The truth shall set you free....Cougar wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/17/nie.alqaeda/index.htmlYawn. I'm really sick of seeing the same bullshit scare tactic warnings in the news every other day. It's so stupid. They are worried about Iraqi operatives that have to resort to using makeshift roadside bombs detonated by cell phones? How are they supposed to get from there, to here, set up operations, find targets, recon targets, plant explosives (or other "WMDs") in whatever they are planning to attack and then carry through? Seems overly retarded to me. All they say is "Dis report says that da terrerists be comin." or "They figured out howta get cross da borders..". This all despite the fact one of these BS reports comes out every week and since 9/11 we haven't seen so much as a BB gun terrorist attack.CNN wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Al Qaeda will try to tap its allies and resources in Iraq in its efforts to exact another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, according to a top government intelligence report released Tuesday.
A police officer looks for suspicious vehicles earlier this month outside Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
Officials have expressed concern in the past that the Iraq war is providing a theater for al Qaeda to train insurgents and test the terror network's capabilities.
"In addition, we assess that its association with [al Qaeda in Iraq] helps al Qaeda to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks," states the declassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate.
But the radicalization process doesn't stop there, according to the report. Islamist Web sites, aggressive anti-American rhetoric and an increasing number of self-generating terror cells in Western countries indicate that violent factions of Islam are spreading.
Though the problem is more dire in Europe than the United States, the report says, there is evidence that extremists in the U.S. are "becoming more connected ideologically, virtually and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement."
Declassified portions of the completed NIE -- which represents the combined analyses of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies -- was released Tuesday after the classified version was presented to Congress.
Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, gave President Bush a special briefing on the report Tuesday morning, a senior administration official said. Video Watch McConnell discuss the threats that the U.S. has uncovered ยป
The report also warns that al Qaeda -- which it says has become "innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles" -- is beefing up efforts to sneak operatives into the United States.
"Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al Qaeda senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here," states an NIE summary.
"As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment," the summary says.
International cooperation on counterterrorism efforts has made the U.S. a more elusive target for al Qaeda -- and has also led to thwarted plots since the September 11, 2001, attacks -- but, the report warns, "this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the threat diverge."
Mass casualties are not the endgame for the terror network, according to the report. Al Qaeda also seeks to perpetrate a sensational attack that produces "visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and/or fear among the U.S. population," states the summary.
The draft of the intelligence report expresses concern about the possibility of a growing number of extremists who may already be in the United States, two officials said last week. The report says al Qaeda is still in pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
The report also says that al Qaeda has set up a safe haven along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border from where the terror network's leaders can operate, several U.S. officials said.
The NIE analysis addresses al Qaeda's resurgence in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf last year gave primary responsibility for controlling the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan to tribal leaders.
advertisement
The United States considers Musharraf an ally in the fight against al Qaeda and has been reluctant to pressure him to do more to control the border areas, where authorities believe both al Qaeda and the Taliban, vanquished from Afghanistan, have regrouped.
Musharraf repeatedly has said his government is working hard to curb terrorists and extremists in its territories.
Propaganda for the lose.
the lancet criticisms here apply to most demographic studies. while it may be to some extent inaccurate to extrapolate deaths throughout the country using samples, it is obviously impossible for the media to find the victims of most bombings. Therefore we have to use some kind of system of statistical predicition to guess how many people we are killing. this is the same way scientists make most of the statements that you would otherwise accept. Samples are used to make inferences about a larger group. In a practical sense it would be impossible due to great risks for anyone to actually count every body. the iraqbodycount.org website is a collection of media reports so we can be reasonably certain about all 70,000 of those deaths. The simple fact that people are dying without a reporter standing there leads us to know that the death count is significantly more than 70,000. Is it 660,000? Maybe not, maybe its less than 300,000, but either way it is many more people than Saddam's regime ever killed in a comparable amount of time. it would be quite unlikely for their samples of 47 areas to be completely valueless. You are fooling yourself to think that sample size errors produced over 90% of the deaths counted and extrapolated.usmarine2005 wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/10/lancet_iraq_survey_methodology_under_fire.html
this article claims that the lancet "over counts" and uses the human rights watch, iraqbodycount.org website and a quote of osama bin laden to argue that rather than 170,000 people dying per year, the war has killed something closer to 15,000-17,000 per year. So we see that even if the Lancet count is an exagerration, then the 67,000 to 73,000 casualties confirmed by the media is the very lowest possible figure. this is roughly 3 times the 6,000 per year that Saddam has been accused of killing during his reign. The fact remains that the U.S.-Iraq invasion has lead to more death than the satus quo.usmarine2005 wrote:
http://www.fumento.com/military/lancetscripps.html
this article makes the additional argument that "main street bias" inflated the number of deaths recorded. Once again, it would be quite unlikely for their samples of 47 areas to be completely valueless. You are fooling yourself to think that sample size errors produced over 90% of the deaths counted and extrapolated. this article also argues that the number of people killed is skewed by an inaccurate estimate of the normal death rate. Lancet found a war death rate of 13.3 per 1,000, and by survey, a pre-war death rate or 5.5 per 1,000. but this article points out that the U.N. had predicted a rate of 10 per thousand. It doesnt mention that the U.N. figure was a guess based on data collected many years ago, and it also neglects to mention that other organizations such as the CIA (5.3 per 1,000) and the U.S. Census Bureau (5.5 per 1,000) made guesses using similar methods as the U.N. but produced data similar to that discovered in Lancet Surveys.usmarine2005 wrote:
http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/03/05/lancet-study-was-a-fraud/
and this link doesnt bring up any new points.usmarine2005 wrote:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_lancet_went_wrong/
Are you done with the debate or did you realize that you can't possibly convince anyone that the Iraqis are better off with our military occupation? Clearly we have imposed greater hardships on Muslims in Iraq than any terrorist attack has ever imposed upon our people.usmarine2005 wrote:
You see, this has been debated so many times, I am simply done with it. Why can't you get that through your head?
Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-07-20 03:43:58)
Since this is a thread about lies, myth, propaganda, crying wolf, and the like... it seems odd to me that any media-outlet would push the idea of a Dirty Bomb - when it is a total fraud.Flecco wrote:
http://www.farfromneutral.com/exodus/wp … /o_rly.jpgtopal63 wrote:
I forget to mention the myth of a dirty bomb - were supposed to be afraid of that too - it could happen!
Propaganda on the BBC - it sure seems credible - they even interview security analysts - so-called experts.
How dangerous is a Radioactive Dirty Bomb? The death toll would be few if any - and probably none.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-20 08:21:56)
What about the 32 pieces of Nuclear material that were lost in Canada? Seems to me if would be pretty easy to get that across the border into the United States.topal63 wrote:
Since this is a thread about lies, myth, propoganda, crying wolf, and the like... it seems odd to me that any media-outlet would push the idea of a Dirty Bomb - when it is a total fraud.
See the issue with a Dirty Bomb is not the actual damage it does, but the hysteria it causes afterward.
It is not the job of the media - to promote hysteria (propaganda). It's job is to accurately report the reality of the threat.Harmor wrote:
What about the 32 pieces of Nuclear material that were lost in Canada? Seems to me if would be pretty easy to get that across the border into the United States.topal63 wrote:
Since this is a thread about lies, myth, propoganda, crying wolf, and the like... it seems odd to me that any media-outlet would push the idea of a Dirty Bomb - when it is a total fraud.
See the issue with a Dirty Bomb is not the actual damage it does, but the hysteria it causes afterward.