« Jay Tea's tasteless thought of the day | Main | Signed, signed, everything is signed... »

Six New Jersey Men Arrested for Plotting an Attack on Fort Dix

Six men from New Jersey were arrested yesterday on terrorism charges. They were plotting to infiltrate Fort Dix for the purpose of killing as many soldiers as possible. From WNBC.com:

Investigators said the men planned to use automatic rifles to enter Fort Dix and kill as many soldiers as they could at the N.J. base. Fort Dix was just one of several military and security locations allegedly scouted by this group, authorities said.


Investigators told Newschannel 4's Jonathan Dienst that these arrests are the result of a tip to the FBI and use of an informant to track the suspects. Authorities were alerted in January 2006 after the terror suspects traveled to the Pocono's for a training exercise where they practiced firing automatic weapons, investigators said.

Sources have told Newschannel 4's Brian Thompson that the suspects tried to have a their training video tape converted to DVD at a store in Cherry Hill, N.J., but the store owner alerted authorities.

They're certainly not the brightest terrorists in the world.

Authorities then inserted a cooperating witness into the alleged terror cell to be a go between in their attempt to purchase M16 and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles. Arrests were made Monday night after the informant delivered dummy weapons paid for bhttp://www.wnbc.com/news/13274813/detail.html?dl=mainclick FBI Arrests Six In Alleged Terror Plot Against N.J. Soldiers - News Story - WNBC | New Yorky the alleged terror cell suspects.


Investigators said the group discussed targeting numerous locations like Dover Air base, Fort Monmouth, a Coast Guard building in Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia Federal building before deciding on Fort Dix as their intended target. Fort Dix is run in part by the Army and is a reserve-training center, but active units take part in training, including some which focuses on counter-terrorism.

Sources tell Newschannel 4's Brian Thompson that the family of one of the suspects owns a pizzeria near Fort Dix and claimed to know the base "like the back of his hand." The same suspect told the alleged terror group it would be easy to penetrate to "get the most soldiers killed."

Investigators said the group of suspects have been discussing and planning for much of the last year. They allegedly pooled their savings to pay for the operation targeted at soldiers stationed here at home.

The men's religion was buried until the ninth paragraph:

The six suspects arrested Monday night will face terror conspiracy charges. Three of the men are brothers, all believed to be Islamic radicals. Authorities have told Newschannel 4 that some of the men were born in Albania and the former Yugoslavia. Investigators said most of the suspects have spent several years here in the U.S.

The Star Ledger says the suspects were influenced by Osama Bin Laden:

They had been under FBI surveillance for months, practiced by shooting paintball guns and real weapons in a rural area of the Poconos, one source said. They also allegedly watched jihadist videos in which Osama bin Laden urged them toward martyrdom.

Update: The terrorists appeared to have been influenced by Bin Laden but were not a part of al Qaeda. From CBS News:

At the time of the arrests, the plot was in the planning stages and no attack was imminent, CBS News has learned. Officials said this is more of a "homegrown" plot with no ties to al Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization, CBS News reports.


A law enforcement official said that the men had lived in the United States for some time and were arrested as part of a joint federal and local investigation.

Update II: The Smoking Gun has a copy of the FBI Affidavit that was filed in court today. These guys weren't just talking. They had very serious intentions. One guy said he didn't care if he got caught and sent to prison or was killed. He was going to kill as many soldiers as possible "in the name of Allah."


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Six New Jersey Men Arrested for Plotting an Attack on Fort Dix:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with 6 charged with plot on Army base in N.J.

» Tel-Chai Nation linked with The Fort Dix Six

» The Thunder Run linked with The Fort Dix Terrorists

Comments (113)

CBS can't decide if 'homegr... (Below threshold)
kim:

CBS can't decide if 'homegrown' or 'associated with al-Qaeda' is more horrifying.

Putzes. And what do they know, before they try to tell us how to think about it?
==============================

We cut and ran from Kosovo ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

We cut and ran from Kosovo and the terrorists followed us home!

Or something.

So you mean that staying in... (Below threshold)

So you mean that staying in Iraq DOES NOT mean that we are "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?"

You mean there is absolutely no correlation between staying in Iraq to prevent terrorists attacks within the U.S.?

All of that talk is just GOP bullshit designed to terrorize American voters into voting for Republicans?

Gee, I'm surprised.

Homegrown and al Qaeda infl... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Homegrown and al Qaeda influenced? Sounds like Iraq is creating terrorists as reported in the last NIE.

There is even more disturbing news on the real terrorists:

"Privately, U.S. officials concede that they had overestimated the damage they had inflicted on al Qaeda's network. The captures of successive operational commanders, including 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, amounted only to temporary setbacks; they were replaced with disturbing ease. "We understand better how al Qaeda is withstanding the offensive that was launched against it in 2001 and later," says a senior U.S. government official." from TP

And, I love this from NRO. It seems that Americans are not too high on Bush's performance against terrorism or anything else.

Here is how Byran York sums-up the latest Gallup poll:
Gallup finds that Americans disapprove of the president's handling of virtually everything ... No real surprises there.

Yup, no surprise that most Americans think Bush sucks at just about everything.

Was this plot foiled by Ton... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Was this plot foiled by Tony Soprano? The latest episode of the Soprano's had Tony giving information to the FBI about some suspicious Muslims he had dealings with. Things that make you go HMMMMM????

We in the US seem to be stu... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

We in the US seem to be stuck on the antiquated ideas that an enemy must have a single leader and an organized army. Just because these people may not call themselves AQ doesn't mean that they aren't allied under a common cause.

Let's establish democracy i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Let's establish democracy in New Jersey.
========================

Sources have told ... (Below threshold)
Sources have told Newschannel 4's Brian Thompson that the suspects tried to have a their training video tape converted to DVD at a store in Cherry Hill, N.J., but the store owner alerted authorities.
If the ACLU (and certain congressional Democrats) have their way in the "Flying Imams" case, you can expect that the lawyer(s) representing these suspects will sue for discrimination the employee who reported the tape's contents to law enforcement.
The liberals seem to be dan... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

The liberals seem to be dancing in the streets over this news.

Let's establish democracy in New Jersey.

Now that's just funny.

>>So you mean that staying ... (Below threshold)
Ben:

>>So you mean that staying in Iraq DOES NOT mean that we are "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?" You mean there is absolutely no correlation >between staying in Iraq to prevent terrorists >attacks within the U.S.?

Who said that? We are in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, we prevented this terrorist attack. Prove there is no correlation. Prove that some bit gleaned from some captured freakazoid or maybe his laptop somewhere, maybe just a hint to check out certain chatrooms because "our brothers in New Jersey are planning something" had nothing to do with this. If you can't prove no correlation, why mess with a system that is working? You have no idea what the connections are.

Ben

Looks like detective work w... (Below threshold)
jpe:

Looks like detective work won the day, war on terra notwithstanding.

Ben, Our liberal po... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ben,
Our liberal posters will take every opportunity to advocate surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. Here is what I call "the perfection fallacy" to justify this surrender. By keeping the AlQ terrorists fighting us in Iraq, does it mean that we keep them out 100% (ie. they will never try to attack us here)? We greatly reduce the chance that they will attack us here. As you pointed out, how do they know that we don't get any info from Iraq?

The liberals love to cite the NIE. In the same NIE, if the terrorists had to leave Iraq, their movement will suffer. So why the liberals still advocate withdrawal from Iraq? (Also their own expert claims a catastrophe if we leave Iraq prematurely). Also can liberals assure that the terrorists will ABSOLUTELY not attack us if we leave Iraq?

They love to cite polls against Bush. No wonder they love Clinton and hate Truman. Truman would be ashamed of the Dems today. Truman 's lowest poll was about 22%! So liberals today would rather have Clinton than Truman. See the depth that modern liberalim has plunged.

I'm just wondering what par... (Below threshold)

I'm just wondering what part of the Patriot Act that people rail against with much wailing and gnashing of teeth was employed to get these guys.

Lee, you're being obtuse. You know as well as anyone else that being in Iraq or elsewhere doesn't mean we are totally exempt from ever having anyone plan or attempt anything over here. You merely saw this as an opportunity to show your petty side. It's the equivalent of a verbal mooning. It's childish and serves no purpose other than to show you can't come up with a coherent comment.

Terrorists from Albania and... (Below threshold)

Terrorists from Albania and Yugoslavia you say? The Greeks must have been behind it then. Does anyone have any dirt on the Greeks? We should immediately draw up plans to invade Greece and change the regime so we can defeat the Albanian and Yugoslav terrorists on their home territory.

Actually, it makes a good c... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Actually, it makes a good case that we're doing most of the heavy work overseas, and succeeding at it.

This is just another in a long list of dumb groups that we've caught. Apparently, the only ones left over here are the idiots, and the smarter terrorists are either overseas doing the real fighting - or dead.

They weren't caught by detective work, they were caught by being idiots with minimal training and terrible operational security.

Showing a martyrdom tape to... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Showing a martyrdom tape to a store employee.mmnn.. Yes, we are definitely not getting the 'A team' terrorists here.

We're not even gettign the ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

We're not even gettign the 'B team.'

We're getting the equivalent of a bunch of guys who go to Fantasy Baseball Camp.

"Lee, you're being obtus... (Below threshold)

"Lee, you're being obtuse. You know as well as anyone else that being in Iraq or elsewhere doesn't mean we are totally exempt from ever having anyone plan or attempt anything over here."

I'm obtuse? What about "doesn't mean we are totally exempt", Oyster?

If we aren't "totally exempt" to what extent is our presence in Iraq having an effect on terrorism at home - in your estimation?

And if your answer isn't "none whatsoever" explain how this mechanism works? Explain how a battalion in Baghdad is preventing terrorist attacks on US soil, please.

Waving your hand and declaring the point moot doesn't cut it.

Some kind of <a href="http:... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Some kind of fantasy camp, anyway.

And if your answer isn't... (Below threshold)
cirby:

And if your answer isn't "none whatsoever" explain how this mechanism works? Explain how a battalion in Baghdad is preventing terrorist attacks on US soil, please.

Because it degrades funding and operational control for the terrorists, and lets us kill the more dedicated ones a few thousand miles away from here instead of in your local mall. As above, we don't need 100% perfection (and that's not attainable anyway), but the 99% we're getting so far sure seems to be working out.

As I mentioned, we're not exactly getting the first team over here any more. We're getting wannabees, not the guys who know what they're doing - the ones with real training and experience are either fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, or buried in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lee,Expla... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

Explain how a battalion in Baghdad is preventing terrorist attacks on US soil, please.

Part of it is short term, and part of it is long term.

Short term, when we catch terrorists in Iraq, and bleed information from them, that stops terrorist attacks not just here, but everywhere.

Long term, if education and prosperity eventually settle into Iraq with a new government, elections, jobs etc., that will be not only one less haven, but in the best case scenario a catalyst for change.

I prefer and advocate a proactive approach, where

at best
you seem to advocate a reactive approach...or more, no approach at all.

Hooray for blockquotes rath... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Hooray for blockquotes rather than italics.

Because it degrades fund... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Because it degrades funding and operational control for the terrorists, and lets us kill the more dedicated ones a few thousand miles away from here instead of in your local mall.

So the ones who take a short trip over to Iraq are more dedicated than ones who say, live here for years planning and waiting for the go ahead order? I don't think so.

As I mentioned, we're not exactly getting the first team over here any more. We're getting wannabees, not the guys who know what they're doing

Those are the ones we hear about, anyway. If any so-called "A team" plots have been foiled here, my guess is we wouldn't hear about it until years later, and we shouldn't. When a gang of buffoons with a poorly thought-out plan and little connection to the big terror networks are caught, it does not hurt intelligence to advertise that fact. The big fish are kept secret.

the ones with real training and experience are either fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, or buried in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Well, a lot of them are getting killed there, but one correction. They are getting "real training and experience" that they didn't have before in Iraq in Afghanistan. And even if we stay there forever we will not kill them all and they will take that experience and use it elsewhere.

Interesting theories, Herla... (Below threshold)

Interesting theories, Herladder and Cirby, but none of those arguments seem to apply here. From Kim's update:

Officials said this is more of a "homegrown" plot with no ties to al Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization, CBS News reports.

It appears there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between these terrorists and those based in Iraq - other than the fact that our continued presence in Iraq, against the wishes of the Iraqi people, continues to breed more and more terrorists like this operating locally. The Miami group arrested a while back is another example.

As to the claim that these are "B" team terrorists, anyone who straps a bomb to their chest and walks down a Baghdad sidewalk, or decides they'd like to run face-first into a New Jersey army base firing weapons, is a foot soldier., As we can see, these cells need not have any connection to AQ or others for funding, planning etc.

Our continued presence in Iraq has no effect whatsoever on stemming attacks on US soil.

Well, a lot of the... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:
Well, a lot of them are getting killed there, but one correction. They are getting "real training and experience" that they didn't have before in Iraq in Afghanistan. And even if we stay there forever we will not kill them all and they will take that experience and use it elsewhere.

That is true to an extent, and a good point --however, Iraq and Afghanistan both have been focal points in wars over the last thirty years or so (if not longer). Afghanistan, more so, with the 10-year USSR invasion.

So the ones who take a s... (Below threshold)
cirby:

So the ones who take a short trip over to Iraq are more dedicated than ones who say, live here for years planning and waiting for the go ahead order?

That's your claim, not mine. Dedication isn't important, funding and training is.

Iraq is their big "PR push," where they're going to show us horrible, cowardly Americans how brave they are. It's also a lot closer, certainly, which means we not only get the first-rank guys in the fighting, but a lot of the ones who would be filling their shoes a couple of years down the line. Not to mention, of course, eating up a huge amount of their funding (they can put a dozen guys into Iraq to fight for what one successful terrorist in the US would cost).

The big fish are kept secret.

Probably, and we're also probably catching a lot more of them because they don't HAVE as many "big fish" any more, after losing so many of them in other countries. There might be a nearly-unlimited amount of "cannon fodder" for the bad guys, but there's not that many smart, dedicated, available Islamic jihadists to choose from, and we're killing a LOT of those guys. If you guys were right, we'd be publicly catching (or, worse, not catching) mid-level and low-level AQ jihadists HERE, not in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as it being a "homegrown plot," it apparently isn't, since all of the plotters come from other countries, three of them illegally. If AQ had a significant number of people available for training or operations in the US, these guys would have backing, in money and training.

Instead, they're just Generic Jihadists who are thankful for your support.

As we can see, these cel... (Below threshold)
cirby:

As we can see, these cells need not have any connection to AQ or others for funding, planning etc.

...because they're been so successful and all.

Oh, wait, they haven't. They've been, overall, embarrassing failures, as terrorists go. They have ZERO real training, no leadership, and tend to get caught doing REALLY stupid things.

So, yeah, these cells DO need AQ (or related groups) to back them, in money and training. And they're not getting that.

Instead, they're just Ge... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Instead, they're just Generic Jihadists who are thankful for your support.

My support? How do I support them, exactly?

My support? How do I sup... (Below threshold)
cirby:

My support? How do I support them, exactly?

By coming down on THEIR side of things, every time this comes up, and always giving the bad guys the benefit of the doubt - while always assuming that the US is doing the wrong thing, no matter how well it appears to be working out.


By coming down on THEIR ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

By coming down on THEIR side of things, every time this comes up,

Please, direct me to any instance when I have "come down" on the side of terrorists.

and always giving the bad guys the benefit of the doubt

Ditto.

while always assuming that the US is doing the wrong thing, no matter how well it appears to be working out.

I don't always assume the US is doing the wrong thing. I conclude that we are doing the wrong thing, when we are doing the wrong thing. I don't think it was wrong to create a terrorist breeding ground in Iraq just because we did it, I think it was wrong because it creates many more terrorists, gets us into an intractable position, and dooms the Iraqis to fate at least equivalent to that under Saddam, if not worse.

You see, I want there to be less terrorists, by killing them, imprisoning them, and keeping people from becoming terrorists in the first place. Your argument is that we should create battlegrounds elsewhere, cause the radicalization and militarization of many more Muslims against us in the region, and then kill them all. It's real simple: I want less terrorists, you want more terrorists (so we can kill them all, even though we will never succeed). How that equates me "coming down on their side," I have no idea.

Don't bother responding aga... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Don't bother responding again, cirby, as I'm done dealing with someone whose most powerful argument is "well, you love terrorists!" Get bent.

Well, Lee, it's like this.<... (Below threshold)
Ben:

Well, Lee, it's like this.

In the USA, you can't just grab some suspicous guy's computer and see what chat rooms he's on without a warrant, and then how do you know who to check? But over in Iraq, when you chase some freak with a rocket launcher into his hidey-hole and kill him, you can turn over all his stuff to the intel guys. No warrant, no lawyer. no waiting. And in these internet days, they are all linked, there, here, wherever, all informally. So one list of email addresses picked up on one raid in Iraq can tip you off to bad guys around the world. Understand yet? Civilized Law does not protect the bad guys in Iraq. It doesn't protect the good guys anywhere.

Ben

Please, direct me to any... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Please, direct me to any instance when I have "come down" on the side of terrorists.

You know that thing where you try to tell us that a strategy (fight them overseas) doesn't work, when it's really, REALLY obvious that it does?

That's one.

Or the bit where you say:

They are getting "real training and experience" that they didn't have before in Iraq in Afghanistan.

What they're getting in Iraq and Afghanistan is killed, for the most part, and the only training they're getting is how to hide out in ISLAMIC COUNTRIES and kill unarmed civilians with car bombs, while the upper-level guys who would be organizing attacks in the US are continually being caught or killed.

Once again, you're taking the side of the bad guys, by assuming that anything that's currently working out bad for them will, in the end, be a positive, while not admitting that we're actually, you know, killing them.

Mantis, what about the Muff... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Mantis, what about the Muffins for Terrorists bill you supported? Explain that one away.

Don't bother responding ... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Don't bother responding again, cirby, as I'm done dealing with someone whose most powerful argument is "well, you love terrorists!"

I didn't say you love them, I just said you were coming down on their side. Which is more in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" vein. You just don't realize that the REAL enemy is the one we're fighting overseas, or you think that your short-term political interests are more important than anything that could harm everyone lse in ten or twenty years.

It's not my fault that you're starting to realize that you're (again) on the wrong side of the issue.

As far as "don't bother responding," you're out of your mind. It's just a sign that you ran out of half-assed justifications for defending the bad guys while complaining about the (successful) actions of the US. You said you come down against the US when we're "wrong," but you somehow can't seem to find anything "right."

Ok fine, once more with fee... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ok fine, once more with feeling:

You know that thing where you try to tell us that a strategy (fight them overseas) doesn't work, when it's really, REALLY obvious that it does?

I don't say that strategy can't work, I say it was idiotic to try in Iraq. I was all for invading Afghanistan, destroying the camps and as many terrorists as possible, routing the Taliban, and trying to install a different, less terrorist-friendly government. I would have been against the argument that invading Iraq would be getting rid of terrorists, if anyone had actually made that fucking argument! Why? Because there were barely any terrorists in Iraq, while Afghanistan was their base of operations. But please do detail how it's "really, REALLY obvious" that it works. It's not obvious to most of us, with, you know, brains.

What they're getting in Iraq and Afghanistan is killed, for the most part, and the only training they're getting is how to hide out in ISLAMIC COUNTRIES and kill unarmed civilians with car bombs,

They are getting weapons, explosives, and combat experience (the ones who live, yes). That you refuse to acknowledge that only points to your own myopia, not my support of terrorists, dipshit.

while the upper-level guys who would be organizing attacks in the US are continually being caught or killed.

They are? How come the number of attacks keep increasing? Because they're so disorganized and have no leadership?

Once again, you're taking the side of the bad guys, by assuming that anything that's currently working out bad for them will, in the end, be a positive, while not admitting that we're actually, you know, killing them.

No, I'm just not taking your myopic view and I'm actually considering the consequences of our actions, not dreaming of the terrorist-free world of rainbows and puppies that will be revealed after President Bush kills the last terrorist with his bare hands. In short, I live in reality. You do not.

Once again, get bent.

mantis, along with establis... (Below threshold)
kim:

mantis, along with establishing democracy in New Jersey, we want to do so in Iraq and elsewhere, so Bush doesn't have to strangle every last terrorist by himself.

Bend that.
=========

Mantis, you are deluded.</p... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Mantis, you are deluded.


President Bush will not kill the last terrorist with his bare hands, he will use tire iron.

They are getting weapons, e... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

They are getting weapons, explosives, and combat experience (the ones who live, yes). That you refuse to acknowledge that only points to your own myopia, not my support of terrorists, dipshit.
------------------------------------------------
This is brain-dead argument. Using your logic, the best way not to provide them with any training is not to fight them at all. If they are getting so good at fighting our troops while do they have to keep blowing up women/children so that liberals in this country can continue claiming that the terrorists are still attacking us.

ANother brain-dead arg about no terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. You had a guy openly supported Hamas terrorists and who knows what he did under the table with AlQ. An oppressive regime, not a democracy that they hate. What is the long term solution to the terrorism problem? Democracy in the Islam world? The only thing I hear from liberals is cut-and-run.

Another brain-dead arg: when the terrorists realized that Iraq is strategically important to them and that 's why they have to fight to death there. Only liberals don't understand or don't want to understand what the terrorists open proclaimed.

All the args for what? Simply to surrender to the terrorists.

Mantis, what about the M... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, what about the Muffins for Terrorists bill you supported? Explain that one away.

Damn you! Those were actually secret poison muffins. Shhhh.

Using your logic, the be... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Using your logic, the best way not to provide them with any training is not to fight them at all.

No, it's to choose your battles wisely.

MMD: Muffins of Mass Destru... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

MMD: Muffins of Mass Destruction.

Ok, enough. I promise the next post will actually add something to the debate.

No connection between the h... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

No connection between the home grown terrorists and AQ? There is the largest connection possible.
They all worship at the altar of the murdering Islamic so called religion.

Some on here are right. As soon as the democrats in congress, the ACLU, and CAIR swing into action these guys will be released and awarded millions of dollars from the taxpayers.
Ain't no democrats in the military so they could care less how many are killed unless they can do a body count for political gain.
A military base, what next, your favorite shopping mall? Want to bet. Hundreds of attacks have been stopped, only one has to get through. Remember the WTC 1993? and 2001.

LyingLee whined:<... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

LyingLee whined:

You mean there is absolutely no correlation between staying in Iraq to prevent terrorists attacks within the U.S.?

What's your proof that there's no correlation ? Are you basing your conclusions off of 'studies' with a sample size of 1 again ?

No one has shown a correlat... (Below threshold)

No one has shown a correlation, underscoreMikeunsderscore.... and neither have you.

This group, and the group arrested in Miami last year, sure were not effected by our troops standing in the streets of Baghdad or Fallujah - now were they? No, not in the least. None whatsoever.

This was solved with plain old criminal investigation and police work, not some trumped up bullshit "Global War on Terror" scam foisted on us by the Grand Old Party of liars...

Using your logic, the best ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Using your logic, the best way not to provide them with any training is not to fight them at all.

No, it's to choose your battles wisely.
------------------------------------------------
Why bother to fight both Japan and Germany at the same? We should have chose our battles more wisely!

LyingLee:No one h... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

LyingLee:
No one has shown a correlation, underscoreMikeunsderscore.... and neither have you.

Quote me where I claimed that there was a correlation.

Here's your statement:
You mean there is absolutely no correlation

You made the above statement asserting that there was no correlation. Again, where's your proof that there's no correlation ?

No one has shown a correlat... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

No one has shown a correlation, underscoreMikeunsderscore.... and neither have you.

This group, and the group arrested in Miami last year, sure were not effected by our troops standing in the streets of Baghdad or Fallujah - now were they? No, not in the least. None whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------
This is really stupid. If AlQ are not fighting in Iraq, where would they be? Will they be doing charity work for the UN?

"...other than the fact ... (Below threshold)

"...other than the fact that our continued presence in Iraq, against the wishes of the Iraqi people, continues to breed more and more terrorists like this operating locally."

Oh, you mean like the ones that were here years before we ever even went to Iraq or Afghanistan? Like the ones that tried to topple the WTC a full decade before? Like the ones who were planning the millenuim attack? Like the ones who were raising money here almost unchecked for a long, long time? The ones that had definitive links to al Qaeda and other groups?

And furthermore, Lee, your turn of phrase - "against the wishes of the Iraqi people" - are you saying that those are the only ones whose wishes are pertinent to the discussion? And NOT the ones who are glad we're there?

As far as the rest goes, I think cirby answered sufficiently. Your isolationism is showing, Lee.

Why bother to fight both... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Why bother to fight both Japan and Germany at the same? We should have chose our battles more wisely!

You forgot Italy, and that fight was wise, as it was out of necessity due to the fact that those countries were invading every fucking country they could and attacked us outright. It was necessity; Iraq was choice. A bad choice.

You forgot Italy, and that ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You forgot Italy, and that fight was wise, as it was out of necessity due to the fact that those countries were invading every fucking country they could and attacked us outright. It was necessity; Iraq was choice. A bad choice.
-------------------------------------------------
Germany and Italy didn't attack. Japan attacked us, so it was right to fight Japan. BTW, Europeans had been fighting against each other for centuries before that. Why would we want to get involved into a "civil" war within Europe. Let them fight it out, right?

Germany and Italy didn't... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Germany and Italy didn't attack. Japan attacked us, so it was right to fight Japan. BTW, Europeans had been fighting against each other for centuries before that. Why would we want to get involved into a "civil" war within Europe. Let them fight it out, right?

Now you're just being childish. Come back when you have something serious to say. How long until hell freezes over?

Germany and Italy didn't at... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Germany and Italy didn't attack. Japan attacked us, so it was right to fight Japan. BTW, Europeans had been fighting against each other for centuries before that. Why would we want to get involved into a "civil" war within Europe. Let them fight it out, right?

Now you're just being childish. Come back when you have something serious to say. How long until hell freezes over?
-------------------------------------------------
Thanks for admitting that you have been childish. I am using exactly the same logic that you are using and you don't like it. It illustrates the absurdity of the liberal args these days.

Oyster: "And furthermore... (Below threshold)

Oyster: "And furthermore, Lee, your turn of phrase - "against the wishes of the Iraqi people" - are you saying that those are the only ones whose wishes are pertinent to the discussion? And NOT the ones who are glad we're there?"

Gee, I vaguely remember some BS about there now being a democracy in Iraq, so I would think the wishes of the majority of the people might have a strong bearing, Oyster.

As to the rest of your screed -- nice herring! Does it come in other colors? Let's stay fact-based, if you can stand it, and look at the fact that

(1) our presence in Iraq since March of 2003 has not stopped terrorists cells from forming inside our borders and plotting to attack us on our own soil (we know have two examples discovered within the last 12 months) -- contrary to the Bullshit fed to us by Republicans who willingly lie to the American people in order to keep their sorry-assed political hacks in office, and

(2) the group arraigned today, just like the group arrested in Miami last year, were in no way whatsoever hindered in their efforts by the 150,000 soldiers currently stationed in Iraq...

...now were they?

And your evidence that the 150,000 troops in Iraq are stemming terrorism within our borders is.... wishful thinking? A rosy-colored kipper?

I am using exactly the s... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I am using exactly the same logic that you are using and you don't like it.

You wouldn't know logic if it jumped on your face and started to wiggle.

No, mantis, it was a good c... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, mantis, it was a good choice. Joe Wilson lied; People are Still Dying. The run-up to the war may well be an issue next year, and it was justified. Those Democrats voting for it did so wisely, and they should think before repudiating it. They are placing too much power in the anti-war fringe, and too much faith in their belief that Islamic terrorism can be resolved by not combatting it.
============================

(1) our presence in Iraq si... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

(1) our presence in Iraq since March of 2003 has not stopped terrorists cells from forming inside our borders and plotting to attack us on our own soil (we know have two examples discovered within the last 12 months)
-------------------------------------------------
So Bush has been doing a good job arresting the terrorists in the US, right. Can we say that this recent attack has been encouraged by the surrender talk by the Dems? If blowing up women/children in Iraq was considered success by liberals, then blowing up and killing soldiers in the US would cause the dems to call for surrender faster? Looks like you are eager to jump on a foiled attack to advocate surrender in Iraq. Its that the reason the liberals have been trying to stop the Patriot Acts? So that the terrorists can attack us more easily? ARe you honest enough to admit that or do you continue lying?

(2) the group arraigned today, just like the group arrested in Miami last year, were in no way whatsoever hindered in their efforts by the 150,000 soldiers currently stationed in Iraq...
---------
Do you expect simply lie down? Looks like the terrorists are trying to create another PR stunt so that the liberals can advocate surrender? Why are you not honest enough to admit that you are waiting for the terrorists to attack to do your PR bidding for them?

Democrats believe every war... (Below threshold)

Democrats believe every war is Vietnam, every Republican is Nixon, and every Democrat is JFK. Republicans believe every war is WWII, every Republican is Reagan, and every Democrat is Carter.

Democrats believe every war... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Democrats believe every war is Vietnam, every Republican is Nixon, and every Democrat is JFK.
------------------------------------------------
This is not completely correct. JFK cut taxes and escalated the Vietname war, the very opposite of what the dems believe. So dems believe that every Democrat is Carter. This would be more accurate.

the group arraigne... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:
the group arraigned today, just like the group arrested in Miami last year, were in no way whatsoever hindered in their efforts by the 150,000 soldiers currently stationed in Iraq...

Is this today's talking point? Either you know darn well there's the chance--and have been attempts at-- attacks on US soil (even your buddy George Tenet agrees!), or you have a very short term memory.

There's never been a war where the US citizens were guaranteed safety. We have to wear them down before they wear us down, and so fighting in the ME is the best way to do this. It literally ~is~ "taking the battle to them".

"We have to wear them do... (Below threshold)

"We have to wear them down before they wear us down, and so fighting in the ME is the best way to do this. It literally ~is~ "taking the battle to them"."

"Them?" Which them?

The "them" meaning the six Jersey men who are the subject of this post? I thought Jersey was in the U.S., Eric, not the ME? Taking the battle to the ME has no effect on the guys in Jersey.

Now ask what effect thinning our National Guard resources in Kansas had on the search and rescue operations immediately following the disaster in Greensburg.

Yeah, damned inconvenient truth again... isn't it?

Now ask what effect thinnin... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Now ask what effect thinning our National Guard resources in Kansas had on the search and rescue operations immediately following the disaster in Greensburg.
-------------------------------------------------
So you think the terrorists are stupid for concentrating their effort in Iraq and not in the US? Are they thinning themselves by getting involved in Iraq? Using liberal logic, the terrorists should leave Iraq and concentrate on the US.
Using liberal logic again:

(1) Before we attacked Iraq, there were two attacks on the US homeland: the 1st WTC and the 2nd WTC (9/11). After the Iraq war, there is none.

(2) Since the dems have openly called for surrender, the terrorists have increased their activities to blow up women/children and here. So can we blame the next attack on the liberal surrender policy/rhetoric?

The key lesson to learn fro... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The key lesson to learn from this arrest again is that we need the Patriots Acts. Do liberals still oppose them?

The "them" meaning... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:
The "them" meaning the six Jersey men who are the subject of this post? I thought Jersey was in the U.S., Eric, not the ME? Taking the battle to the ME has no effect on the guys in Jersey.

I swear, you libs are worthless to talk to. To put it in simple WWII terms (because it's the one event that everyone can understand): While the US was fighting OVER THERE, Hitler was sending SUBS up near US COASTLINES and (IIRC) up the MISSISSIPPI RIVER and at the same time developing MISSILES and ATOM BOMBS which could attack *gasp* the USA HOMELAND.

I guess they should have stopped fighting too.

Now ask what effect thinning our National Guard resources in Kansas had on the search and rescue operations immediately following the disaster in Greensburg.

Of course, that has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

And your evidence that t... (Below threshold)
cirby:

And your evidence that the 150,000 troops in Iraq are stemming terrorism within our borders is...

...that they had to go with unknown people (like a gun dealer who turned them in, and a video transfer tech who noticed the video in the first place). If they had the training and resources you're pretending they're getting in Iraq, they would have had moderately secure channels to get that sort of stuff done inside of their own organization. As it was, they made stupid mistakes, trusted people outside of their cell with what should have been secret information, and got caught.

If AQ wasn't tied up trying to make a good showing in Iraq (they're sure not winning, by any previous measure of military success), there'd be a bunch of guys running around the US, handing out cash and weapons to every little half-assed cell, and we'd have had dozens of successful attacks on this scale, along with a handful of "Big Show" strikes.

We've had, since late 2001, zilch. Except for a number of "F Troop" cells of wannabees, of course.

The "them" meaning the six Jersey men who are the subject of this post?

Actually, we were talking about the foreign nationals who were in New Jersey when they were planning this attack. You knew that already, stop pretending they're actually "home grown."

Now ask what effect thinning our National Guard resources in Kansas had on the search and rescue operations immediately following the disaster in Greensburg.

According to people who actually know what they're talking about, "none whatsoever." There's been some whining from folks who obviously spent their disaster recovery budgets on other things, but nobody has shown any sort of hint that the few hundred people already working the tornado site would be materially helped by a bunch of NG troops scrambled in from other parts of the state.

The amount of troops involved in that effort is still relatively small, compared to the total number of NG troops still in the area. Unless they need some artillery to cover the rescue effort, or a couple of squads of infantry in case they get a bad case of zombies...

You're also taking that some old disproven tack that claims that the primary reason to have the National Guard is to help out when disasters hit, and that's certainly NOT so. The Red Cross and FEMA are the organizations you need to start with, after the local police and fire departments run out of resources.

LyingLee:It appea... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

LyingLee:
It appears there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between these terrorists and those based in Iraq

I can't help but sit here and laugh at Lee. He's arguing that the terrorist who were recently apprehended didn't come here from the ME and that proves that 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' is nonsense. If those who were apprehended DID come from the ME (the opposite from reality) Lee's point (that fighting terrorists in the ME doesn't reduce those terrorist from coming here) would be valid ... but, as I said, that doesn't occur in reality.

Lee's own argument proves his assertion wrong. ROFL!

What war on Terror???... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

What war on Terror???

Sen. Edwards, Kennedy, Reid, Spkr. Pelosi, ilk told me there was none. So, I shut my mind off, and went back to sleep. Like a good little Democrat.

...and as for the Kansas to... (Below threshold)
cirby:

...and as for the Kansas tornado thing:

Tt appears that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius (D) is pulling a "Blanco."

After complaining about how the National Guard has no equipment or troops handy in neighboring states, it turns out that she hasn't even ASKED for any, and the National Guard says they have plenty of men and equipment on hand, if she ever gets around to requesting it.

So apparently, the big impact of the Iraq War on disaster response is (again) a Democratic Governor using the war as an excuse for not bothering to make any phone calls to ask for help.

cirby, Yuck, looks... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

cirby,
Yuck, looks like liberals from top to bottom just look for or manufacture an excuse to surrender in Iraq.

<a href="http://blog.nj.co... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

Schoolmate: Alleged radicals were typical teens

"We hung out in study hall together," said David Jonathon, who is 24 and attended Cherry Hill High School West with two of the suspects, Eljir and Shain Duka."We did teenage stuff. Drinking. Girls. Stuff like that."

But when Jonathon saw Shain Duka recently for the first time in three years, the once fun-loving teenager was now growing a beard and spoke of converting to Islam.

The scary part is, pizza de... (Below threshold)
USN Ret.:

The scary part is, pizza delivery folks blend into the scenery and become invisible; all bases have pizzerias nearby and they all make deliveries, and i am willing to bet that 95% never check the fat insulated blanketed bags that the 'pizzas' are in; you could get a lot of firepower through the gate and recon by the DOminos boy would identify spots to stash same if you wanted to build up an arsenal.

It would be a simple matter to have 2 ride in and only 1 ride out. repeat a couple of times ( say friday or saturday night) and come monday you could have enough bad guys on the ground to do some hurt. the local NAS has enough wooded areas that a couple of guys could hide for 48 hours and there are probably other bases that have similar areas that could offer concealment.

Just sayin'

So, do we need to strengthe... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So, do we need to strengthen the Patriots Act to fight terrorism here?

I can't help ... (Below threshold)

I can't help but sit here and laugh at Lee. He's arguing that the terrorist who were recently apprehended didn't come here from the ME and that proves that 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' is nonsense. If those who were apprehended DID come from the ME (the opposite from reality) Lee's point (that fighting terrorists in the ME doesn't reduce those terrorist from coming here) would be valid ... but, as I said, that doesn't occur in reality.

underscoreMikeunderscoare - if there was a point in that spittle-soaked babble I couldn't find it, but I'm willing to try to address your comment, which apparently only attempts to dis me, and doesn't address any actual arguments made here.

"He's arguing that the terrorist who were recently apprehended didn't come here from the ME and that proves that 'fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here'"

No, I didn't. I love it when you show your ignorance - you're like the poster child for conservative cretins everywhere. Regardless of where they came from -- IGNORING where they came from -- because to my argument it doesn't matter, Mile --- the fact that we have troops on the streets of Baghdad had no effect on the ability of the Jersey six to plan their attack.

know what, underscoreMikeunderscore? The Republican power base has learned that they can lie to people like you who are dumb enough to buy into their crap, and you will defend their bullshit, and even re-elect these clowns the next time around.

So they've convinced people like you that we need a GWOT in order to be safe form terrorism domestically. BULLSHIT, Mike, it's BULLSHIT. Today proves it, as does the Miami arrests last year.

Grown up and smarten up, or stay the f*ck out of the polling booth, please.

IGNORING where they came fr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

IGNORING where they came from -- because to my argument it doesn't matter, Mile --- the fact that we have troops on the streets of Baghdad had no effect on the ability of the Jersey six to plan their attack.
-------------------------------------------------
The depth of liberal ignorance or willful ignorance is amazing. There are people who have been here for a long time that advocated terrorism against the US. What was the name of the sheik involved in the first WTC?

This is stupid beyond parody: (1) If AlQ do not fight in Iraq, where will they be and what they will be doing? (2) There are terrorist supporters (and cheerleaders) in this country already before we invaded Iraq. That 's what the Patriots Act is for. The question is why liberals opposing the Patriots Act.

The problem is not either or, but both. We are doing both. And looks like liberals are trying their best to limit our ability to fight the terrorists. Not even a hint of shame. Forgot that Lee is the founder of Brian 's club.

Well, a lot of the... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:
Well, a lot of them are getting killed there, but one correction. They are getting "real training and experience" that they didn't have before in Iraq in Afghanistan. And even if we stay there forever we will not kill them all and they will take that experience and use it elsewhere.

Mantis, tell that to the soviets.
Also, wasn't there a little training camp just outside of Bagdad, with a dummy airliner and everything?

Lee,
I guess having your own soap box has not improved your demeanor after all.

BTW, OT, did you once live in York PA in the mid-1990s?

Lee, a ancient Greek once s... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee, a ancient Greek once said "There is no truth, if there was, you could not know it, and if you knew you could not tell it. He must have known a relative of yours Lee. Same applies to Mantis. If you are not for us then you are against us. The libs were against the Afghan campaign, against deposing Saddam. Mantis. The idea of throwing Saddam out did not begin with George Bush. If you knew your recent history like you think you do you know it was the policy of the Clinton adminstration to remove Saddam. All the quotes from promenent dems are available on line. This was never about WMD, it was about abiding the agreement that ended the first Gulf war. That is so hard for you Bush haters to grasp. Limited intelligence I guess.

To my surprise, Jim Lehrer ... (Below threshold)
LenS:

To my surprise, Jim Lehrer actually started his coverage of the story with "Six Muslim men were ...." Clearly he lost the MSM memo on not using such judgmental words as Muslim or Islam when talking about terrorists or criminals.

No, mantis, it was a goo... (Below threshold)
mantis:

No, mantis, it was a good choice.

When will we see evidence that it was a good choice? Ten years? Twenty? Fifty? Will the evidence be a reduction in terrorism against Americans and in the world? I hope so since that seems to be the point of the Great War on Terra. How the hell anyone can be stupid enough to think that the gigantic sectarian terrorist-recruiting clusterfuck that is the Iraq War could possibly help in the war on terrorism is beyond me. Maybe you didn't see it turning out that way from the outset (like some of us), but to keep on believing that now is just delusional, magical thinking. Can you possibly, in hindsight, say that we didn't have any better options?

Joe Wilson lied; People are Still Dying. The run-up to the war may well be an issue next year, and it was justified. Those Democrats voting for it did so wisely, and they should think before repudiating it. They are placing too much power in the anti-war fringe, and too much faith in their belief that Islamic terrorism can be resolved by not combatting it.

Blah blah election thread is up thataways. As if I have anything to do with what Democratic politicians think. They voted for the war for the same reason politicians do anything: it was popular among their constituents. Only a few of them had any balls to stand up against that (among the Democrats who voted against it, that was popular among their constituents). It's the same reason they're backtracking now, and the reason some Republicans are too. I can't argue on the premise that there's any expectation that politicians will do things on principle.

One thing I'll say about the president, he sticks to unpopular stances harder than most of the rest of them, it's just unfortunate those stances are so often wrong.

One thing I'll say about th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

One thing I'll say about the president, he sticks to unpopular stances harder than most of the rest of them, it's just unfortunate those stances are so often wrong.
-------------------------------------------------
He stucks with the Patriots Act for cases like this and he is definitely right. Truman stuck with the hot Korean war and the cold war and got 22% approval. No wonder liberals don't want to talk about him anymore. Iraq is just like VN in the sense that if we lose there it is only of liberal surrender policy.

Time for a great Jay Tea qu... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Time for a great Jay Tea quote:

"The fundamental problem with the law enforcement approach is that is REACTIVE. They go after people who have already attacked. That means they get at least one free shot."

That guy is on fire.

Mantis, tell that to the... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, tell that to the soviets.

I know, and we're repeating their mistake in Iraq! Btw, I recommend An Afghanistan Picture Show by Bill Vollmann. Fucking outstanding.

Also, wasn't there a little training camp just outside of Bagdad, with a dummy airliner and everything?

Maybe so, but in truth Iraq was way down on the list in terms of terrorist-supporting states. If the idea was to kick some low-hanging fruit around as an example to the bigger guys (Libya is not exactly bigger than Iraq, but with that effect in mind), it would have only made sense with a state that had a somewhat homogeneous population in which forces could transition to a new government and bug out before turning it into a terrorist's playground. The fact is they decided on Iraq because Saddam was a good bogeyman, he had produced and used WMDs before, and it's strategic geographically, but they did so without considering how they were going to accomplish the whole Iraq becomes liberal democracy where we have bases and another friendly oil partner magic trick. If this it was to set an example, and I believe that was part of it, it was done to show other dictators that we do mean business, as a means of preventing them from supporting terrorism. Too bad what we also showed them is that we know how to get stuck in a huge mess of our own devising.

Let's just wait it out though, see what happens.

Yeah they react to tips, th... (Below threshold)

Yeah they react to tips, they react to suspicious behavior, they react to the need for surveillance, and they get the job done.

bad what we also showed the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

bad what we also showed them is that we know how to get stuck in a huge mess of our own devising.
------------------------------------------------
Thanks to the liberal dems in Congress. They have shown other dictators and terrorists how the liberals are willing to surrender. All they have to do is to blow up more women/children and simply increase their activities against soft targets around the world. These bad guys can count on the liberal on the west to weaken the public resolve and to abandon their allies to the mercy of the terrorists. The liberals have the hindsight of VN and now their own expert. Yet they still want to cut and run in Iraq. How can they look in the mirror?

Special to all those that t... (Below threshold)
marc:

Special to all those that think these idiots are a sequel to Dumb and Dummer (Which I don't dispute BTW)

Didn't the idiot who tried to get his deposit back on the Ryder rental truck used to blow up the World Trade Center garage in 1993 have definitive ties to al-Queda?

Why yes, he did, and Osama was named as a co-conspirator in the plot in Federal court.

Yeah they react to tips,... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Yeah they react to tips, they react to suspicious behavior, they react to the need for surveillance, and they get the job done.

...until they don't, and a helluva lot of people die.

For an example of what happens when they don't get that first lucky break (the VHS/DVD dupe), look back a couple of weeks to the Virginia Tech shootings, and see what one crazy guy with a couple of guns can do when he has surprise on his side.

"They screwed up and got caught! We'll never have to worry, ever again, because the police will always get lucky!"

These bozoes were the equiv... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

These bozoes were the equivalent of middle school stoner dropouts. Obviously they were so stupid they couldn't have been a real threat.

Wanna take on Ft Dix? Sure, go ahead and see what happens. See what happens if any US military base gets attacks by unschooled punks with too much hatred and zero skills.

But it sure makes for a good headline, terrorist cell disrupted.

These guys couldn't blow up a sex doll if they tried.

These bozoes were the eq... (Below threshold)
cirby:

These bozoes were the equivalent of middle school stoner dropouts. Obviously they were so stupid they couldn't have been a real threat.

Yeah, I mean, how could a couple of people like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold be a threat? It's not like they could kill a dozen people and nearly blow up a school, killing dozens more, right?

And it's not like an untrained, crazed loner could run around in a university, killing over 30 people, either.

I mean, what could a half-dozen crazy assholes with fully-automatic weapons and explosives do in a residential area on a military base, other than run around killing a bunch of dependents?


LyingLee:undersco... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

LyingLee:
underscoreMikeunderscoare - if there was a point in that spittle-soaked babble I couldn't find it
[snip mindless drivel]
Grown up and smarten up, or stay the f*ck out of the polling booth, please.

My what a bitter little man you are. Are they running late on your meds in the mental Ward ?

Since you're obviously an utter and complete moron and like to demonstrate that fact so often I'll be patient and explain again, slowly - out of pity for you.

Here's what you said:
So you mean that staying in Iraq DOES NOT mean that we are "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?"

Them ? In this statement, you're referring to 'them'.

I'll do this slowly so even you can follow, chimp. 'them over there' - that is, terrorist from the Middle East.

From where were the would-be-terrorist that were apprehended ? Are they from the Middle East ? No, sorry, Lee - consult a map if you need to - Jersey isn't in the Mid. East.

So, are we fighting terrorists from the Middle East here ? No, we're not. (slow enough for you ?) We're fighting terrorist from the Middle East over there. An incident here does not disprove the utility of 'fight them over there'.

Also, I'm still waiting for your proof that there's zero correlation "between staying in Iraq to prevent terrorists attacks within the U.S.". I don't personally know anyone that's able to divine history's alternatives but since you apparently believe you can, let's hear it.

It appears that the brainwa... (Below threshold)
tt:

It appears that the brainwashed neo-conservatives are trying to pin Bush's failed policies on the liberals. The way the brainwashed minds dance and manipulate an issue is a fascinating study of human behavior. They are in self-preserve mode and it is an odd mixture of sad and fascinating to watch them attempt to assimilate their failed president, his policies and their party. They have no manner to self-preserve currently and it is reflected in their lame comments on the this thread (really on all threads here) of "it is the liberals fault".
It is a really sad and pitiful bunch here at wizbang. A few people post reasonable and logical viewpoints and you all cry that they are siding with the terrorists. I guess if they do not agree with the neocons or worship Bush and his cronies then they must be siding with the terrorists? Is the what America had come to?
It is a really sad and pitiful bunch here at wizbang.

I agree with USN ret'd and ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

I agree with USN ret'd and cirby,

Unless military bases have been locked down tighter than when I was in, a couple of jerk=offs could embarrass the HELL out of Uncle Sam (and kill people , too!)

In 1982, you could walk across a mile of tomatoes and end up in San Mateo, Camp Pendleton, or from a drainage gully at the beach in San Clemente, end up at the same place.
Behind the lines. On a weekend. The armory's way over THERE! You're HERE! Unless you happen to be COG or SOG, you're UNARMED. Probably 3 or 4 non-partying types napping in the barracks, doing their laundry...Hope things have changed. I'd love to find out. With Beadyeyes Bush, I doubt it.

What I learned today is tha... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

What I learned today is that liberals apparently ~do~ have a 9/10 mentality. They seem shocked ... SHOCKED this could have been happening.

The rest of us? Not so much.

Eric, John Edwards ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Eric,
John Edwards said there was no GWOT. So this should be a shock to the liberals. Yet anything is an excuse to surrender in Iraq. Liberals want and own defeat now. Ted Koppel knows it. They don't want victory, so they work to ensure defeat. They encourage the terrorists to fight on. Can you imagine, the speaker of the house and the Senate majority leader did what Pelosi and Reid did. They are a joke and don't even know. Liberals cannot face their own logic, so all they can do is spin.

When was the last time liberals strongly condemn a terrorist attack?

And it's not like an unt... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

And it's not like an untrained, crazed loner could run around in a university, killing over 30 people, either.

Or a loser meth-head from New York state with a truckload of ANFO and a lead foot take out a nice chunk of a daycare centre in a Federal Building in Oklahoma.

Yeah, it takes lots of skills to do some serious damage. /snark off

You know an unemployed tire salesman figured correctly 30 some years ago that a fully fueled airplane made a pretty good weapon.

Sam Byck...you might have heard of him? No? Nearly succeeded in hijacking an airplane with the intention of diving it into the White House.

As Rosie would say..."GOOGLE IT!"

Today sell:100M RuneScape G... (Below threshold)

Today sell:100M RuneScape Gold,Cheapness!

24/7 Runescape Money Shop -Cheap, Fast, Reliable- to buy Runescape Money, Runescape 2 Money, Runescape Items, 900+ ebayer, 1000+ business paypal- Runescape Money|Runescape Gold|Buy Runescape Money : - runescape money, runescape 2, runescape gold, runescape items, runescape, cheap, buy runescape money


runescapevip strives to offer the lowest prices, the fastest and most reliable service on the web for all your gaming needs. Feel free to contact us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by live chat, email and instant messenger.
Enjoy at runescapevip golds !

Click here to see our price !!

Time is precious, and making runescape money isn't easy in runescape. Why still spending your limited runescape time on boring farming when you can buy easy cheap fast runescape money from ours? No more late night, time wasting farming runescape gold and painful runescape gaming experiences. Stay on top of your enemies and enhance your runescape gameplay. Purchase Runescape gold online & power up your character to the next level. The low prices of runescape money here are sure well worth the time you may need to spend for runescape gold by yourselves.
Play runescape Smart & Shop at runescapevip.com!
Important Note:
1.Our promise for RuneScape Money sending is 15 minutes to 24 hours.
2.After you pay, please contact with our online support, then to make a fixed time for the face to face trade.

www.runescapevip.com
www.runescapewin.com
www.runescapemil.com
www.runescapebro.com
www.runescapegogo.com

Clean up, aisle 11...... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Clean up, aisle 11...

LEE:This group... (Below threshold)
marc:

LEE:

This group, and the group arrested in Miami last year, sure were not effected by our troops standing in the streets of Baghdad or Fallujah - now were they? No, not in the least. None whatsoever.

How can anyone answer that with any authority? Can you LEE, I know I can't because I fail to have the magical ability to read their minds and like you haven't met and talked with them.

Can you positively state these two groups weren't effected in the slightest by U.S. troops fighting in Iraq.

So what is it LEE, by what divine process can you know they haven't watched 4 years of Iraq news coverage and it has NOT effected them?

And BTW LEE:

Now ask what effect thinning our National Guard resources in Kansas had on the search and rescue operations immediately following the disaster in Greensburg.

Better revisit that issue asshat, Gov. Sebelius has back peddled from her previous cheap-assed and political spin, umm...er lie.

She had 60% on hand and one hell of a lot more other DoD resources to use.

Currently, the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, and more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment on hand, said Randal Noller, public affairs officer for the National Guard Bureau. Under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is a national partnership agreement that allows state-to-state assistance during governor or federally declared emergencies, Kansas has more than 400,000 Guardsmen available to it, he pointed out. However, Kansas has not yet requested assistance from other states.

Gotta love that last line, she apparently learned her Governorship skills at the Gov. Blanco School of Procrastination.

Funny, when tornados ravaged Kansas in May 2003, two months after the start of the war, she wasn't whining about a depleted National Guard.

Swayed be a large shift in public opinion much?

It was a good choice, manti... (Below threshold)
kim:

It was a good choice, mantis. Imagine Saddam in power with Joe Wilson's Yellowcake, sanctions lifted, and rarin' to go.

Read Duelfer and Rossett for the details.

Kathleen was angling for a bigger voice in Dem politics with her Blanco imitation. With any luck, the Dems will recognize a tyro.
=========================

LEE, how much heavy equipme... (Below threshold)
marc:

LEE, how much heavy equipment would you say would be needed to assist in tornado relief?

According to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman the Kansas Guard have available 352 Humvees, 94 cargo trucks, 72 dump trucks, 62 five-ton trucks, 13 medium-haul trucks and trailers and 152 2 1/2-ton trucks.

Is that enough LEE?

Here's another curiosity in the Gov's "40%" statement of Sunday, as of Monday she had only ordered 110 Guardsman to the area.

What say you LEE, as a fellow sufferer yourself you should be able to spot her acute BDS.

Of course the NRA would sup... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Of course the NRA would support the right of these suspects to purchase guns...
from last week
"The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, NRA Executive Director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

..."When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are
shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill."

suspected terrorists... (Below threshold)
cirby:

suspected terrorists

...and only the Left would take away someone's civil rights because some bureaucrat thought they were "suspicious."

They got caught because som... (Below threshold)

They got caught because some private citizen reported that they were suspicious.

A gun seller can refuse to sell to anyone... and report that they were suspicious.

But if were talking about domestic law enforcement, the feds have to follow the rules. Someone has to actually commit a crime or show pretty clearly that they intend to do so before they can be treated like a criminal by being arrested and tried and *even then* they have to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

It was a good choice, ma... (Below threshold)
mantis:

It was a good choice, mantis. Imagine Saddam in power with Joe Wilson's Yellowcake, sanctions lifted, and rarin' to go.

Yellowcake? Please. So the fact that some Iraqis had a meeting in Niger in which yellowcake wasn't even discussed means that Saddam had some? Get over it.

But once again, do you really believe the only possible choices were invasion, occupation and regime change or Saddam riding a nuke to the US à la Slim Pickins? There were no other possible outcomes? Are you fucking retarded?

So the fact that some Ir... (Below threshold)
cirby:

So the fact that some Iraqis had a meeting in Niger in which yellowcake wasn't even discussed

...except that Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki said that they were trying to talk about buying some, but he refused.

It's hard to explain why Iraq had sent a delegation to Niger in the first place, since the only real export that country had that Iraq didn't already have in larger quantities was... uranium ore.

It's also very hard to find a reason why Iraq sent one of their top men from their nuclear program to Niger as part of that delegation, since he had no qualifications in international trade, other than buying stuff like, you know, uranium.

Joe Wilson admitted (in his official testimony, not the full-of-crap NYT editorial) that the reason Iraq sent that delegation was, according to his sources, a yellowcake-hunting trip.

Fortunately, most of the locals were too afraid of getting caught selling the stuff (or weren't offered big enough bribes so they could include the French officials overseeing the processing plant).

cirby, I'm not disputing th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

cirby, I'm not disputing that Saddam may have wanted some, I'm disputing kim's assertion that if we hadn't overthrown Saddam and taken control of Iraq that the only possible alternative would have been a nuclear Iraq with no sanctions. There were other ways to handle it.

As far as yellowcake, he had none; if Niger had sold him some, which they weren't willing to do, we would have known about it. It's a red herring.

As far as yellowcake, he... (Below threshold)
cirby:

As far as yellowcake, he had none;

Actually, he had a huge amount, it was just under UN seal.

Once the sanctions were lifted, it would just have been a matter of time before those seals got "accidentally" broken.

if Niger had sold him some, which they weren't willing to do, we would have known about it.

How? Up until a few minutes ago, you didn't even know they were actively trying to buy some, and most of the world still foolishly thinks the same.

If we'd caught Saddam sitting on a couple of truckloads of yellowcake, you'd be complaining because it was just some stupid yellow powder, and they couldn't make bombs from that. And then, once the enrichment started up, you'd be defending it because it would have been for "peaceful purposes," because Iraq needed the electricity. And then, when they tested their first weapon, you'd defend that because it would just have been to "defend" Iraq from the US and Israel's horrible plots.

You know, like Iran is doing RIGHT NOW.

Actually, he had a huge ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Actually, he had a huge amount, it was just under UN seal.

Care to back that up? As I understand it he bought some in the early eighties, but that was gone.

How? Up until a few minutes ago, you didn't even know they were actively trying to buy some, and most of the world still foolishly thinks the same.

I didn't? Where do you get that? There was one meeting where yellowcake was not even discussed. That's it. And how? We know how much yellowcake Niger produces. It is closely monitored. If they produced more, or any was transported to Iraq, we would have known about it.

If we'd caught Saddam sitting on a couple of truckloads of yellowcake, you'd be complaining because it was just some stupid yellow powder, and they couldn't make bombs from that.

Bullshit. Besides, you claim he was sitting on truckloads of it. Back it up.

And then, once the enrichment started up, you'd be defending it because it would have been for "peaceful purposes," because Iraq needed the electricity.

More bullshit. You do like putting words in people's mouths without any basis, don't you? Asshole.

And then, when they tested their first weapon, you'd defend that because it would just have been to "defend" Iraq from the US and Israel's horrible plots.

You are retarded, aren't you?

You know, like Iran is doing RIGHT NOW.

Ok, back your idiotic assertions up and point me to where I've defended Iranian nuclear weapons production.

besides, you claim he wa... (Below threshold)
cirby:

besides, you claim he was sitting on truckloads of it. Back it up.

Reading comprehension time, again. I said:

"If we'd caught Saddam sitting on a couple of truckloads of yellowcake, you'd be complaining because it was just some stupid yellow powder, and they couldn't make bombs from that."

...although he had more than just a few truckloads. About 125 semi-trucks full, actually. FIVE HUNDRED TONS, at the Tuwaitha facility.

500 Tons

Even the IAEA admits that, as best they knew, they only collected and sealed the stuff they knew about, and they also admit that it's probable that they missed a lot of stuff. The Iraqis were doing active nuclear research the whole time, up until right before the invasion (again, IAEA admits this).

That pretty much sums up your knowledge of the whole thing.

You don't even know the basics of the argument, yet you keep insisting that this stuff never happened, and never could, despite, well, everything.

Oh, yeah, one last thing:</... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Oh, yeah, one last thing:

Ok, back your idiotic assertions up and point me to where I've defended Iranian nuclear weapons production.

You don't do it directly, but with every single one of your "prove it exists" posts, after the piles of evidence you've been shown over the years, you show that you really just don't care if they have the bomb or not, as long as you can bitch and moan about the Bush administration.

Look at how wrong you were about the yellowcake, and realize that you're at least as wrong about Iran...

Reading comprehension ti... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Reading comprehension time, again.

Wait, you're claiming those tons could not fill trucks? Ok...

FIVE HUNDRED TONS, at the Tuwaitha facility.

You're right, I wasn't aware he still had that much uranium stored. That being the case, why do you think he wanted to buy some from Niger? Just to avoid inspectors? He would still need to enrich the stuff, which we would have detected, as we have with Iran. The Niger thing, as I said, is a red herring.

Even the IAEA admits that, as best they knew, they only collected and sealed the stuff they knew about, and they also admit that it's probable that they missed a lot of stuff.

Please back up where they said it's "probable that they missed a lot of stuff." Keep in mind when I ask for this that doesn't mean I'm saying they didn't.

The Iraqis were doing active nuclear research the whole time, up until right before the invasion (again, IAEA admits this).

They admit there was active nuclear research in Iraq before the invasion? Hadn't heard that; care to back that up too?

You don't even know the basics of the argument, yet you keep insisting that this stuff never happened, and never could, despite, well, everything.

The basics of what argument? That we wouldn't have noticed if centrifuges started cropping up all over the most closely monitored geography in the world? Yeah, sorry if I'm missing out on those "basics."

You don't do it directly, but with every single one of your "prove it exists" posts, after the piles of evidence you've been shown over the years, you show that you really just don't care if they have the bomb or not, as long as you can bitch and moan about the Bush administration.

Ummm, point me to where I've asked for proof Iranian nuclear activity is taking place. We know that it is, and where. I haven't disputed it.

Look at how wrong you were about the yellowcake, and realize that you're at least as wrong about Iran...

What was I wrong about with yellowcake? I wasn't aware of the remaining stock in the south, admittedly, but where else? And what am I wrong about concerning Iran?

You're right, I wasn't a... (Below threshold)
cirby:

You're right, I wasn't aware he still had that much uranium stored.

...and a lot of other things, like trying to buy even MORE from Niger to (gasp) beat the inspectors.

That being the case, why do you think he wanted to buy some from Niger? Just to avoid inspectors?

Hey - you're starting to realize just HOW LITTLE you know about the whole thing.

Try reading some of the actual reports from the IAEA inspectors - their caveat, after thousands of pages of reports, is "we have no idea if they snuck stuff by us."

What was I wrong about with yellowcake?

Besides the attempt to buy even more from Niger, and the FIVE HUNDRED FREAKIN' TONS? How about the part where you tried to get snarky about it, and realized that you were about a million pounds off?

Here's a quick summary: Saddam had a bunch of nuclear materials, under IAEA seal, that he was waiting to recover once people like yourself got snowed enough to convince the UN to drop sanctions. This is available in Iraqi documents that we're recovered since the invasion, by the way.

He was still proceeding with attempts to buy more uranium, so he could pretend to be following those sanctions, and he was proceeding with continued nuclear research (they already had a working design for a bomb and enriching equipment, and had extracted a fair amount with that design for centrifuges).

All Saddam needed was time. Time which you, personally, were more than happy to give him.

Because you're naive, and believed what his propaganda folks told you, along with the lies that people like Joseph Wilson said in public forums like the NYT (which was exactly the OPPOSITE of what he said in official venues, because he could have gotten in trouble for lying in his Niger report), and because the Democrat politicians (who know better) keep reinforcing those lies, to keep the deception up about the whole Iraq issue, so they can keep foolish young people on their side, to keep saying really stupid things like "Iraq had no yellowcake."

Well, you put a ton of word... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Well, you put a ton of words in my mouth, and you distort what I have said. Where to begin.

...and a lot of other things, like trying to buy even MORE from Niger to (gasp) beat the inspectors.

I wasn't wrong about that. We knew they were going to Niger maybe to buy yellowcake, but that we don't know that any request for such was ever made, and that Niger wouldn't sell it to him. I didn't dispute any of that. I asked why would he buy more yellowcake if he already had a ton. That I ask for a reason doesn't mean I dispute the premise. The idea that he wanted to buy yellowcake to enrich it doesn't make any sense, since we would have known if he was enriching.

Hey - you're starting to realize just HOW LITTLE you know about the whole thing.

Nope, I'm questioning the proposed reason.

Try reading some of the actual reports from the IAEA inspectors

I have, and I hadn't come across anything that suggested he had restarted any nuclear activity, nor that he sought yellowcake from Niger in those reports.

- their caveat, after thousands of pages of reports, is "we have no idea if they snuck stuff by us."

Right, but they also had no evidence that he did, and there were no known nuclear materials unaccounted for.

Besides the attempt to buy even more from Niger,

Yeah, again, I'm not wrong about that.

and the FIVE HUNDRED FREAKIN' TONS? How about the part where you tried to get snarky about it, and realized that you were about a million pounds off?

Where was I snarky about it?

Here's a quick summary: Saddam had a bunch of nuclear materials, under IAEA seal, that he was waiting to recover once people like yourself got snowed enough to convince the UN to drop sanctions. This is available in Iraqi documents that we're recovered since the invasion, by the way.

I'm aware of all that. I knew about plans and equipment, I thought the uranium was gone or unusable. I was mistaken about that. In any case I never advocated sanctions being lifted.

and he was proceeding with continued nuclear research (they already had a working design for a bomb and enriching equipment, and had extracted a fair amount with that design for centrifuges).

In the '80s. The inspectors concluded no active program existed since the Gulf War. Remember the Iraq Survey Group? Here's what they found:

Although Saddam clearly assigned a high value to the nuclear progress and talent that had been developed up to the 1991 war, the program ended and the intellectual capital decayed in the succeeding years.

Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

Where do you get your info from?

All Saddam needed was time. Time which you, personally, were more than happy to give him.

I was? Are you a mindreader?

Because you're naive, and believed what his propaganda folks told you,

Which propaganda did I believe?

You know, it's funny that even though you misrepresent or simply invent many things I've said and believe, a string of strawmen a mile long, you jump on me for not knowing one detail and admitting it. Good show, tool.

Well, you put a ton of w... (Below threshold)
cirby:

Well, you put a ton of words in my mouth, and you distort what I have said.

and...

I wasn't wrong about that. We knew they were going to Niger maybe to buy yellowcake,

Except you also said:

So the fact that some Iraqis had a meeting in Niger in which yellowcake wasn't even discussed means that Saddam had some? Get over it.

So which is it? It wasn't even discussed, or we knew they were going there to buy some? First, you try to deny they were even looking to buy any, now, you're saying it wasn't important that they were looking to buy.

If you're going to reverse your own position, try not to do it in the same thread.

Then there's this classic:

As far as yellowcake, he had none; if Niger had sold him some, which they weren't willing to do, we would have known about it. It's a red herring.

Except that you were wrong about that, too. And now you're claiming it's my fault, somehow.

You claim I distorted what you said, but the real problem is you distorting what YOU said.

Where was I snarky about it?

Here:

Care to back that up?

So far, in this argument, you're so deep in the hole, you should just quit and start over. Pretty much everything you claimed was wrong, and you're still working off of a huge disadvantage: you believed what the Democrats told you in their press statements.

That's okay - in a month or so, this will all come up again, and we'll have to tell you all of this again, since you'll be repeating the same old crap about how none of this ever happened, even after admitting it in this thread. And you'll tell us that we're "tools," because you'll still be trying to defend a position that you're starting to suspect is really, really wrong.

So which is it? It wasn'... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So which is it? It wasn't even discussed, or we knew they were going there to buy some? First, you try to deny they were even looking to buy any, now, you're saying it wasn't important that they were looking to buy.

No, I said "We knew they were going to Niger maybe to buy yellowcake." We know there was a delegation to Niger. Maybe they wanted to buy yellowcake. We don't know that. There is suspicion, but again I ask, why try to buy some when they already had plenty? No reasonable explanation has been put forth.

If you're going to reverse your own position, try not to do it in the same thread.

I reversed nothing. They might have wanted to buy yellowcake, but it wasn't mentioned when they visited Niger. In any case they didn't, and couldn't, and it makes no difference as the state of their nuclear program is central to the argument here, and since even our own intelligence after the war has concluded that there was no active program, my point stands.

Except that you were wrong about that, too. And now you're claiming it's my fault, somehow.

That is the only thing I've been wrong about, and I admitted as much. See, I respond to each of your inane points, and admit if I'm wrong. You ignore anything I write which you can't distort into something else or play gotcha! with. In any case, I didn't claim my being wrong was your fault, I said you used the one thing I was unaware of to mean I know nothing, or, worse, I don't know what is patently false anyway.

Here:

Care to back that up?

"Care to back that up?" is snarky? Wow, is "do you have a link?" snarky too? I know snarky, and that's not snarky.

So far, in this argument, you're so deep in the hole, you should just quit and start over.

And how is it that my not knowing about the remaining uranium under seal means I'm "so deep in the whole?" This changes my central argument how, exactly?

Pretty much everything you claimed was wrong

One thing I wrote is wrong, and you once again inflate that to "everything," all the while ignoring every other point I've made, which you evidently are incapable of disputing.

and you're still working off of a huge disadvantage: you believed what the Democrats told you in their press statements.

I haven't put forth anything from "the Democrats." I did quote the Duelfer Report, but oh wait, you ignored that. Shocking.

I'll check back tomorrow and see if you've learned how to put forth a convincing argument.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy