U.S terroist attack expected by 2013.

[ivirz]

Back on Topic: i think that story is BS, i think the government just likes to make shit up, and the media likes to exaggerate on that stuff, or they make there own shit up, regardless, we in just as much danger now as we were in 01, but look at the consequences, they attacked America and killed (i dont know how many, i think there was a quote above ^) but did you think about the consequences on them, in 03 we invaded Iraq, it is almost 2009, and we are still in Iraq, im living proof, even though the government and the media releases all this stuff about how people are coming back or people arent coming out here any more, most of it is propaganda, anyways, if they attack the US and kill 5,000 people, or 10,000 people, the consequences are us coming over to theyre country (again) and spending another 5-8 years over here, and you know how many people have got killed, or "arrested" over here?

Who is the they you keep referring to? I would expect somebody who has apparently served in the war in Iraq to understand who and and why they are fighting.

I dont remember there being a link between the September 11th attacks and the war in Iraq. From what I recall, the US invaded Iraq solely on the basis that they believed the country to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction. (Of which they may or may not have had documented proof of sale, but thats another topic.)

I was under the assumption that the Sept. 11th attacks were organized, planned and executed by a 'terrorist' cell based out of Afghanistan, and under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me? -.-

 

[Swordsz]

Who is the they you keep referring to? I would expect somebody who has apparently served in the war in Iraq to understand who and and why they are fighting.

I dont remember there being a link between the September 11th attacks and the war in Iraq. From what I recall, the US invaded Iraq solely on the basis that they believed the country to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction. (Of which they may or may not have had documented proof of sale, but thats another topic.)

I was under the assumption that the Sept. 11th attacks were organized, planned and executed by a 'terrorist' cell based out of Afghanistan, and under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me? -.-

Pretty much ya hit the nail on the head.. no mis hits leading to a bent nail.

Afghanistan militia called Taliban, most likely funded by Saudi Arabia [which makes money from us] attacked the US so we retaliated by attacking Iraq when Iran was the one develeping WMDs so now we decide to put Obama in office who will add troops to Afghanistan.. but its too late since most the Taliban have move to Pakistan.

 

[ivirz]

Afghanistan militia called Taliban, most likely funded by Saudi Arabia [which makes money from us] attacked the US so we retaliated by attacking Iraq when Iran was the one develeping WMDs so now we decide to put Obama in office who will add troops to Afghanistan.. but its too late since most the Taliban have move to Pakistan.

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. The Taliban were in Afghanistan, so the US retaliated by attacking Iraq? Thats simply nonsensical.

Why do people establish a link between September 11th and the War in Iraq?

 

[aint_no_saint]

Oh well to bad we are all dead in 2012...2012 IS THE HOT DAY

 

[whitey]

Who is the they you keep referring to? I would expect somebody who has apparently served in the war in Iraq to understand who and and why they are fighting.

I dont remember there being a link between the September 11th attacks and the war in Iraq. From what I recall, the US invaded Iraq solely on the basis that they believed the country to be in possession of weapons of mass destruction. (Of which they may or may not have had documented proof of sale, but thats another topic.)

I was under the assumption that the Sept. 11th attacks were organized, planned and executed by a 'terrorist' cell based out of Afghanistan, and under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me? -.-

Sorry, i forgot who im talking to, let me break it down a bit, im not trying to be rude, but let me enlighten you on some things.

First, by they i was talking about terrorists in general, mainly Al Qaeda, considering they are responsible for the attack on 9/11 2001, now after the attacks, America launched OEF (operation enduring freedom), in response to 9/11, OEF removed the Taliban from power, and controlling Afghanistan and using it as a base for AQ (Al Queda)

Now, in response to 9/11, it was not us inhabiting Afghanistan or Iraq, it was Afghanistan, then Iraq.

Now, to make it as simple as i can, AQ is all over the middle east, some countries welcome AQ under the table, they dont want the US to know that they are supporting them but they really are, thats kind of whats happend in Iraq, theres AQ all over Iraq, there are also passive and active supporters, active supporters support AQ through donations and giving them help directly, on purpose, to contribute to their cause, passive supporters are different, theyre just trying to get by, and if they are threatend by AQ, then they will help or donate to their cause, or they may be forced to, or if they see a US military member get killed, they may look the other way, etc. They dont want their families to be in danger so they ignore some of the things that happen.

Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, but its hard for us to find out who is AQ, because it could be anybody out here, but to this very day, there are still AQ members in Iraq, there are also other terrorist groups out here too, under different names, and then there are people who are just pissed off because the coalition forces are out here. The US forces have been attacked out here by terrorists, AQ, other Terrorist groups, and dads or sons in families that are pissed off that were here,

its not really a War with Iraq considering the Iraqi Army and Police help with our efforts, but at the same time, not all of them are "good guys", some of them are dirty, its not like it is in the states, dirty cops get arrested, out here, its a little different, they like to look out for their own, and judges get bribed, people get released that were "detained"(detained is like being arrested) etc. etc.

nonetheless the point is we are fighting Al Qaeda, alot of AQ members fled to Iraq, and there was already alot of AQ members in Iraq, and here we are, now the Taliban and AQ and other terrorist groups is acting up again in afghanistan, which is why Obama wants to take us out of Iraq and move us to Afghanistan, does anybody else think this is just a cycle thats going to go on for a very long time, go to one country, kill and lock up a bunch of terrorists, some run to another country, go there, etc. etc. it seems almost like a waste of time and effort

Edit:

Again, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. The Taliban were in Afghanistan, so the US retaliated by attacking Iraq? Thats simply nonsensical.

Why do people establish a link between September 11th and the War in Iraq?

People establish a link between Semptember 11th and the War in Iraq because
...we responded agains Al Qaeda who were responsible for 9/11 and were operating in Afghanistan
...then we continued targeting Al Qaeda who were operating in Iraq

Al Qaeda = responsible for 9/11, so thats why we Target Al Qaeda

and the Taliban were controlling Afghanistan using it as a base for Al Qaeda

EDIT 2:

trying to make this more clear

We invaded Afghanistan Before Iraq. and we didnt "attack" Iraq, we "attacked" (and still "attack")terrorists in Iraq

 

[fast11375]

but lets face it, America is America, it is the most developed country, i mean sure, we buy cars made in japan, china is pretty advanced, but in the end, we are fighting for something that alot of countries know nothing about, freedom, and i dont know about you, but freedom is worth fighting for, IMO. And many Americans are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for their country and the freedom to have their own beliefs, and etc.
understand

No offense, but you've been brainwashed by Bush/Government propaganda. You may regard freedom as something holy, but it isn't. In reality, the majority of people in Japan/China/Iraq doesn't want to be "freed" by Americans or take on the American ideology named "Democracy". That's why we face so much opposition in the Middle East. These people don't want us forcing "freedom" down their throats. And in the end, we all know that Freedom comes at a price.

Oh, and we didn't pay the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom to have our own beliefs. We went in Afganistan to seek revenge. We went into Iraq to destroy Nuclear weapons that weren't there...and we're still in there now because our government made a huge mistake.

But I still support continuing the war. We gotta finish what we started or else it's going to get ugly.

EDIT: We did attack Iraq lol. Unless Saddam Hussein and his government is classified as terrorists.

 

[whitey]

No offense, but you've been brainwashed by Bush/Government propaganda. You may regard freedom as something holy, but it isn't. In reality, the majority of people in Japan/China/Iraq doesn't want to be "freed" by Americans or take on the American ideology named "Democracy". That's why we face so much opposition in the Middle East. These people don't want us forcing "freedom" down their throats. And in the end, we all know that Freedom comes at a price.

Oh, and we didn't pay the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom to have our own beliefs. We went in Afganistan to seek revenge. We went into Iraq to destroy Nuclear weapons that weren't there...and we're still in there now because our government made a huge mistake.

But I still support continuing the war. We gotta finish what we started or else it's going to get ugly.

EDIT: We did attack Iraq lol. Unless Saddam Hussein and his government is classified as terrorists.

They dont want to be freed by us?
Have you ever spoken with a fucking Iraqi national before

Have you sat down and had cigarette, and a conversation with him, trying to use some arabic to show respect, while he struggles to talk with chopped up sentences in english, but tells you thank you for what your doing, and that he is glad that we are here in Iraq, and, lol he even mentioned that the Army doesnt do shit out here and the Marines do all the work.

well that happend to me just last week at one of the Iraqi Stores when i went to get some smokes. Alot of them are nice people, and appreciate what we do. you cant tell me otherwise, im experiencing all this first hand.


And by your comment above about Saddam, yes your right, but at the same time, its 2008, and the mission right now is targeting terrorists, not WMD or anything else. saddam was an asshole, and he needed to be removed from power, thats that

 

[fast11375]

Yea Iraqis likes us there, but by being there we caused a lot more trouble. Now the country is in a civil war. At least when Saddam was ruling he was able to keep it at bay :\ Almost everyday in the news you can hear about suicide attacks between Sunnis and Shiites. Not saying that Saddam was a good dictator.

I'm not sure where you're stationed, but there are many Iraqis who doesn't want us there. Just think of the hundred of thousands(estimates are around 150,000-500,000) of Iraqi casualties of the war.

The U.S. should of approached this differently rather and went in and invaded Iraq. I'm pretty sure we are able to apply political pressure on Saddam just like what we're doing to Mr. Kim in N. Korea. The wars in Middle East has given terrorists(and Iran) ample excuses to justify their actions. I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraq and Afgan wars actually increased the strengths of terrorists and gave them the support/manpower to execute an attack before 2013.

 

[Epic God]

i would say something like this, becouse you no that terrist are going to test oboma

 

[ivirz]

First, by they i was talking about terrorists in general, mainly Al Qaeda, considering they are responsible for the attack on 9/11 2001, now after the attacks, America launched OEF (operation enduring freedom), in response to 9/11, OEF removed the Taliban from power, and controlling Afghanistan and using it as a base for AQ (Al Queda)

Now, in response to 9/11, it was not us inhabiting Afghanistan or Iraq, it was Afghanistan, then Iraq.


Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, but its hard for us to find out who is AQ, because it could be anybody out here, but to this very day, there are still AQ members in Iraq, there are also other terrorist groups out here too, under different names, and then there are people who are just pissed off because the coalition forces are out here. The US forces have been attacked out here by terrorists, AQ, other Terrorist groups, and dads or sons in families that are pissed off that were here,

its not really a War with Iraq considering the Iraqi Army and Police help with our efforts, but at the same time, not all of them are "good guys", some of them are dirty, its not like it is in the states, dirty cops get arrested, out here, its a little different, they like to look out for their own, and judges get bribed, people get released that were "detained"(detained is like being arrested) etc. etc.

nonetheless the point is we are fighting Al Qaeda, alot of AQ members fled to Iraq, and there was already alot of AQ members in Iraq, and here we are, now the Taliban and AQ and other terrorist groups is acting up again in afghanistan, which is why Obama wants to take us out of Iraq and move us to Afghanistan, does anybody else think this is just a cycle thats going to go on for a very long time, go to one country, kill and lock up a bunch of terrorists, some run to another country, go there, etc. etc. it seems almost like a waste of time and effort

Edit:


People establish a link between Semptember 11th and the War in Iraq because
...we responded agains Al Qaeda who were responsible for 9/11 and were operating in Afghanistan
...then we continued targeting Al Qaeda who were operating in Iraq

Al Qaeda = responsible for 9/11, so thats why we Target Al Qaeda

and the Taliban were controlling Afghanistan using it as a base for Al Qaeda

EDIT 2:

trying to make this more clear

We invaded Afghanistan Before Iraq. and we didnt "attack" Iraq, we "attacked" (and still "attack")terrorists in Iraq

Alright, thanks for the information. I really can't claim to be an expert or anything on any of this, but there seems to be conflicting stories that just dont make sense. It's certainly not what you're saying that doesn't make sense, it just doesn't seem to agree with other things I've heard.

I understand why the US and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan; that is something that I agree with. The Taliban were harbouring terrorists and their human rights violations ran a mile long. Its when the US invaded Iraq that things seem to become muddled, and people always seem to give me different explanations of why this happened. I really dont know what true.

First off, there's your explanation, where Iraq was harbouring Al Qaeda, which seems logical. But then I keep seeing news flashes like this:

See video here : Interview with George W Bush at 1:28:01

We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th.

This just confuses me; why does the US government see fit to invade a country (Iraq) with hearsay evidence that they have WMD's? GWB seems to just have said that there is no link between September 11th and Saddam Hussein, and yet they still invaded the Iraq?

The legal justification the British and American governments had given for the invasion of Iraq was bogus. The invasion was not authorised by a UN Security Council resolution expressly endorsing it, and thus, under the terms of the UN Charter, it was illegal under international law.

Quote from Telegrapher, British Newspaper

It almost seems like the invasion was unjustified. Perhaps a more finite definition of terrorist is needed as well?

I will say again that this is a point of great confusion for me and likely many others. Where is the truth in the whole mess? I will reitirate that I mean absolutely no disrespect by any of this; on the contrary, I believe that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out of power, and that the evidence of the existance of WMD's was sufficent (don't get me started). The steps taken to invade Iraq were just wrong.

The US simply has a responsibility to clean up their act. They have invaded Iraq and destroyed much vital infrustructure and weakened the country. They did a great job removing SaddamIf they were to leave now, it would be in a much worse off position then before. I think we can both agree that if the US were to remove all forces today, Iraq would be much worse off tomorrow.

 

[whitey]

Alright, thanks for the information. I really can't claim to be an expert or anything on any of this, but there seems to be conflicting stories that just dont make sense. It's certainly not what you're saying that doesn't make sense, it just doesn't seem to agree with other things I've heard.

I understand why the US and coalition forces invaded Afghanistan; that is something that I agree with. The Taliban were harbouring terrorists and their human rights violations ran a mile long. Its when the US invaded Iraq that things seem to become muddled, and people always seem to give me different explanations of why this happened. I really dont know what true.

First off, there's your explanation, where Iraq was harbouring Al Qaeda, which seems logical. But then I keep seeing news flashes like this:

See video here : Interview with George W Bush at 1:28:01



This just confuses me; why does the US government see fit to invade a country (Iraq) with hearsay evidence that they have WMD's? GWB seems to just have said that there is no link between September 11th and Saddam Hussein, and yet they still invaded the Iraq?



Quote from Telegrapher, British Newspaper

It almost seems like the invasion was unjustified. Perhaps a more finite definition of terrorist is needed as well?

I will say again that this is a point of great confusion for me and likely many others. Where is the truth in the whole mess? I will reitirate that I mean absolutely no disrespect by any of this; on the contrary, I believe that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out of power, and that the evidence of the existance of WMD's was sufficent (don't get me started). The steps taken to invade Iraq were just wrong.

The US simply has a responsibility to clean up their act. They have invaded Iraq and destroyed much vital infrustructure and weakened the country. They did a great job removing SaddamIf they were to leave now, it would be in a much worse off position then before. I think we can both agree that if the US were to remove all forces today, Iraq would be much worse off tomorrow.

I agree completely with what your saying, the US gov. is kind of sneaky sometimes and well never know what was really going on, i have no idea what the original reason for invading Iraq is since there is no link between him and 9/11, i could only suspect that the invasion was because of Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and maybe Saddam was harboring them, but the honestly i do not know

 

[ivirz]

I agree completely with what your saying, the US gov. is kind of sneaky sometimes and well never know what was really going on, i have no idea what the original reason for invading Iraq is since there is no link between him and 9/11, i could only suspect that the invasion was because of Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, and maybe Saddam was harboring them, but the honestly i do not know

Yeah, this is the same thing I was really wondering. The entire invasion of Iraq seemed shifty when it happened; the US seemed really eager to invade despite mounting international pressure to stay out as well as not receiving the 'green light' from the UN Security Council. They later claimed it to be part of 'Operation Enduring Freedom', but was their something more to the invasion? Something more underhanded?

Many speculate that the invasion may have been driven for the oil in Iraq, although there is little solid evidence to back this up. Im really intrigued now, I'm gunna go do some more research.

 

[V--own4g3--V]

Ughster, if you truely think that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory of the US government then you, sir, are a dumbass.

 

[AKASNM]

This made me freaking laugh.

What, the pentagon is expecting a nuke going off in the next few years?

Yay.......warm fuzzy feelings.....
....
....
....
....
....
*No, wait, it's just the radation!*

 

[Analog]

I saw this article on a newspaper in aol that a panel said that the U.S is likely to experience a devastating attack!

Here it is:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/panel-warns-biological-attack-likely-by/n20081201173709990011

What do you guys think?

This is a legitimate threat obviously. The terrorist are attempting to test the strength of the US. As they tested us previously and we have backed down. If another terrorist attempt were to occur the US would have to fight back. There is one major problem though, we don't have a specific target. These terrorists are scattered everywhere. Unlike the situation on 12/7/1941, we knew the Japanese attacked us and we could go directly for them, but in this case we don't know who to hit.

 

[__Abel__]

I think it's a propaganda scare tactic, won't go into detail beacuse the keyboard on my phone is hard to type with. But if it makes you feel better the Mayan calander says we will all be dead before that and dead terorists can't attack anyone so you can sleep easy

No joke i believe it's just propaganda, someone trying to get the US back into paying for the war and not bitching about it, of course there will still be bitching about it, it will just have more people willing to pay after the second attack on our soil

but as far as the mayan calender i don't really believe in that silly shit

 

[MJ]

i think this is a government lie to make people more scared than they need to be.
it will make people panick and do stupid things that will bring there own dimise....
i think lol

 

[Mizerey]

lollol i think

Dec 2012 will be the end of us.

 

[Analog]

i think this is a government lie to make people more scared than they need to be.
it will make people panick and do stupid things that will bring there own dimise....
i think lol

Your logic is clearly jaded by something which I have no clue. But, on a serious note, what would be the pros of instilling fear in millions of people about an attack on our country. Their has been proven threats towards our country within the near future (5 years). This could be for several reasons. From my perspective, it's because we are being tested. When we were tested previously we failed. When Clinton was president we were attacked and we backed down and removed our troops from the corresponding areas of attack. I agree with the basis that there will be a terrorist attack soon. My prediction is much quicker though, I assume that they will attempt to test Obama (within the next 4 years). Another reason could be because they feel as if Americans are pressured, they will crack and crumble from within. Which, truly, we are about to find out if that is a reality.

 

[ivirz]

What would be the pros of instilling fear in millions of people about an attack on our country?

Power through fear. When people are afraid, governments are are much less liable for their actions, since they can simply state that they 'suspected somebody of terrorist activity'. Look at the PATRIOT Act:

The USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the PATRIOT Act, is a controversial Act of Congress that U.S. President George Walker Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

This was put into place after the events of 9/11. Just look at what it says: law enforcement agencies have the ability to gather information from you without you ever knowing, and you can be detained in prison or even deported if you're SUSPECTED of terrorism-related activities. Doesn't that seem a unconstitutional?

Fear has given governments this power, and people applaud that this happens, because it makes them feel safer, although there was nothing to fear to begin with. This is how police-states start; let's just hope that the US isn't too far down that road.