I hate to say this but....
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
This just adds fuel to the fire regarding Iraq IMO. Why Iraq and why so soon? Couldn't our resources have been better spent on defensive measures here? I see NO connection between Sadam, who ruled by fear and wasn't a threat, to Al Queda. I think we could have been a bit more patient.
Fox News, with it's oh so accurate sources, has been citing these planned attacks for a while and not one has come to fruition.
Drew - I know what you mean....Buster, I'm not as sure Saddam wasn't a threat, I mean people love to say this, but it has been proven he allowed terrorists to train and hide on his soil.
Pirates? I have always dreamed a life as a pirate!!! Arrrgh.....
Pirates? I have always dreamed a life as a pirate!!! Arrrgh.....
The sewer in the Middle East needed cleaned up. Two down..Syria and Iran yet to go. It's not gonna' stop until the terrorists in this area are killed. No one said it would be easy. Sadam funded terrorism..what makes you think he wouldn't fund other terrorism??
Think what other mischief the Al Qaeda might be up to if they weren't devoting so much of their resources desperstely trying to prevent us from setting up a stable, democratic goverment there.
Oh and as for the warnings, we get warnings, tightenup our security, and the plan fails. Just terrible, terrible.
Oh and as for the warnings, we get warnings, tightenup our security, and the plan fails. Just terrible, terrible.
There was information a while back reported on FOX News that incidents had taken place in SE Asia where pirates had boarded ships (especially natural gas ships) and that these 'pirates' appeared to be only interested in learning how to control the ships. al Qaeda itself has a fleet believed to consist of at least fifteen ships.
It seems to me that it would be logical for al Qaeda to use ships as weapons. They used airliners for weapons-why not ships? A ship filled with compressed natural gas or crude oil could be exploded in a harbor. Or if al Qaeda could get their hands on a nuclear weapon they could explode the weapon in a harbor.
After something happens people had a tendency to focus just on what had happened. Terrorists used airliners in the last big attack. So we focus on airliners. But terrorists used trains in Spain. I recently rode on Amtrak and let me tell you there was very little security. Ships could be used as weapons the same as airliners.
It seems to me that it would be logical for al Qaeda to use ships as weapons. They used airliners for weapons-why not ships? A ship filled with compressed natural gas or crude oil could be exploded in a harbor. Or if al Qaeda could get their hands on a nuclear weapon they could explode the weapon in a harbor.
After something happens people had a tendency to focus just on what had happened. Terrorists used airliners in the last big attack. So we focus on airliners. But terrorists used trains in Spain. I recently rode on Amtrak and let me tell you there was very little security. Ships could be used as weapons the same as airliners.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't see this happening. My unsolicited opinion is that as long as there is Islamic fundementalism, there will be terrorism originating in the Middle East. Unless and until someone steps up and states that the goal of this campaign against terror is the eradication of Islamic fundementalism, I don't see how terrorism will be eliminated. Of course that will only work until the next group that feels oppressed decides to take matters into its own hands.
tec97, I guess I'm pessimistic too. I think Al should hve included the Saudis on his list. I think if Americans really want to fight a War there has to be sacrifices. In the world wars of te past, there was great deal of rationing and self sacrifice at home. We complain about high oil prices which ultimately fund terrorists.
Maybe we can't have it both ways?
Maybe the line we draw has to be much clearer.
I know that if oil was no longer a currency tomorrow, the U.S. would be treating the Saudis much differently.
Maybe we can't have it both ways?
Maybe the line we draw has to be much clearer.
I know that if oil was no longer a currency tomorrow, the U.S. would be treating the Saudis much differently.
- Status
Similar threads
