Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways

No need to worry, we're still on Bush' watch for another two months and since we're winning the war on terror something like this could never happen.

Kidding aside, this goes to show how Terror is not something you can invade a country like Afghanistan or over throw a government like Iraq and stop. The American people were totally naive to think we could stop terrorism by starting war's in the middle east. No man knows but the terrorist and God the day, hour or place of the next attack and there is no army big enough or weapon's sophisticated enough to stop it. I really doubt NY is the place for the next attack so I think the entire nation needs to be on guard.

 

uh.....no it doesn't.

 

We've done those things and don't seem to be stopping it.

Perhaps we need to understand there will always be evil in this world and there will always be those who have extreme views in making their cause known or to impose their will on others. But I believe it's like crooks and murderers, unfortunately there is not much we can do until they commit the crime.

 

Back to your original statement. If those governments are supporting Terrorists before and after their acts of terror then they must be dealt with.

 

How naive, while we're in Afghanistan and Iraq the terrorist are having a field day in India who is not supporting terrorist. They are victims like the rest of us. The terrorst are doing coordinated attacks looking for Brit's and American's. Who knows who, where or when is next?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dia-terror-attacks-that-kill-at-least-80.html

A traditional Army can't fight a concept like evil or terrorism anymore than we were able to defeat Nazism. Sure Hitler is dead but there are swat sticker wearing skin heads walking the streets of this country still today. So did we defeat nazism? The only thing that can defeat evil is good.

Finding and killing Ben Laden won't stop terrorism anymore than killing Jesus didn't stopped Christianity or killing the martyrs stopped the spread of the Gospel.

 

Oh, and we have terrorist living i this country. Do we turn on ourselves? It is not the government supporting terrorist but terrorist live in every country. We can't take on the world and we are not the only good that exist.

 

None of this addresses what I said.

 

Really, you need to think before you post.

 

Sure it does, you conclude those government support terrorist because there are terrorist in their country. I said one doesn't have to do with the other.

 

No I didn't. You read into what I said what was not there.

 

This is my point, the Military and defense of this country didn't begin on 9/11 and won't end when Bush leaves office. I served 12 years in uniform and there have been many going back to the revolution who served before me. Some served in times of war and others served to prevent war but all service is admirable.

Terrorism is a concept or ideology which can't or won't be defeated by a conventional army. Those are the facts and reason's we shouldn't stay in Iraq until "victory" because there is no real "victory" against terrorism. We had a military posture in place on 9/11 and it didn't stop the WTC attacks. We have a military posture in place today along with wars on two fronts and it didn't stop the attacks in India. The Bible has taught me that evil will always be among us but will be ultimately defeated in the end.

 

You missed it, my sarcasm is that we are fighting "Al Qaeda" in Afghanistan and Iraq yet evil still took place in India. We could kill every living soul in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan and not stop terrorism because the truth is sleeper cells exist in this country.

Not sure why you say Clinton broke down the defenses, Bush administration received the warnings but ignored them. No matter what Clinton did, Bush had a chance to react but I don't fault him any because you can't react to ever threat made in the world and no one expected the type of attack that happened on 9/11.

Not sure where this came from or what your're implying.

I had no problem going after Ben Laden. He admitted to master minding the 9/11 attacks. I think had we of invested the forces used in Iraq toward Ben Laden we'd of had him by now. That's just speculation and no fact.

Bush admitted today in an interview with Charlie Gibson that had his intelligence of not been faulty Iraq may have been dealt with differently.

 

Clinton dismantled our military to very low levels to include our intelligence capabilities. That was how he kept his promise to make government smaller.

 

No pleasing this crowd...


You advocate smaller government. President achieves your goal so you say, "but don't cut that, only cut what I want".

Facts are our intelligence was warned about 9/11. Remember the Rice report. We haven't had a draft and been sustaining wars on two fronts so I don't think it cut our forces too far.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

Don't blame Clinton for lack of intelligence...

 

Stay ontask here. You said "Not sure why you say Clinton broke down the defenses," I simply gave you the reason why.

Thursday Nov. 29, 2001; 7:18 p.m. EST

Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said Thursday that ex-President Bill Clinton cut back the U.S. military so severely that it's now just a fraction of the size of the fighting force that won the Gulf War ten years ago.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/weinberg.htm

I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Commission and the American people to address the performance of the Intelligence Community in the period leading up to September 11, 2001. First, some context.



By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

* We lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment.
* The pace of technological change and a $3 trillion telecommunications revolution challenged the National Security Agency’s ability to keep up with the increasing volume and velocity of modern communications.
* The infrastructure to recruit, train, and sustain officers for our clandestine services—the nation’s human intelligence capability—was in disarray.
* We were not hiring new analysts, emphasizing the importance of expertise, or giving analysts the tools they needed.

I also found that the threats to the nation had not declined or even stabilized, but had grown more complex and dangerous.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_testimony_04142004.html

 

Not sure what this has to do with the defenses you're claiming Clinton broke down. The Army didn't have responsibility to guard the WTC or the Airports. Saying Clinton's defense cuts caused 9/11 is like saying reducing guards in KS caused CA banks to get robbed.

Also, I still say he left sufficient forces. We immediately went to Afghanistan and still had enough troops to find Saddam and free Iraq in a short period of time. We have also had sufficient forces to maintain wars on two fronts for all these years without a draft. I don't think the Clinton blame carries much weight when the Armed forces have functioned as expected.

It is like you didn't see the information I presented, the CIA had the intelligence it needed but it was ignored. It doesn't matter how many agents are staring at the monitor or how much money you have in the CIA budget, you are ineffective as an intelligence agency if you ignore the information. More people or money wouldn't have solved that problem.

So again, why blame Clinton when there was enough agency to intercept and present the information regarding the attacks. They were then asked to verify the validity of the information and they did. That was the CIA's job and they did it.

I still say you're being hypocritical, you advocate less government then blame Clinton when he reduces it.

 

As I presented no there was not. The ignoring of info can also be a result of being understaffed and funded.

Being for less government does not have to include military cuts at all. The military is not unconstitutional at any level. Relying on the Federal government to provide what people should do for themselves is. But it doesn't surprise me you struggle to understand the difference.