Reply
Thu 6 Mar, 2003 10:44 am
WASHINGTON, March 5 — The veteran F.B.I. agent who exposed the bureau's failure to heed evidence of terrorist plots before the Sept. 11 attacks is now warning her superiors that the bureau is not prepared to deal with new terrorist strikes that she and many colleagues fear would result from an American war with Iraq.
This is a constant theme heard from law enforcement agencies.
I have a problem reconciling those statements. IMO Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations do not need an attack on Iraq to motivate them. The motivation exists and if and when they are ready and capable they will attempt to commit acts of terror. What is your opinion will an attack on Iraq increase the threat of terrorism?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/politics/06THRE.html?th
I tend to agree with you. Islamic terrorist organizations do not need special reasons for attacking the Western countries, first and foremost the USA and Israel. Their interpretation of jihad implies attacks on the "infidels" for the very fact of their being these. Of course, they may use the U.S. attack on Iraq as an excuse for their PR, but this will be just the same type of excuse the Palestinian terror organization used to start the current uprisal, explaining this with Mr. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. The current outburst of violence was planned for many months, and planners could not know in advance when Mr. Sharon was supposed to visit the Temple Mount.
The same refers to the activity of al Qaeda and the similar organizations. They plan terror attacks all the time, and they perform them when they have an opportunity. And linkage to any actions of the country they acted against is nothing more than a PR cover.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace