We can.
Posted on 12/25/2008 5:44:10 PM PST by Flavius
Homeland Security Threat Assessment for the years 2008-2013 says Hizbullah may foment terror attack in US if there is some kind of 'triggering' event. 'The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies have not abated," Chertoff says Associated Press
The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa, persistent challenges to border security and increasing Internet savvy, says a new intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press.
Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks are considered the most dangerous threats that could be carried out against the US but those threats are also the most unlikely because it is so difficult for al-Qaeda and similar groups to acquire the materials needed to carry out such plots, according to the internal Homeland Security Threat Assessment for the years 2008-2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
ap = the enemy.
We can.
Our enemies are gleefully celebrating their Muslim brother being crowned and headed to the White House. Their donations paid off. Add Pelosi and Reid, the surrender monkeys, and our enemies have free reign to do whatever they want here. PC peace-loving, anti-military Liberals will welcome them with open arms. The US Congress has a huge supply of white surrender flags to meet every occasion. Murtha, no doubt, has them stored in his office.
I’d be surprised if Hezbollah staged an attack in the US, or, for that matter upon Americans or US interests abroad. Not that they’re not nasty enough; they are, but they have a solid hierarchy, discipline, and the desire to survive as a group. They want to remain credible in Lebanon as a whole, and for Lebanon to develop economically. Nasrallah himself stated that if Hezbollah had anticipated the scale of the Israeli response in their latest war, they would not have launched the cross-border attack that precipitated it. And how much more devastating a response would Hezbollah expect from the US response?
These military responses stop as soon as TV crews arrive.
There are no wars just political posturing .
In the end as always civilians enjoy prolonged agony vs a decisive cut. I guess its the liberal new age we are in.
Almost as if perpetual agony promotes political job security and there is nothing recessionary about that.
I'm sure most here on FR heartily agree.
“The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa ...”
Well .. I believe our greatest danger will be THE PERCEPTION of weakness by our enemies, which will have been created by the Obama administration’s actions (ala the Clinton administration’s actions).
There’s a “sealth jihad” right here in America .. but the media doesn’t care to see it or know about it .. and therefore it doesn’t exist. A biological hit on NYC or Wash DC doesn’t fit their agenda.
I know I would.
Let’s get that pesky FISA out of the way first.
old news. This is something that both Israel and the US would have to take into account if we were to strike Ira,
(1)If the Chertoff report was supposedly "for official use only," how did the AP get its hands on it? (My first guess is that it was leaked by some Democrat in Congress.)
(2)Someone is making a point that the more a specific type of immigration is restricted by law, the more illegal immigration of that type will occur. The implication is that legal restriction on immigration is useless. Is this Chertoff or the AP writers making such an inane comment?
(3)No mention of what the policies of the incoming "Osama" Obama administration might mean for homeland security. Why?
Hizbullah may strike the US?
The question is not may, but where and how soon.
A “deal” for what?
For Hizbullah it means control over Lebanon and US non-interference in a war against Israel. For their mullah masters in Iran the “big deal”, meaning accepting their nuclear program (insurance for them), putting regime change off the table, lifting the sanctions, accepting their claim to regional great power status in the neighborhood (Iraq and Afghanistan) and influence in Africa and S-America. In exchange they’ll for now refrain from attacking and promise not to use nukes. It’s an insane deal meant to cement the mullahs rule and power. That’s their chief motivation. They hoped for such a deal in 2004 already, but the Bush admin refused it.
OMG. Now, you’ve got me real worried.
Why do I think Obama is going to go for it?
Well, another of my posts was pulled. Guess “they” didn’t like muHAMed. Oh well
bobby.223
Believe me, there are many of us.
The new news is that we now have a King/Messiah-elect willing to play games with America’s safety. After all, the Messiah has to placate the wackjobs that donated to his reign/dictatorship and that, of course, includes destroying our military and making us vulnerable to our enemies. Remember, Liberals motto is “PEACE AT ANY COST” even if that cost is our lives, our country, and our children and grandchildren’s future. Liberals are born of power, greed, and ego ALWAYS above all else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.