

Yup, Liberal media bias for sure. No question.

linky - requries registration

Nice try genius. The article is satire/sarcasim. You just disproved your point that "there is no liberal media," by provided an article that slants liberal. Nice job.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Nice try genius. The article is satire/sarcasim. You just disproved your point that "there is no liberal media," by provided an article that slants liberal. Nice job.
:roll:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/opini...friedman.html?incamp=article_popular_2


See that "opinion" in there?

How about this?

NYTimes.com > Opinion


OP-ED COLUMNIST


It's an OP/ED piece. Proof of no bias one way or another. Want me to post a link to a WSJ editorial to prove the media is right-wing?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: ntdz
Nice try genius. The article is satire/sarcasim. You just disproved your point that "there is no liberal media," by provided an article that slants liberal. Nice job.
:roll:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/13/opini...friedman.html?incamp=article_popular_2


See that "opinion" in there?

How about this?

NYTimes.com > Opinion


OP-ED COLUMNIST


It's an OP/ED piece. Proof of no bias one way or another. Want me to post a link to a WSJ editorial to prove the media is right-wing?

How many right wing opinion writers does the NYT have? I bet liberal op/ed writers outnumber their conservative counterparts 10 to 1 at the NYT.
 
They might outnumber them 7-3 if there were 10 but how does that prove a liberal bias? Perhaps they can't find enough quality conservative writers. There aren't many that don't fall into the cesspool that is the likes of Coulter and Savage.
 
I'm sure one could find much more solid and difinitive links between Pakistan and Al Qaeda... oops though, they're an ally... right...
 
Back
Top