PDA

View Full Version : Elevated Terrorist Threats???



road kill
10-08-2010, 06:11 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/07/barack-obama-terror-threat-claims

WOW!!!


Where Roger at???:D

There is hardly a day that goes by we don't hear how Bush lied about the threats in Iraq.

I am curious the lefty's take on this "fabrication."



RK

ducknwork
10-08-2010, 06:18 AM
You know that doesn't count...

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 06:39 AM
The story actually contains no "news" at all, simply speculation. That said, it may be true. There is certainly a well worn tradition of exaggerating threats whenever there are political pressures. Bush did it like clockwork, and Republicans basically claimed threat the entire war in Kosovo was a political diversion. However, it is equally true that there are threats every day and many are real. The specific threat mentioned in this case is bolstered by the arrest of 12 suspects in France a few days ago who are allegedly part of a Europe-wide plot to engage in attacks similar to those carried out in Mumbai, with automatic weapon shootings in hotels and other tourist areas. The US advisory mirrored advisories issued by the UK, France and Germany to their populations. Of course, the fact that your newspaper source is simply another extension of the Murdoch/Fox empire is just a coincidence.:rolleyes:

road kill
10-08-2010, 06:47 AM
The story actually contains no "news" at all, simply speculation. That said, it may be true. There is certainly a well worn tradition of exaggerating threats whenever there are political pressures. Bush did it like clockwork, and Republicans basically claimed threat the entire war in Kosovo was a political diversion. However, it is equally true that there are threats every day and many are real. The specific threat mentioned in this case is bolstered by the arrest of 12 suspects in France a few days ago who are allegedly part of a Europe-wide plot to engage in attacks similar to those carried out in Mumbai, with automatic weapon shootings in hotels and other tourist areas. The US advisory mirrored advisories issued by the UK, France and Germany to their populations. Of course, the fact that your newspaper source is simply another extension of the Murdoch/Fox empire is just a coincidence.:rolleyes:


Game, Set & Match.....road kill!!:D

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 06:59 AM
Game, Set & Match.....road kill!!:D
Are you suggesting that Bush and Clinton did not use threats to deflect attention from domestic political problems? Or are you suggesting that history should be ignored for the convenience of those who would like to pretend that all forms of crass politics were invented by Democrats? And what match is being played that you think you have won? Is it the one where an unsubstantiated piece of conservative drivel is portrayed as a startling new fact confirming the legitimacy or your own beliefs? If so, I would agree, you are almost always a hands down winner.:rolleyes:

road kill
10-08-2010, 07:01 AM
I guess these guys are liars;

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain
• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'
__________________________________________________ _____________


"Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan's president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month's midterm congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains.

He also claimed President Obama was reacting to pressure to demonstrate that his Afghan war strategy and this year's troop surge, which are unpopular with the American public, were necessary.

"I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves," Hasan said.

"Such reports are a mixture of frustrations, ineptitude and lack of appreciation of ground realities. Any attempt to infringe the sovereignty of Pakistan would not bring about stability in Afghanistan, which is presumably the primary objective of the American and Nato forces."

__________________________________________________ ______________


There is lot's more in the story.


RK

road kill
10-08-2010, 07:02 AM
Are you suggesting that Bush and Clinton did not use threats to deflect attention from domestic political problems? Or are you suggesting that history should be ignored for the convenience of those who would like to pretend that all forms of crass politics were invented by Democrats? And what match is being played that you think you have won? Is it the one where an unsubstantiated piece of conservative drivel is portrayed as a startling new fact confirming the legitimacy or your own beliefs? If so, I would agree, you are almost always a hands down winner.:rolleyes:

In a nut shell I am asking where is the CHANGE??


If your excuse is Bush did it, then this is more of the SAME, not CHANGE!!

The match that has been won is your predictable knee jerk whining about Bush did it.
That's all you got.






RK

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 07:18 AM
I guess these guys are liars;

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain
• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'
__________________________________________________ _____________


"Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain, a veteran diplomat who is close to Pakistan's president, suggested the Obama administration was playing politics with the terror threat before next month's midterm congressional elections, in which the Republicans are expected to make big gains.

He also claimed President Obama was reacting to pressure to demonstrate that his Afghan war strategy and this year's troop surge, which are unpopular with the American public, were necessary.

"I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves," Hasan said.

"Such reports are a mixture of frustrations, ineptitude and lack of appreciation of ground realities. Any attempt to infringe the sovereignty of Pakistan would not bring about stability in Afghanistan, which is presumably the primary objective of the American and Nato forces."

__________________________________________________ ______________


There is lot's more in the story.


RK

From Reuters, October 5, 2010:


PARIS, Oct 5 (Reuters) - French police arrested 12 people on Tuesday in early morning swoops the interior minister said were directly linked to a campaign to counter an elevated terrorism threat in Europe. France is on high alert after seven hostages, including five French citizens, were kidnapped by the North African wing of al Qaeda last month, and approval by the Senate of a bill to ban full-face veils. The hostages are still being held.

The U.S. State Department on Sunday issued a warning to Americans to exercise caution while in Europe. Also on Sunday, Britain raised its terrorism threat level to high from general for those travelling to Germany and France. [ID:nLDE6920E7]

"Yes there is a terrorist threat at the moment in Europe. It must be neither overestimated nor underestimated," Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux told France's National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, after the raids had taken place.

"Just this morning, police operations were launched in Marseille and Bordeaux which led to arrests directly linked to the anti-terrorist campaign," said Hortefeux, who added that he had spoken among others to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as recently as Monday night.

"On such a sensitive, difficult issue, the French government is naturally working hand in hand with our partners, our allies and even further afield," the minister said.
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6940U9.htm)Maybe your question should be why the US did not issue an alert earlier than a few days before this arrest if it was known to France, the UK and Germany that such groups were plotting massive, Mumbai-style attacks. Alerts have been issued in France, Britain and Germany. Are you suggesting that they are exaggerating to help Obama? Maybe the arrests were staged for that purpose as well.:rolleyes: In light of the known facts concerning the attacks that were being planned (or at least, the alleged facts), it would have been irresponsible not to issue a warning. At least we are no longer being subjected to daily report about the color of the day's terrorist threat warning (usually orange or red) based on non-specific information about activities that never materialized into anything. Now we get a warning when there is a specific threat that has already resulted in 12 arrests. That certainly does sound like an hysterical overreaction.:rolleyes:

road kill
10-08-2010, 07:24 AM
From Reuters, October 5, 2010:


PARIS, Oct 5 (Reuters) - French police arrested 12 people on Tuesday in early morning swoops the interior minister said were directly linked to a campaign to counter an elevated terrorism threat in Europe. France is on high alert after seven hostages, including five French citizens, were kidnapped by the North African wing of al Qaeda last month, and approval by the Senate of a bill to ban full-face veils. The hostages are still being held.

The U.S. State Department on Sunday issued a warning to Americans to exercise caution while in Europe. Also on Sunday, Britain raised its terrorism threat level to high from general for those travelling to Germany and France. [ID:nLDE6920E7]

"Yes there is a terrorist threat at the moment in Europe. It must be neither overestimated nor underestimated," Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux told France's National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, after the raids had taken place.

"Just this morning, police operations were launched in Marseille and Bordeaux which led to arrests directly linked to the anti-terrorist campaign," said Hortefeux, who added that he had spoken among others to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as recently as Monday night.

"On such a sensitive, difficult issue, the French government is naturally working hand in hand with our partners, our allies and even further afield," the minister said.
(http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6940U9.htm)Maybe your question should be why the US did not issue an alert earlier than a few days before this arrest if it was known to France, the UK and Germany that such groups were plotting massive, Mumbai-style attacks. Alerts have been issued in France, Britain and Germany. Are you suggesting that they are exaggerating to help Obama? Maybe the arrests were staged for that purpose as well.:rolleyes: In light of the known facts concerning the attacks that were being planned (or at least, the alleged facts), it would have been irresponsible not to issue a warning. At least we are no longer being subjected to daily report about the color of the day's terrorist threat warning (usually orange or red) based on non-specific information about activities that never materialized into anything. Now we get a warning when there is a specific threat that has already resulted in 12 arrests. That certainly does sound like an hysterical overreaction.:rolleyes:

I am not suggesting that, but if you read the article, I believe the authors of it are clearly stating that premise.
Again;

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain
• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'

I think those headlines are clear, even if one chooses not to read the article.

I am suggesting for you to excuse it be claiming Bush did it is nonsense.

AGAIN....where is the CHANGE??


RK

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 07:41 AM
I am not suggesting that, but if you read the article, I believe the authors of it are clearly stating that premise.
Again;

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain
• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'

I think those headlines are clear, even if one chooses not to read the article.

I am suggesting for you to excuse it be claiming Bush did it is nonsense.

AGAIN....where is the CHANGE??


RK
I agree. The story you linked is absolutely clear. It is also absurd on its face.

The "intelligence" sources are not identified, but are contradicted by the statements of governmental officials in England, France and Germany, as well as by the facts of the on-going investigations and arrests. The Pakistani criticism is generalized and is in harmony with similar comments by Pakistani leaders who deny the existence of terrorist forces in Pakistan itself.

Are you trying to prove that a Murdoch publication will write a stupid headline in its efforts to give weight to its overall opposition to the administration? If so, you are doing a great job. Do you believe the administration should have ignored the developments in Europe that led France, Germany and the UK to raise their threat warnings and to issue advisories to their populations? That is certainly what you seem to be saying. What do you believe the administration should have done? Or maybe you are embarrassed to answer that question.

road kill
10-08-2010, 08:27 AM
I agree. The story you linked is absolutely clear. It is also absurd on its face.

The "intelligence" sources are not identified, but are contradicted by the statements of governmental officials in England, France and Germany, as well as by the facts of the on-going investigations and arrests. The Pakistani criticism is generalized and is in harmony with similar comments by Pakistani leaders who deny the existence of terrorist forces in Pakistan itself.

Are you trying to prove that a Murdoch publication will write a stupid headline in its efforts to give weight to its overall opposition to the administration? If so, you are doing a great job. Do you believe the administration should have ignored the developments in Europe that led France, Germany and the UK to raise their threat warnings and to issue advisories to their populations? That is certainly what you seem to be saying. What do you believe the administration should have done? Or maybe you are embarrassed to answer that question.

Absurd?
Stupid"

Anything that opposes your ideology must be attacked and called names?

BTW-not that you care, but that attitude is my issue with you and your posts.

I found it an interesting read.
You try to marginalize it by calling it absurd & stupid."

Not so sure it is.

RK

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 09:22 AM
Absurd?
Stupid"

Anything that oppopses your ideology must be attacked and called names?

BTW-not that you care, but that attitude is my issue with you and your posts.

I found it an interesting read.
You try to marginalize it by calling it absurd & stupid."

Not so sure it is.

RK
But you still didn't answer the question on whether, in your opinion, a warning to Americans traveling in Western Europe was appropriate given:
specific information on threats of Mumbai style attacks in France, Germany and England;
the decisions by the French, German and English governments to issue similar advisories to their own populations; and
the arrest of 12 people in France in connection with these threats.You have implied, with your linked story that you do not believe a warning was appropriate. Is that really what you believe?

It seems that any facts that do not support your ideology are simply ignored.

road kill
10-08-2010, 11:12 AM
But you still didn't answer the question on whether, in your opinion, a warning to Americans traveling in Western Europe was appropriate given:
specific information on threats of Mumbai style attacks in France, Germany and England;
the decisions by the French, German and English governments to issue similar advisories to their own populations; and
the arrest of 12 people in France in connection with these threats.You have implied, with your linked story that you do not believe a warning was appropriate. Is that really what you believe?

It seems that any facts that do not support your ideology are simply ignored.

And any facts that don't support your ideology are call "absurd & stupid."

You in your infinite wisdom have decided to dismiss the article as non factual, even though people directly involved are quoted.
But Yardley knows better than they.

I implied nothing, I put the article out for review and thoughtful comment.
You cut and paste opposing articles, call the one I posted names and then claim I offer no facts.


You da man..........


RK

WaterDogRem
10-08-2010, 11:18 AM
At least we are no longer being subjected to daily report about the color of the day's terrorist threat warning (usually orange or red) based on non-specific information about activities that never materialized into anything.

Wish that was so, but maybe I spend too much time in airports.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 11:20 AM
And any facts that don't support your ideology are call "absurd & stupid."

You in your infinite wisdom have decided to dismiss the article as non factual, even though people directly involved are quoted.
But Yardley knows better than they.

I implied nothing, I put the article out for review and thoughtful comment.
You cut and paste opposing articles, call the one I posted names and then claim I offer no facts.


You da man..........


RK
Still not answering the question. Let me repeat:

"You have implied, with your linked story that you do not believe a warning was appropriate. Is that really what you believe?" You responded that you were not implying anything (riiightt). Ignoring that...

Do you, RK, believe that a warning was appropriate given the developments in Europe and the fact that England, France and Germany issued parallel alerts?

It's a simple yes or no question.

road kill
10-08-2010, 11:26 AM
Still not answering the question. Let me repeat:

"You have implied, with your linked story that you do not believe a warning was appropriate. Is that really what you believe?" You responded that you were not implying anything (riiightt). Ignoring that...

Do you, RK, believe that a warning was appropriate given the developments in Europe and the fact that England, France and Germany issued parallel alerts?

It's a simple yes or no question.
I have implied nothing.

I posted an article.

Do YOU understand that??
Simple yes or no question.

I do not have the intelligence connections or insight you have into the terror organizations to know if it was warranted or not.
It appears that several throughout the world that do have connections almost as good as yours deem it folly.

Dismissing claims of a developed, co-ordinated plot aimed at Britain, France and Germany, European intelligence officials also pointed the finger at the US, and specifically at the White House. "To stitch together [the terror plot claims] in a seamless narrative is nonsensical," said one well-placed official.



I imagine and suspect the terrorist (even though they love us now) are still trying to kill us.
No MORE or LESS than 2 years ago.

Do you honestly think the terrorists threats carry more weight today than 6mos, a year or 2 years ago??

If so, why??


RK

troy schwab
10-08-2010, 11:29 AM
Do you honestly think the terrorists threats carry more weight today than 6mos, a year or 2 years ago??

If so, why??


RK

This is actually a very interesting point....... I think today, that governments and/or media choose to tout their fantaticism with terrorists. Look what we did mentality. I would bet that the amount of terrorist threats have probably remained pretty steady. We have been hated a very long time, this is nothing new.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 12:50 PM
I have implied nothing.

I posted an article.

Do YOU understand that??
Simple yes or no question.

I do not have the intelligence connections or insight you have into the terror organizations to know if it was warranted or not.
It appears that several throughout the world that do have connections almost as good as yours deem it folly.


I imagine and suspect the terrorist (even though they love us now) are still trying to kill us.
No MORE or LESS than 2 years ago.

Do you honestly think the terrorists threats carry more weight today than 6mos, a year or 2 years ago??

If so, why??


RK


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/07/barack-obama-terror-threat-claims

WOW!!!


Where Roger at???:D

There is hardly a day that goes by we don't hear how Bush lied about the threats in Iraq.

I am curious the lefty's take on this "fabrication."



RK
I'd say that the opening part of your post, when read next to your original post, is complete BS. "WOW" you say, posting a link to a story headlined

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain

• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'


I would say your post is anything except passive neutral. The Guardian story then leads:




A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/al-qaida) plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.


The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pakistan) that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.


Here we have a question of journalistic integrity. The US alert was issued on October 3. The arrests of 12 alleged terrorists in Marseilles was on October 5. The US alert only addressed risks in Western Europe (What does that have to do with Pakistan based drone attacks?). The elevated French warnings went into effect last month (long before the US action) following the kidnapping of five French citizens as a reaction to the legislative ban on face coverings. This was also linked to the arrest, on September 3, of a French member of al-Qaeda, in Italy who was allegedly returning to France to engage in suicide bombings. Last month, French authorities had issued alerts concerning specific threats received on planned Metro bombings -- all pre-dating the US alert. Britain actually raised its terror alert in mid-September, following already elevated alerts following the Pope's visit and subsequent threats of terrorist activities. However, all the countries elevated their terror alerts following British intelligence using voice print technologies (See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_eu/europe_terror_threat) began pointing at the possibility of attacks on major tourist monuments. This was done despite a lot of outcry concerning the potential impact such alerts might have on tourist traffic. In particular, the German Interior Minister was upset:




BERLIN: Germany’s interior minister hit out at travel warnings for visitors to Europe issued because of the risk of Al-Qaeda attacks on Wednesday, saying such tactics helped “terrorists” spread fear.


“We are taking things seriously. But … we are working without talking a lot.” Thomas de Maiziere told German radio station Deutschlandfunk.



This week the US, Britain, Japan and Sweden issued alert warnings of the “possible terrorist attack” by Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups against their citizens travelling in Europe.



This followed reports in British and US media that said that an Al-Qaeda plot to carry out attacks in Britain, France and Germany, similar to the siege in Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, had been uncovered.



The source was a German citizen of Afghan descent held in Afghanistan, the reports said, but a US official told AFP this week the warning was based on a “growing body of information” collected over time.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=120068#ixzz11n2RJt2Q
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)



US drone attacks on Pakistan are also definitely linked to the increased alert levels. Five Germans were among the alleged terrorists killed in a recent attack.

Most interestingly, of course, is that we have this headline from the Guardian the day after the Guardian story that you cite:

France issues UK terror alert

After similar warnings across Europe, French advise 'extreme vigilance' on British public transport and at popular attractions



France has told citizens visiting the UK to exercise caution, warning that a terrorist attack on public transport or tourist sites is "highly likely".
In a notice on the defence ministry website (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/conseils-aux-voyageurs_909/pays_12191/royaume-uni_12351/index.html), the French authorities said: "We advise [travellers] to be extremely vigilant on public transport and at popular tourist sites."
The alert came days after the UK said there was "a high threat of terrorism" in France and Germany (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/germany), and the US warned its citizens to stay away from high-profile sites in Europe
Yesterday, French security forces arrested 11 suspected Islamic extremists in raids across southern France, although officials downplayed any link with the increased terror alerts.
The French interior minister, Brice Hortefeux, said: "Yes, there is a terrorist threat at the moment in Europe. It must be neither overestimated nor underestimated." . (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/06/france-issues-uk-terror-alert)

tom
10-08-2010, 01:34 PM
Here is the deal RK, when the "chatter" increases the threat level increases. It doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means that the idiots are making more noise than usual.
A warning under those circumstances just tells people to be a little more cautious.
Good idea in my book!

Why in the hell does everything have to have some sort political spin!!!!!!!

Since you want facts, here are the facts.
#1 the chatter increased
#2 a warning was issued
#3 a bunch of the idiots were arrested

Now YOU decide!!

Personal opinion -- damn glad someone was doing their job!

road kill
10-08-2010, 01:35 PM
I'd say that the opening part of your post, when read next to your original post, is complete BS. "WOW" you say, posting a link to a story headlined

Barack Obama accused of exaggerating terror threat for political gain

• Pakistani diplomat launches scathing attack on White House
• European intelligence claims raised terror alerts 'nonsensical'


I would say your post is anything except passive neutral. The Guardian story then leads:




A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/al-qaida) plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.


The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/pakistan) that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain.


Here we have a question of journalistic integrity. The US alert was issued on October 3. The arrests of 12 alleged terrorists in Marseilles was on October 5. The US alert only addressed risks in Western Europe (What does that have to do with Pakistan based drone attacks?). The elevated French warnings went into effect last month (long before the US action) following the kidnapping of five French citizens as a reaction to the legislative ban on face coverings. This was also linked to the arrest, on September 3, of a French member of al-Qaeda, in Italy who was allegedly returning to France to engage in suicide bombings. Last month, French authorities had issued alerts concerning specific threats received on planned Metro bombings -- all pre-dating the US alert. Britain actually raised its terror alert in mid-September, following already elevated alerts following the Pope's visit and subsequent threats of terrorist activities. However, all the countries elevated their terror alerts following British intelligence using voice print technologies (See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_eu/europe_terror_threat) began pointing at the possibility of attacks on major tourist monuments. This was done despite a lot of outcry concerning the potential impact such alerts might have on tourist traffic. In particular, the German Interior Minister was upset:




BERLIN: Germany’s interior minister hit out at travel warnings for visitors to Europe issued because of the risk of Al-Qaeda attacks on Wednesday, saying such tactics helped “terrorists” spread fear.


“We are taking things seriously. But … we are working without talking a lot.” Thomas de Maiziere told German radio station Deutschlandfunk.



This week the US, Britain, Japan and Sweden issued alert warnings of the “possible terrorist attack” by Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups against their citizens travelling in Europe.



This followed reports in British and US media that said that an Al-Qaeda plot to carry out attacks in Britain, France and Germany, similar to the siege in Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people, had been uncovered.



The source was a German citizen of Afghan descent held in Afghanistan, the reports said, but a US official told AFP this week the warning was based on a “growing body of information” collected over time.


Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=120068#ixzz11n2RJt2Q
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)



US drone attacks on Pakistan are also definitely linked to the increased alert levels. Five Germans were among the alleged terrorists killed in a recent attack.

Most interestingly, of course, is that we have this headline from the Guardian the day after the Guardian story that you cite:

France issues UK terror alert

After similar warnings across Europe, French advise 'extreme vigilance' on British public transport and at popular attractions



France has told citizens visiting the UK to exercise caution, warning that a terrorist attack on public transport or tourist sites is "highly likely".
In a notice on the defence ministry website (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/conseils-aux-voyageurs_909/pays_12191/royaume-uni_12351/index.html), the French authorities said: "We advise [travellers] to be extremely vigilant on public transport and at popular tourist sites."
The alert came days after the UK said there was "a high threat of terrorism" in France and Germany (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/germany), and the US warned its citizens to stay away from high-profile sites in Europe
Yesterday, French security forces arrested 11 suspected Islamic extremists in raids across southern France, although officials downplayed any link with the increased terror alerts.
The French interior minister, Brice Hortefeux, said: "Yes, there is a terrorist threat at the moment in Europe. It must be neither overestimated nor underestimated." . (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/06/france-issues-uk-terror-alert)






BS??
This from the KING of BS??

Read the above post!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh, again, is this heightened alert status more warranted today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago??




RK

road kill
10-08-2010, 01:41 PM
Here is the deal RK, when the "chatter" increases the threat level increases. It doesn't mean the sky is falling, it means that the idiots are making more noise than usual.
A warning under those circumstances just tells people to be a little more cautious.
Good idea in my book!

Why in the hell does everything have to have some sort political spin!!!!!!!
Tom,
Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


RK

tom
10-08-2010, 01:52 PM
Tom,
Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


RK

#1 again The chatter increased, so at that moment, YES

#2 do you expect diplomacy to have an effect overnight? It takes time.

#3 the damn chatter increased
Do you somehow think that Obama, or a political party here in the US did that???
Or just maybe it might have been the idiot terrorists that did that!!
Maybe you should just be glad that someone was listening for the chatter!!!! And, no one was killed as a result!!!!!
So yes, we are far better off than we were on 9/11

Roger Perry
10-08-2010, 01:59 PM
Tom,
Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


RK

Rk, There are no terrorist threats to the US that I am aware of, however, Europe has issued terrorist threat warnings to its citizens and from what I gather Obama has warned U.S. Citizens that are traveling abroad to heed the warnings.

Obama is not running around like a chicken with his head cut off hollaring Terrorists, Terrorists like Bush did in his 2004 election campaign.

The State Department issued a "travel alert" Sunday, cautioning American travelers of potential dangers in Europe after what U.S. officials said was an assessment of information that al-Qaeda appeared to be plotting attacks on cities there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100302311.html?hpid=topnews

Britain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/greatbritain.html?nav=el) raised its threat level for Germany (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/germany.html?nav=el) and France (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/france.html?nav=el) to "high." The threat level for England had been raised earlier to "severe." Authorities in Europe have been warning for the past three weeks that the danger of a terrorist attack in Europe has been higher than usual, but they issued no specific information on what new intelligence has led them to ratchet up the alert level.

Where does it say the U.S. raised its security level?

I think you are paronoid in thinking everything Obama does is for political gain.:rolleyes:

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 02:00 PM
BS??
This from the KING of BS??

Read the above post!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh, again, is this heightened alert status more warranted today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago??




RK
Yes.

There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most). I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?

road kill
10-08-2010, 02:14 PM
Rk, There are no terrorist threats to the US that I am aware of, however, Europe has issued terrorist threat warnings to its citizens and from what I gather Obama has warned U.S. Citizens that are traveling abroad to heed the warnings.

Obama is not running around like a chicken with his head cut off hollaring Terrorists, Terrorists like Bush did in his 2004 election campaign.

The State Department issued a "travel alert" Sunday, cautioning American travelers of potential dangers in Europe after what U.S. officials said was an assessment of information that al-Qaeda appeared to be plotting attacks on cities there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100302311.html?hpid=topnews

Britain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/greatbritain.html?nav=el) raised its threat level for Germany (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/germany.html?nav=el) and France (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/france.html?nav=el) to "high." The threat level for England had been raised earlier to "severe." Authorities in Europe have been warning for the past three weeks that the danger of a terrorist attack in Europe has been higher than usual, but they issued no specific information on what new intelligence has led them to ratchet up the alert level.

Where does it say the U.S. raised its security level?

I think you are paronoid in thinking everything Obama does is for political gain.:rolleyes:


Roger,
I don't know if I think that or not.
I just read the article that posed the question, or actually I guess did make the accusation.

It did create an interesting response.

BTW--you might be right about the paranoia, or maybe you are a bit naive if you DON'T think everything he does is for political gain.



RK

road kill
10-08-2010, 02:18 PM
Yes.

There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most:rolleyes:).
(could you please prove that assertion??) I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?

Now I want to tell you what I told Roger.

I don't know for sure what I think about this.
(very risky admission)
I read it, found it bizarre to tell the truth.
I posted it.

The truth may well be somewhere in between, as it usually is.

In regards to terrorist attacks, I personally would error on the side of caution.


Nice post BTW


RK

Roger Perry
10-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=687561#post687561)
Yes.

There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most:rolleyes:).
(could you please prove that assertion??) I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?

Now I want to tell you what I told Roger.

I don't know for sure what I think about this.
(very risky admission)
I read it, found it bizarre to tell the truth.
I posted it.

The truth may well be somewhere in between, as it usually is.

In regards to terrorist attacks, I personally would error on the side of caution.


Nice post BTW


RK

I can help you out there-----------------

Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

By DAVID E. SANGER
and DAVID M. HALBFINGER
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif
Published: September 8, 2004

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/c.gifOLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 - Stepping up the battle over national security, Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Tuesday that the country would be at risk of a terror attack if it made "the wrong choice" in November, and President Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/georgewbush/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) accused Senator John Kerry (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/johnfkerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) of adopting the antiwar language of his Democratic primary rival Howard Dean.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney delivered their accusations in separate appearances as Mr. Kerry, for the second day in a row, attacked Mr. Bush's "wrong choices." The Democratic contender said that of all of them "the most catastrophic choice is the mess that he has made in Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/08bush.html?_r=1

road kill
10-08-2010, 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=687561#post687561)
Yes.

There are multiple times during the year when heightened alerts are appropriate in different sections of the world. Failure to take heed of one of those "warnings" was a direct factor contributing to 9/11.

Our intelligence apparatus was revamped to make such alerts more likely to be given. However, this administration was criticized with some justification for failing to act more aggressively on warnings that might have prevented some attacks from going as far as they did.

I am not interested in any administration inflating the threat artificially to deflect political pressure (as has been done by many Presidents, and done by Bush/Cheney more than most:rolleyes:).
(could you please prove that assertion??) I am even less interested in having an administration fail to act because it fears being accused of politics.

One of the problems with preemptive action is that if you succeed, you will almost always be accused of over-reacting to the problem that precipitated the action to begin with. The swine flu was a bust. Was it a bust because it was never a threat or because the actions taken prevented the threat from materializing? There are some pretty good reasons for believing the latter was true, but for those with axes to grind, it is much more fun to attack everything done as hysteria. The good luck we experienced was that the immunities gained during some of the influenza epidemics of the 50'a appear to have helped reduce the severity of reactions to swine flu infections. But there was no way to know that in advance. It is because of this inevitable uncertainty that prevention programs are almost always underfunded. However, the price of non-vigilance will sometimes be disasters killing thousands.

How much do you want our institutions to slack off? Shall we agree in advance that only Republicans can discuss terror during an election campaign?

Now I want to tell you what I told Roger.

I don't know for sure what I think about this.
(very risky admission)
I read it, found it bizarre to tell the truth.
I posted it.

The truth may well be somewhere in between, as it usually is.

In regards to terrorist attacks, I personally would error on the side of caution.


Nice post BTW


RK

I can help you out there-----------------

Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins

By DAVID E. SANGER
and DAVID M. HALBFINGER
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif
Published: September 8, 2004

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/dropcap/c.gifOLUMBIA, Mo., Sept. 7 - Stepping up the battle over national security, Vice President Dick Cheney warned on Tuesday that the country would be at risk of a terror attack if it made "the wrong choice" in November, and President Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/georgewbush/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) accused Senator John Kerry (http://www.nytimes.com/top/news/washington/campaign2004/candidates/johnfkerry/index.html?inline=nyt-per-pol) of adopting the antiwar language of his Democratic primary rival Howard Dean.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney delivered their accusations in separate appearances as Mr. Kerry, for the second day in a row, attacked Mr. Bush's "wrong choices." The Democratic contender said that of all of them "the most catastrophic choice is the mess that he has made in Iraq."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/08bush.html?_r=1

Well, 2 things.

#1--We will never know if he was correct.

#2--That's one, so that can't be more than most.:D



RK

Roger Perry
10-08-2010, 02:42 PM
Well, 2 things.

#1--We will never know if he was correct.

#2--That's one, so that can't be more than most.:D



RK

Here is another that Bush released a couple of days before the 2004 Presidental election. Of course he could not have waited until after the election could he?:

The Bush administration said Friday it believes the videotape was authentic and had been made recently. Bush said Friday that
"Americans will not be intimidated" (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=652397n)
by bin Laden.

The U.S. was given a copy of the bin Laden tape several hours before it aired, so intelligence analysts have had time to study it, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Emergency video conferences were set in motion all over Washington to assess what the tape meant and how the U.S. should react to it.

The timing of the tape suggests bin Laden is trying to influence the U.S. election -- much as the Madrid train bombings last March apparently led to the defeat of Spain's pro-U.S. prime minister, Martin reports.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/30/terror/main652425.shtml

road kill
10-08-2010, 02:47 PM
Here is another that Bush released a couple of days before the election. Of course he could not have waited until after the election could he?:

The Bush administration said Friday it believes the videotape was authentic and had been made recently. Bush said Friday that
"Americans will not be intimidated" (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=652397n)
by bin Laden.

The U.S. was given a copy of the bin Laden tape several hours before it aired, so intelligence analysts have had time to study it, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. Emergency video conferences were set in motion all over Washington to assess what the tape meant and how the U.S. should react to it.

The timing of the tape suggests bin Laden is trying to influence the U.S. election -- much as the Madrid train bombings last March apparently led to the defeat of Spain's pro-U.S. prime minister, Martin reports.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/30/terror/main652425.shtml
So when Bush did it, he was deliberately trying to sway the election.

But when Obama does it, it is simply a coincidence that needs to be done.

I see!!:D



RK

tom
10-08-2010, 02:56 PM
So when Bush did it, he was deliberately trying to sway the election.

But when Obama does it, it is simply a coincidence that needs to be done.

I see!!

Weren't you doing the opposite???

Roger Perry
10-08-2010, 03:09 PM
So when Bush did it, he was deliberately trying to sway the election.

But when Obama does it, it is simply a coincidence that needs to be done.

I see!!:D



RK

Again RK, the United Kingdom, France and Germany increased their security levels because of terrorism threats. The United States did not increase their security level. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame the European Countries. All Obama did was alert Americans traveling to those Countries to be careful. If you were traveling to Europe on business or vacation would you not like to be informed of any potential terrorist attacks in the Countrie(s) you were going to visit? Why do you think they have incresed security at the Eiffel Tower in France and around the Royal Palace in England?

In fact, the Eiffel tower has been shut down to tourism a few times in the last month.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 03:45 PM
Gov. Tom Ridge, who served as first Homeland Security Director, in his memoirs spoke of efforts by Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft to force him to raise to the threat level prior to the 2004 election in what Ridge interpreted as a political effort to manipulate public opinion. That was followed by having the White House add language praising the President to an announcement concerning a terror threat that had been thwarted. Ridge "inadvertently" dropped the language when he made the actual announcement, but this type of political manipulation was a major reason behind Ridge's resignation.
Noting that Bush's approval ratings typically went up when the threat level was raised, Ridge writes that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Donald+Rumsfeld) pushed to elevate it during a "vigorous" discussion.

"Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld," he writes. "There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' " (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-30-tom-ridge_N.htm)
(See also, for example, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/20/ridge-i-fought-raising-security-level-before-04-vote/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ridge. Also note that Ridge was widely attacked following publication of his book and backtracked some from his assertions, saying he wasn't accusing anyone of just playing politics.)

road kill
10-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Again RK, the United Kingdom, France and Germany increased their security levels because of terrorism threats. The United States did not increase their security level. If you are looking for someone to blame, blame the European Countries. All Obama did was alert Americans traveling to those Countries to be careful. If you were traveling to Europe on business or vacation would you not like to be informed of any potential terrorist attacks in the Countrie(s) you were going to visit? Why do you think they have incresed security at the Eiffel Tower in France and around the Royal Palace in England?

In fact, the Eiffel tower has been shut down to tourism a few times in the last month.


"A US terror alert issued this week about al-Qaida plots to attack targets in western Europe was politically motivated and not based on credible new information, senior Pakistani diplomats and European intelligence officials have told the Guardian.

The non-specific US warning, which despite its vagueness led Britain, France and other countries to raise their overseas terror alert levels, was an attempt to justify a recent escalation in US drone and helicopter attacks inside Pakistan that have "set the country on fire", said Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the high commissioner to Britain."

This is where I read it,it is from the article I posted.

Yardley, now that I think of it, I guess Bush would have the most response to terrorist chatter since as far as we knew we didn't monitor it like we do now.
I don't think we had alert level status before Bush, did we??

RK

road kill
10-08-2010, 04:57 PM
Gov. Tom Ridge, who served as first Homeland Security Director, in his memoirs spoke of efforts by Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft to force him to raise to the threat level prior to the 2004 election in what Ridge interpreted as a political effort to manipulate public opinion. That was followed by having the White House add language praising the President to an announcement concerning a terror threat that had been thwarted. Ridge "inadvertently" dropped the language when he made the actual announcement, but this type of political manipulation was a major reason behind Ridge's resignation.
Noting that Bush's approval ratings typically went up when the threat level was raised, Ridge writes that Ashcroft and Rumsfeld (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Donald+Rumsfeld) pushed to elevate it during a "vigorous" discussion.

"Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level, and was supported by Rumsfeld," he writes. "There was absolutely no support for that position within our department. None. I wondered, 'Is this about security or politics?' " (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-30-tom-ridge_N.htm)
(See also, for example, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/20/ridge-i-fought-raising-security-level-before-04-vote/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ridge. Also note that Ridge was widely attacked following publication of his book and backtracked some from his assertions, saying he wasn't accusing anyone of just playing politics.)

Doesn't seem to be doing the same for Obama.....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnntime-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/


RK

cotts135
10-09-2010, 06:13 AM
If there is to be political gain in such an action, and if it reinforces the idea that we have to be very afraid of the big bad terrorists, and that more legislation can be introduced that slowly erode the freedoms that the Founders thought so important, than no President seems to be immune.
Simply if Obama has done what is being alleged and you were critical of Bush for doing the same thing, then you have to be critical of Obama

depittydawg
10-09-2010, 08:26 AM
The story actually contains no "news" at all, simply speculation. That said, it may be true. There is certainly a well worn tradition of exaggerating threats whenever there are political pressures. Bush did it like clockwork, and Republicans basically claimed threat the entire war in Kosovo was a political diversion. However, it is equally true that there are threats every day and many are real. The specific threat mentioned in this case is bolstered by the arrest of 12 suspects in France a few days ago who are allegedly part of a Europe-wide plot to engage in attacks similar to those carried out in Mumbai, with automatic weapon shootings in hotels and other tourist areas. The US advisory mirrored advisories issued by the UK, France and Germany to their populations. Of course, the fact that your newspaper source is simply another extension of the Murdoch/Fox empire is just a coincidence.:rolleyes:

Murdoch owns The Gaurdian? When did that happen?

YardleyLabs
10-09-2010, 08:41 AM
Murdoch owns The Gaurdian? When did that happen?
You are absolutely right. My mistake. I was thinking of The Times and The Sun.

depittydawg
10-09-2010, 09:01 AM
Tom,
Do you think there is a greater amount of activity today than 6 mos, 1 year or 2 years ago?

Weren't we told diplomacy would lessen the terrorists desire to kill us?

If so, what happened to increase it just before the elections?


RK

Diplomacy? What diplomacy? Since when has the US engaged in diplomacy with "terrorists"? Personally I think it might make some sense to open a dialog with your enemy. But the US government approach has been, and continues to be, a complete denial of any rights of negotiation to groups it labels as "terrorists". I'd like to see ANY official document or quotation from the current or any administration since Reagan that the US is agreeable to negotiating with Terrorists.
The Reason I exclude Reagan is because he did in fact negotiate with both Saddam Hussein (who was not a terrorist) and also, not only did the Reagan administration negotiate with, but also armed the then Terrorist Osama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How did that negotiation work out for us?

tom
10-09-2010, 09:27 AM
Diplomacy? What diplomacy? Since when has the US engaged in diplomacy with "terrorists"? Personally I think it might make some sense to open a dialog with your enemy. But the US government approach has been, and continues to be, a complete denial of any rights of negotiation to groups it labels as "terrorists". I'd like to see ANY official document or quotation from the current or any administration since Reagan that the US is agreeable to negotiating with Terrorists.
The Reason I exclude Reagan is because he did in fact negotiate with both Saddam Hussein (who was not a terrorist) and also, not only did the Reagan administration negotiate with, but also armed the then Terrorist Osama Bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How did that negotiation work out for us?

Might want to listen to this
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6791406n

depittydawg
10-09-2010, 11:35 AM
Might want to listen to this
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6791406n

No doubt middle east governments need to negotiate or otherwise come to terms with the armed resistance in their countries. The choice we make in America to join sides or otherwise park our military in the middle of their civil wars does nothing to expedite a conclusion to their rebellious state.

As I stated, I do support negotiation or at least dialog with your enemies. Petreus seems to be acknowledging that a dialog is needed between the Afgan government and its resistance.
The problem we need to come to terms with in America is this. Why have the opposition resistance movements in these foreign countries expanded their targets to include the United States and our allies? And what can we do to prevent this from occurring in the future.