Osama

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:28 pm

okay i'm guilty of watching oprah, but what was said really got my attention.

Despite the lack of a recent major attack within our borders, Peter says we cannot easily ignore the intense threat of another terrorist attack. "This is a guy who doesn't take vacations or weekends," he says. "He's a full-time terrorist and he wants to destroy the United States. If he could, he would."

Peter believes we "absolutely" will be attacked again. "What form of attack it will be, when it will be, I can't tell you. But al-Qaeda isn't going to decide one day, 'Oh, the United States is so great.'"

One of the biggest dangers is that, to some degree, Americans have lost sight of the lessons of 9/11 and we have lost our vigilance against those who wish us harm. "Americans have many virtues, but patience is not usually one of them," Peter says. "Our enemies are incredibly patient; for them this is a generational warfare. For us, we think about this year, maybe the next election cycle. These guys are thinking in terms of a hundred years of battle against us."

According to Peter, the fact that al-Qaeda remains determined to inflict damage upon the United States does not necessarily mean that we will see a repeat of a 9/11-style attack. Instead, he says future attacks are likely to be smaller in scale. "In London they killed 56 people. In Madrid they killed 191 people. The group remains pretty virulent and suddenly there's an ideological movement the group has sort of spawned that can attack us," Peter says.

Though we are more aware of the existence of terrorist threats, there are significant vulnerabilities in our national defense.

One recently uncovered plot in Modesto, California, illustrates the danger. "There's a group of guys who got radicalized in prison," Peter says. "Some alleged that they were planning to attack U.S. military bases. They had weapons, they had a plan, they were going to attack synagogues. This seems to me like a pretty serious domestic terrorist cell."

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:30 pm

Osama's tape -

Dr. Walid Phares is a professor of Middle East studies, an expert on terrorism and the author of Future Jihad. He believes that we have entered a "second wave" of terrorism in which we face the threat of suicide bombers who are either native-born Americans or recent immigrants. Dr. Phares says that the new message from bin Laden, "is to the operatives and jihadists inside the United States. It means, 'Strike when you are ready.'" Dr. Phares estimates there are at least 200 potential suicide bombers inside the United States right now. To justify this number, he cites evidence that the 19 terrorists in the 9/11 attacks claimed to have had support in this country. "Plus, within four years, how many minds have been recruited by al-Qaeda because we are making arrests?" Dr. Phares asks. "We are dismantling cells, but the factories that produce those minds—meaning this indoctrination—[are] both within the United States and also overseas."

Like Peter, Dr. Phares says that we do not need to expend our energy worrying about another large-scale attack. What Dr. Phares anticipates in the next terror attack is something like a dirty bomb—an explosion that releases radioactive waste material—or a sniper in a place like a school where we don't tend to have concerns about terrorism. "Imagine if one day, years from now, all of that combined would be done at the same time, on the same day, to break down national security and national economy of the United States. This is a day we have to be prepared for."

As an educator, Dr. Phares says he has witnessed a marked increase in Americans' awareness of the Middle East. Education, he says, is the key to combating terrorism. "It's extremely important in fighting terrorism," he says. "Probably more than the government."

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:35 pm

I sure hope not but Bush in office doesn't help matters. I am a republician but that means ONLY that I associate more with that parties beliefs. i think the party chose poorly in Bush, I think he's going to get our country really messed up.

Hey I may not like him as a man after his Monica incident, but Bill was a darn good President, and I wish Bush had his skills these days. I don't want to get blown to hell.

Eastcoastgriz · Post by **Eastcoastgriz** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:18 am

briannell wrote:I sure hope not but Bush in office doesn't help matters. I am a republician but that means ONLY that I associate more with that parties beliefs. i think the party chose poorly in Bush, I think he's going to get our country really messed up.

Hey I may not like him as a man after his Monica incident, but Bill was a darn good President, and I wish Bush had his skills these days. I don't want to get blown to hell.

Really, good at what? What economic policy of his was a great success?

How about his foreign policy?

Clint coasted through his presidency. Had he not been marred in controversy for most of his tenor we might have been able to say he was good president.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:00 am

I'm skeptical to even post on this subject but like ECG, it bothers me when people take that angle. I have friends who are Bush haters and they're always making comments like that - "Bush is destroying the country, etc." Osama and others were and are going to do anything they can to harm the U.S. This is a fact regardless of who is in office. Is Bush's policy a good one for our country's long-term safety and protection from terrorists? Who knows? You can't tell me that we'd be any safer had Kerry been elected, or if Clinton were still in office. I am not a huge Bush supporter right now but I do believe he is trying his best to make our country a safer place.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:06 am

catatac - i don't hate bush, i voted for him - I don't like how he's handled this term in office. I think he's not as patient and diplomatic as previous Presidents. I fully agree that it didn't who was in office, as crazy people like Osama do what they do anyway because they simply hate the US.

I just think he could learn how to handle the middle east better. That being said about Bush - my feelings about old Dick are very different.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:14 am

catatac wrote:I'm skeptical to even post on this subject but like ECG, it bothers me when people take that angle. I have friends who are Bush haters and they're always making comments like that - "Bush is destroying the country, etc." Osama and others were and are going to do anything they can to harm the U.S. This is a fact regardless of who is in office. Is Bush's policy a good one for our country's long-term safety and protection from terrorists? Who knows? You can't tell me that we'd be any safer had Kerry been elected, or if Clinton were still in office. I am not a huge Bush supporter right now but I do believe he is trying his best to make our country a safer place.

I don't doubt that he is doing his best. But yes, I do think that we would be safer with Kerry or Clinton in office. I just don't think Bush is particularly skilled at the job of running the most powerful country in the world.

This is more an indictment on our political system than anything, but if he wasn't from a wealthy and powerful family, he would be a virtual nobody in our society. The fact that guys like Clinton and Nixon came from nothing and made themselves into Presidents is one thing that I really admire.

Bush is a product of the Republican party, and without his advisors making all of the decisions and writing the talking points, there's not much there. This saddens me, because I voted for him. I was fooled by the marketing the first time around. Fool me once ... (and I won't butcher the rest of it -- already been done).

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:35 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
catatac wrote:I'm skeptical to even post on this subject but like ECG, it bothers me when people take that angle. I have friends who are Bush haters and they're always making comments like that - "Bush is destroying the country, etc." Osama and others were and are going to do anything they can to harm the U.S. This is a fact regardless of who is in office. Is Bush's policy a good one for our country's long-term safety and protection from terrorists? Who knows? You can't tell me that we'd be any safer had Kerry been elected, or if Clinton were still in office. I am not a huge Bush supporter right now but I do believe he is trying his best to make our country a safer place.
I don't doubt that he is doing his best. But yes, I do think that we would be safer with Kerry or Clinton in office. I just don't think Bush is particularly skilled at the job of running the most powerful country in the world.

This is more an indictment on our political system than anything, but if he wasn't from a wealthy and powerful family, he would be a virtual nobody in our society. The fact that guys like Clinton and Nixon came from nothing and made themselves into Presidents is one thing that I really admire.

Bush is a product of the Republican party, and without his advisors making all of the decisions and writing the talking points, there's not much there. This saddens me, because I voted for him. I was fooled by the marketing the first time around. Fool me once ... (and I won't butcher the rest of it -- already been done).

1) who knows where we would be right now had kerry - god forbid - won the election. the guy took 10 sides to each and every issue and personally i think kerry would immeditely withdraw from the mideast - no matter what you think about the validity of our war in iraq, would be a major mistake.

2)every president has issues during their second term
ike - health issues
Johnson - vietnam
nixon - watergate
grant - drunk
reagen - iran contra
clinton - womangate, selling technology to china...ect...

3)Bush is the right man for the job as president. He has the right heart and right attitude to get it done. we were already involved in iraq *since the first pres bush* and our allies are talking with iran about their nuke program

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:44 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:1) who knows where we would be right now had kerry - god forbid - won the election. the guy took 10 sides to each and every issue and personally i think kerry would immeditely withdraw from the mideast...

Now that's interesting...

You raised the classic criticism of Kerry, which is that he's a waffler (he "took 10 sides to each issue"). But as your point of disagreement with him, you raise a position that he never took -- that we should withdraw immediately from the Middle East. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but I think Kerry was pretty consistent on that particular issue -- while he attacked the rationale for going to war in the first place, I never once heard him argue that we should withdraw now that we're there.

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:04 pm

If Bush is the right man for the job then why are we fighting a war based on a lie his department told america? Also why is America hated all across the globe? Critical of Clinton's foreign policy? What about Bush's?

This week some friends of mine were in Canada for a skiing trip, and had some people turn and walk away from them once they said they were from the states. It happened just one night, but if people in Canada won't even talk to you b/c you're an American what does that say about your countries foreign policy?

I had a few other friends go to Austrailia, same thing, execpt more frequently, they were treated poorly on a regular basis b/c of their accent (which made if obvious where they were from). When they got back to the states they were telling us about it and one of us (who is an African American) said, "Now you know what it feels like to me a minority in America."

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:09 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:we were already involved in iraq *since the first pres bush* and our allies are talking with iran about their nuke program

And every President has been "involved" with interns, just few have gotten hummers from them.

The current war in Iraq is exclusively a GWB creation, however, and his sole responsibility, good or bad.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:17 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:If Bush is the right man for the job then why are we fighting a war based on a lie his department told america? Also why is America hated all across the globe? Critical of Clinton's foreign policy? What about Bush's?

a lie we can source out to other nations, for example great britin

This week some friends of mine were in Canada for a skiing trip, and had some people turn and walk away from them once they said they were from the states. It happened just one night, but if people in Canada won't even talk to you b/c you're an American what does that say about your countries foreign policy?

just one person, i assure you that there will be more people willing to talk to americans, especially since paul martin ran on a "i hate america" platform and lost...

I had a few other friends go to Austrailia, same thing, execpt more frequently, they were treated poorly on a regular basis b/c of their accent (which made if obvious where they were from). When they got back to the states they were telling us about it and one of us (who is an African American) said, "Now you know what it feels like to me a minority in America."

easy if you are mistreated in a nation dont go there...problem solved. tell your friends that if they get treated like that at a particular nation that nation does not need your money

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:47 pm

It isn't if the nation needs my (or their) money, it's the fact that they were treated that way. I've been to Canada many times, the last time was in 2000, and was never treated like that, ever. It's a sign of how the world is starting to view America and Americans. Sometime down the road we will need the assistance of the world, possibly to fight a war, protect people from a disease, or something, and we'll get the cold shoulder b/c the way our country has been treating the rest of the world.

Also, a lie we can pass the blame on???? Was it Great Britian telling the UN that Saddam had WMDs? No it was Colin Powell. This war was started by GWB and his department, his CIA and cabinets, and he himself spread the lies that led us to war.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:55 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:It isn't if the nation needs my (or their) money, it's the fact that they were treated that way. I've been to Canada many times, the last time was in 2000, and was never treated like that, ever. It's a sign of how the world is starting to view America and Americans. Sometime down the road we will need the assistance of the world, possibly to fight a war, protect people from a disease, or something, and we'll get the cold shoulder b/c the way our country has been treating the rest of the world.

Also, a lie we can pass the blame on???? Was it Great Britian telling the UN that Saddam had WMDs? No it was Colin Powell. This war was started by GWB and his department, his CIA and cabinets, and he himself spread the lies that led us to war.

All i was saying was that we were not the only nation that thought there was WMD's in iraq. BTW arent you rather courious as 2 why Sadam closed off access to wepons inspectors.

on a side note somthing interesting i heard last year on George Norri's radio show (art bells old show) was that Iraq was actually faking the evidance that they had wmd's in order to scare off Us or Iran in a potential Invadeing attack *yes i know...like it worked

*

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:59 pm

And every President has been "involved" with interns, just few have gotten hummers from them.

shame on you brad, there are ladies reading these posts too!

By the way, i think that was more embaressing to the United States BECAUSE it was Monica. I mean if he hooked up with the 3 "ladies" Heff has at the Playboy mansion - all the men would be giving Bill high 5's and slapping him on the back for a "job" well done

can't believe i just said that!

i mean YOU are the President, WHY choose monica?!!!

sorry for being off thread, but couldn't not respond to Brad's "hummer" line. If only his mother read what he posted

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:06 pm

briannell wrote:
And every President has been "involved" with interns, just few have gotten hummers from them.

shame on you brad, there are ladies reading these posts too!

By the way, i think that was more embaressing to the United States BECAUSE it was Monica. I mean if he hooked up with the 3 "ladies" Heff has at the Playboy mansion - all the men would be giving Bill high 5's and slapping him on the back for a "job" well done can't believe i just said that!

i mean YOU are the President, WHY choose monica?!!!

sorry for being off thread, but couldn't not respond to Brad's "hummer" line. If only his mother read what he posted

just look at old pictures of hillary...
btw Monica is good looking

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:14 pm

Re/Max Griz wrote:This week some friends of mine were in Canada for a skiing trip, and had some people turn and walk away from them once they said they were from the states. It happened just one night, but if people in Canada won't even talk to you b/c you're an American what does that say about your countries foreign policy?

What it says to me is that these particular Canadians are a-holes. Period.

Sorry to be flip about it, but if I mistreated a group of Iranian tourists in New York because I disagree with their country's politics, I would be branded a racist, among other things. What happened to your friends in Canada is no different. If that behavior is widespread in Canada, then it reflects more poorly on Canada than on the U.S., IMO.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:24 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:
briannell wrote:
And every President has been "involved" with interns, just few have gotten hummers from them.

shame on you brad, there are ladies reading these posts too!

By the way, i think that was more embaressing to the United States BECAUSE it was Monica. I mean if he hooked up with the 3 "ladies" Heff has at the Playboy mansion - all the men would be giving Bill high 5's and slapping him on the back for a "job" well done can't believe i just said that!

i mean YOU are the President, WHY choose monica?!!!

sorry for being off thread, but couldn't not respond to Brad's "hummer" line. If only his mother read what he posted
just look at old pictures of hillary...
btw Monica is good looking

I pray that your wink means that you are joking....

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:34 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote: btw Monica is good looking
I pray that your wink means that you are joking....

Me too...especially if you're talking about the Monica of today.

Although, an old friend of mine coined a somewhat clumsy term that I think aptly describes Monica's level of attractiveness back in 1997-1998. She wasn't good looking, but she was, to use the term, "drunk/last girl at the party good looking." In other words, she'd never be my first choice, but if it was three in the morning and I was hammered, and she was the last girl left at the party...maybe.

--GL

P.S. And what do you think my mother would have to say about that, Becca?

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 4:37 pm

I pray that your wink means that you are joking....

not there is anything "wrong" with Monica as a woman, it's just Bill was President! didn't he learn from that Paula thing? talk about yikes! it's catty i know, it's just if it were Hill instead of Bill having circus sex in the White House, she better pick Brad Pitt or some hottie like that. otherwise she'd be a joke forever, just like Bill is now.

sorry off thread.

oh, does your momma know about your "hummer" comments

I never want to hear that reference come from my son