OT--Washington Post admits the obvious
 

April 30, 2005, 11:31PM



Terrorist threats on U.S. at lowest level since 9/11
Officials think focus has turned to troops in Iraq
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Reports of credible terrorist threats against the United States
are at their lowest level since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, according to
U.S. intelligence officials and federal and state law enforcement
authorities.

The intelligence community's daily threat assessment, developed after the
terrorist attacks to keep policymakers informed, lists, on average, 25 to 50
percent fewer threats against domestic targets than it typically did during
the past two years, said one senior counterterrorism official.

Many counterterrorism officials think al-Qaida and like-minded groups are
focusing on Americans deployed in Iraq, where they operate with relative
impunity, and on Europe.

Though some are expressing caution and even skepticism, interviews last week
with 25 current or recently retired officials also cited progress in
counterterrorism operations abroad and a more experienced homeland-security
apparatus for a general feeling that it is more difficult for terrorists to
operate undetected. The officials represent federal intelligence and law
enforcement agencies, state and local homeland-security departments and the
private sector.

"We are breathing easier," said U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer,
whose officers guard one of al-Qaida's expressed targets and who is
regularly briefed by the FBI and CIA. "The imminence of a threat seems to
have diminished. We're just not as worried as we were a year ago, but we
certainly are as vigilant."

"I agree," said John Brennan, acting director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, told of Gainer's assessment. "Progress has been
made."

Brennan also said the initial post-Sept. 11 belief that there were large
numbers of sleeper cells in the United States turned out to be "a lot of
hyperbole." Some thought "there was a terrorist under every rock."

But some intelligence analysts caution that the drop-off in
terrorist-related planning, communication and movement could be a tactical
pause.

Brennan and others fear most what they are not hearing or seeing, especially
the possibility that al-Qaida has acquired chemical or biological weapons
and adapted in ways that have evaded detection. Analysts also say a flood of
new terrorists motivated by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq may try to travel
here and reverse the relative calm of today's environment.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

April 30, 2005, 11:31PM



Terrorist threats on U.S. at lowest level since 9/11
Officials think focus has turned to troops in Iraq

"think focus has turned" ???? No ****, Sherlock! ROFL! What's the diff
where they attack us? Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

....wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to send
500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you
rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around the
world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your own
backyard?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you
rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around
the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your
own backyard?

For a liebral? Not if it makes Bush look good.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't you
rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway around
the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children in your
own backyard?

Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And,
they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as
defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't
you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway
around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and children
in your own backyard?

Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time. And,
they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as
defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't
you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway
around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and
children in your own backyard?

Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time.
And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as
defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof.

No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor.

Doug,
I completely agree with you, why should we bring the fight to their home, we
should wait till they attack us in our home.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't
you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway
around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and
children in your own backyard?

Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time.
And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as
defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof.

No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor.

They'll attack here anytime they please. You know that.


"Dr. Dr. K. Grear" Call180bucme@foragoodtime wrote in message
...
Doug,
I completely agree with you, why should we bring the fight to their home,
we should wait till they attack us in our home.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and
carrying fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the
ability to send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't
you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway
around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and
children in your own backyard?

Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time.
And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often
as defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof.

No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor.

s
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Soldiers are just civilians in uniforms...

...wearing flak jackets, driving heavily armored vehicles, and carrying
fully automatic assault rifles. Some of them even have the ability to
send 500 lb. bombs at terrorist targets.

Soldiers are aware of the job description when they sign up. Wouldn't
you rather have terrorists fighting well-armed US combatants halfway
around the world, rather than blowing up unarmed men, women, and
children in your own backyard?

Actually, the article is right. Threats are almost nonexistent. The
insurgents don't make threats. They just do the deeds.

As far as who is attacked where, I'm not picky. Soldiers can't defend
themselves against vehicles loaded with explosives unless they see them
coming, and apparently, they do NOT see them coming most of the time.
And, they don't have the armor they need, so in effect, they're often as
defenseless as if they were driving down route 95.

With a .50 caliber mounted on your roof.

No gun helps when a car blows up next to yours, professor.


Not too many cars can get close enough when a Mark-19 is unleashed on 'em.