Terror groups working for another 9/11

[pallidin]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/19/terror-groups-working-for-another-911-acting-dhs-chief-warns.html

Threat levels in the U.S. are “extremely high,” as intelligence indicates the Islamic State group and other terror groups are using small-scale plots to build toward another 9/11-style attack, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke warned.

“The terrorist organizations, be it ISIS or others, want to have the big explosion like they did on 9/11,” Duke said Tuesday, speaking at the U.S. Embassy in London, Britain's Express reported. “They want to take down aircraft. The intelligence is clear on that.”

[pallidin]

You know what I think about these ISIS and affiliated freaks?

Kill them before they kill us.

[Baz Dane]

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

You know what I think about these ISIS and affiliated freaks?

Kill them before they kill us.

I get what you mean, but we've been doing that for decades and how has that worked out?

I think it would be a better idea to stop arming them... Like no more airdrops of weapons where the wind suddenly blows them all towards ISIS... or not supplying them with a fleet of Humvees to go pick up those weapons... not supplying them with disposed dictators' weapons such as Gaddafi's, Saddam's etc... stop arming and training "friendly rebels" who then take their training and weapons over to the jihadists' side... stop calling countries that support ISIS/Al Qaeda, "allies", like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and stop giving them multi-billion dollar weapons deals... the list goes on and on.

Sure, we should stomp out existing jihadists, but we need to stop the cycle(insanity) that keeps creating them.

More are created than killed.

In the early 90's, they were a small band of terrorists coming off a big high of playing a role in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan. By 2014-15, they had seized an area almost the size of France.

The "War on Terror has been an abysmal failure

Edited October 19, 2017 by Lemieux
Spelling

[pallidin]

Thing is, if we do not eradicate this pestilence, they will continue to devour all in their path.

We have no choice. 

[pallidin]

I also understand your well written comment, and I do not disagree your sentiment.

However, regardless of prior unintended causation of the growth of ISIS, we must continue in our efforts to wipe-out this menace... specifically, radicalized Islam.

 

 

[Gromdor]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:33 AM, pallidin said:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/19/terror-groups-working-for-another-911-acting-dhs-chief-warns.html

Threat levels in the U.S. are “extremely high,” as intelligence indicates the Islamic State group and other terror groups are using small-scale plots to build toward another 9/11-style attack, acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke warned.

“The terrorist organizations, be it ISIS or others, want to have the big explosion like they did on 9/11,” Duke said Tuesday, speaking at the U.S. Embassy in London, Britain's Express reported. “They want to take down aircraft. The intelligence is clear on that.”

I never understood the fixation with airplanes.  There are multitudes of horrible things that terrorists could do.  But then again, I guess it is a good thing that they suffer from tunnel vision.

[AnchorSteam]

On 10/19/2017 at 3:06 AM, Lemieux said:

...

The "War on Terror has been an abysmal failure

It should not have been a "war on terror" at all.

It should have been a campaign of targeted assassinations... like what Israel did after Munich, x 100.

If all the Mullahs and warlords and financiers behind A.Q. had vanished, died horribly or woken up missing a few body parts in a 18-month period, that would indeed have been the end of it.

But no, we are too 'civilized' for that, and instead here we are; trillions of dollars and thousands of bodies later... and the beat goes on.

 

 

"In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster."

-- Philip Gordon, 2015

[Baz Dane]

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

It should not have been a "war on terror" at all.

It should have been a campaign of targeted assassinations... like what Israel did after Munich, x 100.

If all the Mullahs and warlords and financiers behind A.Q. had vanished, died horribly or woken up missing a few body parts in a 18-month period, that would indeed have been the end of it.

But no, we are too 'civilized' for that, and instead here we are; trillions of dollars and thousands of bodies later... and the beat goes on.

This is very likely true.

Before Al Qaeda came into being, the Mujahedin was being coordinated mostly by Abdullah Azzam, Ayman al Zawahiri, Omar Abdel-Rahman(the Blind Sheikh) and Osama Bin Laden, with Azzam being the "leader" for the most part.

Azzam, who was born in Palestine, was set on taking the Mujahedin there to launch a war against Israel after driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, while al Zawahiri and Rahman, on the other hand, wanted to stage a Global Jihad.

Reportedly, there were extremely heated exchanges between Azzam and al Zawahiri, with bin Laden caught in the middle, but leaning more towards al Zawahiri and Rahman's desires.

Next thing you know, a car bomb kills Azzam, as well as any dreams of the Mujahedin launching a war against Israel.(no one was ever officially named as the assassins, but it was most likely al Zawahiri and bin Laden who directed the killing).

So it's very true, IMO, that targeting and killing off the leadership would at the very least, change quite significantly, the course of actions that might have followed under their direction.

Because only Azzam was killed off, and with the others in the leadership group all aligned on the idea of a "global jihad" targeting the U.S., there would be no "liberation of Palestine".

I find it interesting that for the most part, Israel has never really been a target of Al Qaeda... much like ISIS. When you look at all the major Al Qaeda/ISIS terrorist attacks since the 1990's, none are in Israel(I'm talking about the major incidents mind you). Instead, the Shiite based, Iranian backed, Hezbollah have been the main antagonizer against Israel, with the Sunni based(like Al Qaeda/ISIS) Hamas as well.

I wonder how different the landscape might have been if Azzam had NOT been assassinated? He was dead set on taking the Mujahedin to fight against Israel.

But instead, we got Al Qaeda, the embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, 9/11 leading to U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and so on, into ISIS.

 

5 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

"In Iraq, the U.S. intervened and occupied, and the result was a costly disaster. In Libya, the U.S. intervened and did not occupy, and the result was a costly disaster. In Syria, the U.S. neither intervened nor occupied, and the result is a costly disaster."

-- Philip Gordon, 2015

Philip Gordon is being disingenuous.

The U.S. didn't "intervene" in Syria??? Pffft... Rrriiiiiight

I can agree with his first 2 sentences, but that third one is an outright lie.

And this guy's an "Expert" on "Middle East and North Africa — Europe and Eurasia — U.S. Foreign Policy"?

WTF?

Oh... on the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR)

https://www.cfr.org/experts/philip-h-Gordon

[Baz Dane]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 8:49 AM, pallidin said:

I also understand your well written comment, and I do not disagree your sentiment.

However, regardless of prior unintended causation of the growth of ISIS, we must continue in our efforts to wipe-out this menace... specifically, radicalized Islam.

 

 

 

Agreed, although I am not as sure as you appear to be about how unintended the growth of ISIS was.

I will agree however, in the grand scheme of things, that it's more important to wipe them out now, currently, and argue about HOW they came to be at a later date...

Though I'm always open for debating such things... time permitting.