Terror Plot in New York broken up by Feds

[Axl4Prez2004]

pakistan has terrorists, the UK has terrorists, germany has terrorists, the US has terrorists....

I think what he was getting at was the overt state-sponsored terrorism of the Taliban and the fact Al-Qaeda's training camps were in that very nation.  Iraq's connection to 9/11 was non-existent.  pre-invasion Iraq reminded me more of Tattooine from Star Wars.  Ya know, thugs passing through and whatnot...but Afghanistan was a straight-up haven for Qaeda.  Iraq's connection to terrorism was cooked up and exaggerated on a criminal level.  For the White House to ominously warn us of "the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" was way out of line.  We would have been justified by the same level of reasoning to invade Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.   

[sandman]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

[polluxlm]

? For the White House to ominously warn us of "the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" was way out of line.? We would have been justified by the same level of reasoning to invade Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.? ?

Plenty of time left in the world....

[polluxlm]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

And most of them lived through! They even got Norad to stand down. Impressive.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

Only those with oil resources.

[sandman]

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

Only those with oil resources.

fair point. i disagree with you, but at least you are consistent.

there are similarities between our invasions of both countries.

[Axl4Prez2004]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

That's kind of my point.  Leading a gigantic army into a nation that has looser ties to terrorism (Iraq) than Afghanistan has to be viewed as a mistake.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda had very well-known close ties.  Iraq did not.  The connection was tenuous at best. 

As you know, those terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia.  Should we have attacked them?  No.  Did Saudi Arabia condone Al Qaeda activity in its land?  No.  Did Afghanistan?  Hell yes.  Hence, at least in my eyes, Afghanistan was the right call.  A massive coordinated effort to find, infiltrate, and destroy Al Qaeda with subsequent anti-terror intelligence ops placed/bought in the various theaters was the correct action, not an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

PS, if you look closely at our Afghanistan involvement...oil is involved to a degree as well.  Don't forget, the old Soviet Union wanted Afghanistan for their own needs as well, pipelines etc.  It's like Hollywood Squares, "John, I'll take Afghanistan for the block!"   

[SLCPUNK]

pakistan has terrorists, the UK has terrorists, germany has terrorists, the US has terrorists....

Iraq did not.

[-Jack-]

pakistan has terrorists, the UK has terrorists, germany has terrorists, the US has terrorists....

Iraq did not.

Lol. I saw that coming from last page

[The Dog]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

Are you implying we SHOULDN'T have attacked Afghanistan to respond to 9-11?!?!?! 

OBL was located in Afghanistan, the Taliban were knowingly housing/sponsoring him.  OBL had his camps there, he funded/helped launch the attack on 9-11 from afghanistan.

What was going on in Iraq at the same time?  Sarin gas?  Please.

[sandman]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

Are you implying we SHOULDN'T have attacked Afghanistan to respond to 9-11?!?!?!?

OBL was located in Afghanistan, the Taliban were knowingly housing/sponsoring him.? OBL had his camps there, he funded/helped launch the attack on 9-11 from afghanistan.

What was going on in Iraq at the same time?? Sarin gas?? Please.

so would you support an invasion of pakistan if we can prove he's there? (a topic no politician seems willing to discuss these days.)

i'm not implying that at all. just pointing out that afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11.

[Axlfreek]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

INVADE CANADA

[The Dog]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

Are you implying we SHOULDN'T have attacked Afghanistan to respond to 9-11?!?!?! 

OBL was located in Afghanistan, the Taliban were knowingly housing/sponsoring him.  OBL had his camps there, he funded/helped launch the attack on 9-11 from afghanistan.

What was going on in Iraq at the same time?  Sarin gas?  Please.

so would you support an invasion of pakistan if we can prove he's there? (a topic no politician seems willing to discuss these days.)

i'm not implying that at all. just pointing out that afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11.

if the pakistani govt was knowingly sponsoring OBL and letting him have active terror camps, then yes.  we should.

to say afghanistan and the taliban had NOTHING to do with iraq as a way to justify the invasion of iraq....man, you need to rethink your logic my friend.

[polluxlm]

if the pakistani govt was knowingly sponsoring OBL and letting him have active terror camps, then yes.? we should.

to say afghanistan and the taliban had NOTHING to do with iraq as a way to justify the invasion of iraq....man, you need to rethink your logic my friend.

Rethinking logic, and all. About that.

I'd be interested to see the logic behind judging a whole population on behalf of the actions of a small elite.

As far as I know, and I think a couple of experts would agree, all terrorism stem from hatred. Now, I might be wrong, but don't you think dropping bombs on a whole nation would increase that hate, and you know, by extension, create more terrorism?


So....what are we doing here?

[stolat]

The world has always been at war with South East Asia......

(just quoting a line from a film).....

[journey]

afghanistan did not attack us. it was a small handful of terrorists.

should we invade every nation that harbors terrorists?

No. There has be a more effective way. War won't solve it. These suicide/terror attacks are happening on a grander, more organized scale than people realize. It's not a small handful of people who are just crazy and want to attack at random. They're being recruited, trained and financially compensated . There's been a social broadening of this phenomenon. A Suadi telethon raised millions of dollars for Palestinians after an 18 year old girl bombed a supermarket in Isreal. It's a huge population that encourages this crisis.

[SLCPUNK]

 Now, I might be wrong, but don't you think dropping bombs on a whole nation would increase that hate, and you know, by extension, create more terrorism?

The NIE said just that.

[polluxlm]

 Now, I might be wrong, but don't you think dropping bombs on a whole nation would increase that hate, and you know, by extension, create more terrorism?

The NIE said just that.

So I see.

It's all a bunch of bullshit. 'Terrorism', give me a fuckin' break. Terrorists blow up themselves and maybe a car or 2. They are simple people, enraged, and justly so.

And somehow we are led to believe that these farmers, working class people are responsible for the massive coordinated operations we have seen in NY, London and Madrid? Bullshit. It's all a game to instigate fear so our 'leaders' can gain more power and control.

And we let it happen, in a democracy, how stupid is that?