I think are getting the question wrong....no one is arguing that North Korea has more nuclear weapons then Iran and such..... What I believe is that when you look at both situations, which country do you think can cause the most damage to our country next time something happens....is it North Korea launching Nuclear missiles at us or terrorists organizing a massive attack in Iran? I don't think its any question to me that Iran is the much more likely of a choice. When it comes to Bin Laden, I don't buy for one second that he is just sitting in Pakistan. Now let me just preface by saying that most of what I believe just comes from what I have seen during my time in Iraq and Kuwait for both Gulf Wars. From what I have seen, the Iran government is a bunch of liars from the top to the bottom. They don't fight terrorism whatsoever and they use several incidents to save face and claim they care about stopping those terrorists groups. I know the current top administration doesn't like Al-Qaeda but I don't think they are doing anything to prevent them from stopping themselves either. IMO, Iran is a prime reason for the WMD not being in Iraq because I believe both Syria and Iran let Saddam use their land (whether through the black-market or not) to put stashes there....I don't for one damn second believe Saddam didn't have WMD and I would stamp my life on it. With that said, I don't trust that Iran will do anything to stop either Al-Qaeda or even another group with intentions to hurt the US. When it comes to North Korea....I really believe that Kim ****ing Jong is all talk. I don't think he has the balls to attack either South Korea or anyone else for that matter because he understands his country is basically in drastic measures food wise even with contributions from multiple countries....and that he had just 1 real country who is on his side and that alliance is barely anything as this situation drags out.
Good point fanatic... I agree with both you and Red that it is logical that they are hold up in Pakistan, just not positive. I guess they could be anywhere. At least they are hiding and afraid to even talk on a cell phone much less try and coordinate an elaborate plan. I think the militant side of Pakistan's government is more rouge than NK or Iran. Those 2 states are jockeying for more power, not their own destruction. Heaven help us if the current Pakistan leadership loses power.
A valid question. General consensus is that he is in the mountains of Pakistan because (A) he has overt support from Taliban and tribal radicals there; (B) he has covert support from officials in Pakistan who will not allow US special forces to go in after him; and (C) it is sparsely populated mountain country ideal for hiding in. Osama in Pakistan, says expert September 07, 2004 Al Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden is most likely to be hiding either in a Pakistani city or somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan occupied Kashmir, claims Peter Bergen, a leading expert on terrorism. Read the rest of the story Osama in Pakistan? The Tribune 10 April 2002 That the favourite hobby of Gen Pervez Musharraf is to play a double game is well known in India. Western governments are learning this bitter truth the hard way. While on the one hand he is cooperating with these powers to help capture Al-Qaeda and Taliban members, on the other, he is providing them safe sanctuaries. In the latest expose of this duplicity, Pakistani newspaper The Nation has reported that Osama bin Laden left just hours before FBI agents stormed a building in Faisalabad and picked up his deputy, Abu Zubaydah last week. The Pakistan Foreign Office has, predictably, denied the report about Osama's presence on Pakistani soil but the Pakistani Press and western analysts swear by its authenticity. Read the rest of the story A googlesearch will provide even more supporting information about Osama's hiding place. If anybody knew for sure there would be very unpleasant special warfare operators all over his ass in a New York second, cooperation from Pakistan or not. But . . . general consensus is that he is still there. There is no safer place for him to hide, presently.
some threads are so bad, everyone on them deserves red dots. this one is the opposite. nice discussion. interesting. i was legitimately scared of this happening post 9/11. i was scared that major cities would become like jerusalam, with things like bus and pizzaria bombing happening on a semi weekly basis. but it never really happened. with bomb scares and anthrax, it felt like it was starting, but it never did. i do not know why. if i was a suicide bomber i would not waste my time in jerusalem. if i want to make the news i blow myself up in times square when the theaters are letting out. even if i dint kill many, the impact is much larger. i dont understand why that isnt happening, possibly good work by our government, i have no idea. but still this sort of thing remains more of a threat in my mind than nuclear proliferation. thats why i see iran, or any place with lunatic muslims, as more dangerous.
I think it's because there is no standard terrorist. There are many factions among islamic radicals and among them only Al Qaida has openly attacked the United States. Most of the rest are fighting regional enemies. Hezbolla only attacked us when we were on their turf in Lebanon, they don't come for us here. The PLO and Hamas are focused on the Israelis. The terrorists in Indonesia, Ireland, The Philipines, etc. are dedicated to fighting local enemies. There actually was a major split in the Islamic Jihad organization because the Egyptian faction that joined Al Qaida was rejected by the main Palestinian group because they felt that war on America was not their fight. They surely do not love us, but it is the Israelis that they want to intimidate and kill. Because of this, the average terrorist wants to cause destruction where his enemies can see it and feel it. Thus Jerusalem rather than Times Square. This is why it is vitally important not to lose focus on Al Qaida and go off tilting at every crazy raghead radical on the planet. Many of them are just other peoples problems and can wait until we eliminate the factions that are focused on us. The problem with going around kicking every muslim in the ass (although satisfying) is that it redirects their anger from their traditional enemies to us. This plays into Al Qaida's hands and multiplies our enemy's recruiting base. It is far smarter to try and play these factions off against each other as the British did sucessfully for hundreds of years. The Iranians are Persians and have never gotten along with Arabs, especially Iraqis. Ditto Pakistanis who are long-time rivals of both. We must drive these terrorist factions apart by exploiting their differences, and not allow them to make the US their common enemy.
Very astute analysis Red, especially your point of not giving them common ground to unite against us. It may be too late for that now, especially if Iran thinks we have our sites set on them next. Unfortunately however, I feel it's only a matter of time before Martin's scenario becomes all to real. God, I hope not, but it would be so much easier to organize and finance those small scale attacks and acheive the same goal of terrorizing the masses due to the sheer randomness of the attacks then it would be to ever achieve an attack like Sept. 11th again. The only scenario I can see on that level would be a dirty bomb attack. The reason dirty bombs seem to be a recurring theme in my posts in because of a 60 minutes interview with a recently retired CIA agent who was the lead analyst tracking Al Qaeda. He basically said that it was a given that one would be exploded on U.S soil within 5 years. When someone with his knowledge and experience says something like that and he has no apparent agenda, it's very frightening.
