Shieldguy 4/23/2004

[Donut]

Originally posted by promethius9594: so did the UN's intelligence. it's only a matter of time before the WMD shows up. i suspect in the near future we're going to see a terrorist carrying a bomb stamped with the saddam regime seal. and i have access to declassified reports because i happen to be in the military.

Do the UN use intelligence sources? I would be very interested to read a link for this.
And details of a nuclear attack on LA has been declassified?

[pritchke]

The way I see it we all gotta go at some point. It could be terrorism, cancer, hit by a car bottom line is we are going to die. Yes, do what you can to prevent it as much as possible but no need to get your panties in a knot or hide under the bedsheets and wet yourself over it. In other words stop worrying and causing other people to catch your paranoia.

[ 04-26-2004, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by promethius9594: so did the UN's intelligence. it's only a matter of time before the WMD shows up. i suspect in the near future we're going to see a terrorist carrying a bomb stamped with the saddam regime seal. and i have access to declassified reports because i happen to be in the military.

Do the UN use intelligence sources? I would be very interested to read a link for this.
And details of a nuclear attack on LA has been declassified? [/QUOTE]I don't think he can say if it's classified.

[promethius9594]

good answer whackmiester.

yes, the UN uses intelligence sources. i dont have to site a link. what do you think the Weapons inspections group is? they gather intelligence and send it back for consideration. the weapons inspectors ARE an intelligence agency.

second, the details of any specific plans are not declassified. What is declassified is that the next major terrorist attack is projected to occur against the west coast, where security is significantly more lax in the aftermath of 9/11.

also, bin laden has announced that he has suitcase nuclear weapons and intends to use them against the united states. it stands to reason that this use will be against the west coast and will be attempted in the near future.

Originally posted by promethius9594: also, bin laden has announced that he has suitcase nuclear weapons and intends to use them against the united states. it stands to reason that this use will be against the west coast and will be attempted in the near future.

Nuclear Suitcase Bombs? I've heard of these. The Russians made a bunch of them in the days of the soviet union and they lost them.

[promethius9594]

yes, terrorists can typically purchase these devices from former soviet scientists for several million dollars apiece. thats why cutting the financial and physical support of terrorist organizations is so integral.

terrorism prevention MUST be preemptive. by the time the strike has come from terrorists, it is too late to save the innocent lives. If we wait, and try to meet the terrorist demands so they dont attack us (their idea of democracy) then we have surrendered to terrorists. we have to go out and find these people before they find us with God only knows what awful weapon.

[Donut]

Originally posted by promethius9594: good answer whackmiester. yes, the UN uses intelligence sources. i dont have to site a link. what do you think the Weapons inspections group is? they gather intelligence and send it back for consideration. the weapons inspectors ARE an intelligence agency.

I might be mistaken but didn't they look for some WoMD? Are they still saying they are there?

Originally posted by promethius9594: second, the details of any specific plans are not declassified. What is declassified is that the next major terrorist attack is projected to occur against the west coast, where security is significantly more lax in the aftermath of 9/11.

Is it only ex-military that get access to these or are us common people able to link to a source?

Originally posted by promethius9594: also, bin laden has announced that he has suitcase nuclear weapons and intends to use them against the united states. it stands to reason that this use will be against the west coast and will be attempted in the near future.

I seem to remember that bin Laden didn't announce that he intended to fly air liners into skyscrapers. Why is he now so open about his plans. Perhaps he's trying to fool those shrewd military intelligence types!

[promethius9594]

1) weapons inspectors: what they say now is irrelevant, what they were saying up to the beginning of the war was that iraq had shown no evidence of dismantling its WMD arsenal. this means that according to UN Intelligence there was WMD there. I suspect that there was, but that it moved in that three days and continued to do so until the end of the war.

2) The website for the homeland defense has all sorts of useful information on terrorism and impending danger. i dont know how specific or regional the information is, but im sure you can find them via a google search.

3) Announcing the plan: Bin Laden did announce he planned to attack america prior to 9/11. thats part of why the commision has gone so awry. The goal of terrorism is to enact political change. Bin Laden is trying to drive a wedge between america and europe through threats. if he makes the world believe he will use a nuke on america, that makes smaller countries like our european allies less likely to support us for fear of nuclear attack on them. in fact, it MIGHT make us bend our policy to meet SOME of his demands to prevent the attack. Thats what terrorism is about: bending the will of people through threat of force. if bin laden didnt threaten with ultimatums, he wouldnt get his objective done.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by The Whackmiester: Remember: Until they realize this can happen, THEY ARE YOUR ENEMY!!!

Originally posted by promethius9594: so did the UN's intelligence.

Not exactly; they found weapons and designs that were illegal under UN resolutions (eg in terms of range etc) but no real nuclear/chemical capability.

As for the strength of US Military Intelligence, allow me to draw your attention to the climb-down by Secretary of State Powell admitting that the information he told the UN and swore was accurate actually....well..wasn't. A key pillar in the US attempting to convince the UN to support the war.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0211-Smoke.html
and a CNN one to ensure no anti-american charges are laid against the story
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...sprj.irq.labs/

In contrast, the UN weapons inspectors (or intelligence if you prefer) said nothing conclusive had been found and wanted several more months to inspect. I think the wiser course is now clear in retrospect.

Whilst nobody is particularly bothered that Saddam is gone (being the evil person that he was), it is the persistent double standards in US foreign policy that is the root of anti-US resentment across the world. Eg human rights are an issue in iraq but not saudi arabia (cheap US oil). Democracy is an issue in north korea, but not in chile, iran etc where the US ousted democratically elected people and installed dictators.

Senior figures in the Bush administration have admitted plans to invade Iraq were drawn up before Sep 11th. The Iraq War is the culmination of a foreign policy contingent upon oil and a personal score with Saddam dating back to the President's father. There were no Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq before the war, they were a threat to Saddam's dictatorial regime that he would not have permitted, so invading under the guise of a war on terror is inexcusable.

And to top it off, the latest Bush endorsement of Israeli settlements in the West Bank - a complete departure from the agreed Road Map.

I would suggest that instead of individuals dedicating time, energy and money to preparing for a terrorist attack that is extremely unlikely to affect them even if another one does happen (consider the size of the US, both geographically and in terms of population), that the American public takes the time to read media from outside the US and get the other side of the story and use their electoral muscle to force a change towards a more humane and ethical foreign policy at the next election. It is only by tackling the root causes of the problem that the threat of terrorism can be defeated.

[ 04-26-2004, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by promethius9594: 1) weapons inspectors: what they say now is irrelevant, what they were saying up to the beginning of the war was that iraq had shown no evidence of dismantling its WMD arsenal. this means that according to UN Intelligence there was WMD there. I suspect that there was, but that it moved in that three days and continued to do so until the end of the war. 3) Announcing the plan: Bin Laden did announce he planned to attack america prior to 9/11. thats part of why the commision has gone so awry. The goal of terrorism is to enact political change. Bin Laden is trying to drive a wedge between america and europe through threats. if he makes the world believe he will use a nuke on america, that makes smaller countries like our european allies less likely to support us for fear of nuclear attack on them. in fact, it MIGHT make us bend our policy to meet SOME of his demands to prevent the attack. Thats what terrorism is about: bending the will of people through threat of force. if bin laden didnt threaten with ultimatums, he wouldnt get his objective done.

1. Not irrelevent: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s947413.htm Almost prescient I would say.
3. Very true about Bin Laden's aims, but I think he's misjudged gravely. Most major EU countries have said they will send troops once they are under UN control. No European country wants to see its troops under American control as the American troops are seen as being 'trigger-happy' in Europe. Witness the different climate in the British controlled zone compared to the US for example.