Fighting Terror by attacking ... South America?

[TheOne]

Secret Proposals: Fighting Terror by Attacking ... South America?

'Non Al Qaeda targets.' A memo proposed responding to terror in New York by heading south

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff

Newsweek Aug. 9 issue - Days after 9/11, a senior Pentagon official lamented the lack of good targets in Afghanistan and proposed instead U.S. military attacks in South America or Southeast Asia as "a surprise to the terrorists," according to a footnote in the recent 9/11 Commission Report. The unsigned top-secret memo, which the panel's report said appears to have been written by Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith, is one of several Pentagon documents uncovered by the commission which advance unorthodox ideas for the war on terror. The memo suggested "hitting targets outside the Middle East in the initial offensive" or a "non-Al Qaeda target like Iraq," the panel's report states. U.S. attacks in Latin America and Southeast Asia were portrayed as a way to catch the terrorists off guard when they were expecting an assault on Afghanistan.

article

 

[Annie]

article

My you were busy during your time out.

You don't think that there were lots of 'suggestions' thrown out on the table? Guess you never participated in any kind of panels for infomation, huh? I do believe one of the most important functions of the Pentagon and the think tanks they employ, is to come up with 'alternative plans' most of which are thrown on a shelf.

 

[DKSuddeth]

whats the problem with this? If theres intel of an Al Qaeda cell in bolivia, bomb it.

 

[Annie]

whats the problem with this? If theres intel of an Al Qaeda cell in bolivia, bomb it.

There you go again! :2guns:

 

[DKSuddeth]

There you go again! :2guns:

well, Rumsfeld, in his particular false arrogant superiority, refuses to listen to my tactical advice of 5 man special ops units for hunt and kill missions, he'd rather use long distance bombs so........i'm left with little choice but to call it like I see it.

 

[5stringJeff]

whats the problem with this? If theres intel of an Al Qaeda cell in bolivia, bomb it.

 

[TheOne]

whats the problem with this? If theres intel of an Al Qaeda cell in bolivia, bomb it.

Yeah, the only problem is they weren't even Al Qaeda cells. It was the neocon, Likudnik Feith's attempt to protect Israel with US anger over 9/11.


...They argued that an attack on terrorists in South America—for example, a remote region on the border of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil where intelligence reports said Iranian-backed Hizbullah had a presence—would have ripple effects on other terrorist operations.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

a senior Pentagon official

How do you know it wasn't written in jest? How do you know it also doesn't say we should bomb Patterson NJ? I guess we should ask the source. Oh yeah, can't do that he too is unnamed..................

 

[DKSuddeth]

Yeah, the only problem is they weren't even Al Qaeda cells. It was the neocon, Likudnik Feith's attempt to protect Israel with US anger over 9/11.

A terrorist cell is a terrorist cell. It doesn't matter if they are al-qaeda, hezbollah, or the cult of the dead cow.

...They argued that an attack on terrorists in South America—for example, a remote region on the border of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil where intelligence reports said Iranian-backed Hizbullah had a presence—would have ripple effects on other terrorist operations.

and if that ripple effect is to stop, deter, or eliminate terrorist activity then it should be done. why do you support terrorism abroad?

 

[TheOne]

A terrorist cell is a terrorist cell. It doesn't matter if they are al-qaeda, hezbollah, or the cult of the dead cow.

Actually, it does and you're wrong. Even the authorization of the use of force against Iraq signed by Congress required Bush to prove that Iraq was complicit in 9/11. Here's the relevant passage.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

article

and if that ripple effect is to stop, deter, or eliminate terrorist activity then it should be done. why do you support terrorism abroad?

I don't support terrorism abroad. I also don't support US blood being spilled to support Israel, a nation which has done nothing to secure American interests and whose military we created and maintain. If Israel wants to hit Hezbollah in South America, let them do it. Are they weaklings or is it just more convenient for them to not lose any of their soldiers protecting their country and Zionistic practices? If we are going to arm Israel to the teeth, why don't they use the weapons we give them? If not, make them like Japan and neuter them and then we can protect them.

I support the use of military force to capture or kill the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11, Al Qaeda. That's it. It's my tax money and that's my voice.

 

[Annie]

But you're missing the other 16 that were also in force at the time this was passed. These wonderful resolutions don't 'supercede' each other, they just keep adding layers...

 

[TheOne]

But you're missing the other 16 that were also in force at the time this was passed. These wonderful resolutions don't 'supercede' each other, they just keep adding layers...

You didn't see the "and" between 1) and 2)?

 

[nycflasher]

I don't support terrorism abroad. I also don't support US blood being spilled to support Israel, a nation which has done nothing to secure American interests and whose military we created and maintain. If Israel wants to hit Hezbollah in South America, let them do it. Are they weaklings or is it just more convenient for them to not lose any of their soldiers protecting their country and Zionistic practices? If we are going to arm Israel to the teeth, why don't they use the weapons we give them? If not, make them like Japan and neuter them and then we can protect them.

I support the use of military force to capture or kill the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11, Al Qaeda. That's it. It's my tax money and that's my voice.

Hmm, I'm not sure if you're more anti-terrorism or anti-Israel.
As Americans, I thought that both our Constitution and the character of our people oppose terrorism in all forms?

You only support using force to kill 9-11 terrorists?
So, if there was a cell in Bolivia planning to kill all Mormons(just for arguments sake) in the Western Hemisphere you wouldn't touch it?

 

[Annie]

You didn't see the "and" between 1) and 2)?

and that negates your thesis, no?

 

[DKSuddeth]

acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

you should read the paragraphs better. It allows us to fight all international terrorists and terrorist organizations INCLUDING those involved with 9/11.

 

[TheOne]

and that negates your thesis, no?

No, an "or" would negate the theory, An "and" negates yours.

 

[nycflasher]

Come on, The One.
I think we are probably on the same side of alot of issues, but if you keep "protecting" terrorists from the long arm of international law then you're not going to have any cred. around here.
Not that I have much, to speak of, but at least I try...

My main point: The biggest thing we have learned from terrorist events of the last decade is of the lasting importance of international cooperation between sovereign nations to ensure mutual security.

Terrorists are terrorists and they must die, or at least be hunted like the vile creatures they are. I have a rat trap in my basement with a statue of the fromer WTC as bait in case one of them soms a ma bitches tries to crawl through a window.

 

[Annie]

No, an "or" would negate the theory, An "and" negates yours.

We disagree, but suggest you re-read.

 

[nycflasher]

Hmm, I'm not sure if you're more anti-terrorism or anti-Israel.
As Americans, I thought that both our Constitution and the character of our people oppose terrorism in all forms?

You only support using force to kill 9-11 terrorists?
So, if there was a cell in Bolivia planning to kill all Mormons(just for arguments sake) in the Western Hemisphere you wouldn't touch it?

bump

 

[Annie]

bump

Another good point for Flasher!