U.S. officials: Major terror attack planned this summer

[Seismic Anamoly]

Quote:

---

Officials said the attacks might take place before the November presidential election in an attempt to affect the outcome, similar to the way the Madrid train bombings influenced Spanish elections.

---

Anybody have the address of the spineless socialist Spanish voters so I can mail this Thank You card?



estúpidos imbéciles....

[MIKE BURN]

Quote:

---

*CNN Breaking News*



Sources: Major terror attack planned this summer



Several U.S. officials said Tuesday that unnamed terrorists, possibly al Qaeda operatives, are in the United States and planning a "major attack" on U.S. soil this summer. Details on how to deal with the threat are expected to be released in the weekly FBI bulletin on Wednesday.

---

[DreamTone7]

Ditto what Seismo said. Sounds like something the French would do.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

*CNN Breaking News*



Sources: Major terror attack planned this summer



Several U.S. officials said Tuesday that unnamed terrorists, possibly al Qaeda operatives, are in the United States and planning a "major attack" on U.S. soil this summer. Details on how to deal with the threat are expected to be released in the weekly FBI bulletin on Wednesday.

---

By Aaron Garner:



"That's been the point to me all along....until Osama Bin Laden is captured, the rest of this is just distraction from the real war on terror.



Look at it this way:



On September 12th, 2001 would you have thought the best way to fight Osama Bin Laden would be by....sending troops into Iraq and spending $150 billion (that number is still staggering to me) to take down Saddam Hussein? Would we have settled for anything less on September 12th, 2001 than the capture/killing of Osama Bin Laden and nothing short of that as REAL progress in that war? I suggest the answer would be an emphatic NO. I just can't articulate how incongruent the war in Iraq is with the original mission, and how many people are actually buying it.



Continuing UN weapons inspections could have handled Saddam from an international perspective until they caught Bin Laden which should be Priority #1. But that slippery Osama, well, he doesn't restrict himself to lines on a map because he's not the formal leader of any nation, so he can travel amongst (relatively) sympathetic countries. Like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and any other Islamic-stan. So maybe a more stationary target might look look just as good on the proverbial spit strung up in the square. Like Saddam.



I have no doubt his people are better off, but Saddam was nowhere near the immediate threat to the US or the West that Bin Laden STILL is. This is still about Osama, right? There has been no attack by North Korea or Iraq on American soil, right?



Saddam was easier to catch, but far less dangerous. That Yellow Alert you guys are under right now has never had much to do with anything Saddam could throw at us."

[HKRockChick]

to stop the terrorists is to get someone in office who will actually focus on the real terrorists, put policies in place that are fair and in so doing stop the inflamation that current policies effect, and get the world behind them. That person, as is (or should be) patently obvious is NOT bush. I hope the American electorate dont think that doing the right thing by the US, the war against terrorism and the world means catering to the terrorists. Just because the terrorists hate bush is no reason to vote him back into office, in some sort of perverse show of defiance. See this administration for what it is: corrupt to the core, ineffectual in stamping out (in fact, cultivating) terrorism, and disastrous for our earth.







Spain had a democratic election - they never wanted to be part of this bogus war, and the guy who won had always promised he'd pull the troops out. The previous guy Alnar or almar or whatever had it coming. I believe the people of spain did the right thing.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

and the guy who won had always promised he'd pull the troops out

---

Well, he said he would pull the troops out if the control of the country was not moved over to the UN (and thus provide the mission with legal credibility). Once it was evident that it never was going to happen, action was taken.

[HKRockChick]

You are right. Thanks for bringing that up.