# Congressional Watchdog Report On Terrorism



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

This report just came out from the GAO a few days ago...


> Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas
> GAO-08-622 April 17, 2008


Here's a link to the summary, where there are links to read the entire text
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.p ... GAO-08-622

In short the reports states that the war on terror was started in 2001 after 9-11. The initial goal was to stomp out the terrorist cell in Afghanistan where the attack was planned, and where the terrorists were residing.

7 years later and costs fastly approaching a trillion dollars, the terrorists that attacked us are still residing in the same region (the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan), and are as strong as before 9-11 and they're getting ready to attack us again.

So we've accomplished absolutely nothing in regards to stomping out the threat that is responsible for 9-11 according to our government.

So what's the solution? Some of you think it's to stay in Iraq and invade Iran...alrighty then............


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I love the "terrorists are only in Pakistan" line....keep wearing blinders they make things simple for you to understand.

I guess all the attacks and reports of Al Quaida in "I think" 146 countries must be false.

And where are they getting their funding??? Iran is certain to be a huge source of that now aren't they?

But hey, every other war had no mistakes, no changes or adjustments to plans, no surprises and each and every war we ever fought we declared a date certain we would quit fighting, right???

Dont worry Obama will fix this


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bobm said:


> I guess all the attacks and reports of Al Quaida in "I think" 146 countries must be false.
> 
> And where are they getting their funding??? Iran is certain to be a huge source of that now aren't they?


Um no, actually Bob they aren't. See Iran is a Shiite country, and Al-Qaeda is a Sunni extremist group. The Shiites and the Sunnis hate each other. Hence the problems in Iraq right now.

So although they do support Shiite insurgent groups in Iraq, Hezbollah (Shiite), and Hamas (increasingly becoming Shiite), they do not support Al-Qaeda.

Remember how much crap McCain got for making the same mistake?


> He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
> 
> Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives "taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back."
> 
> Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, *not al-Qaeda*."


It looks likely that Bin Laden would like to see the US go into Iran. He'd have his enemy attacking his other enemy.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> In short the reports states that the war on terror was started in 2001 after 9-11. The initial goal was to stomp out the terrorist cell in Afghanistan where the attack was planned, and where the terrorists were residing.
> 
> 7 years later and costs fastly approaching a trillion dollars, the terrorists that attacked us are still residing in the same region (the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan), and are as strong as before 9-11 and they're getting ready to attack us again.


In short the report you linked to doesn't any such thing. The report was initiated from a request to assess the conditions of the Pakistan tribal area only which happens to be on the Afghanistan border. Nothing in the report you linked says the terrorist are as strong as before. Closest it comes is to say they have regenerated themselves in their ability to attack the US. Nothing in the report address a trillion dollars. At most it puts the dollar figure at a little over 15 billion dollars spent on Pakistan which is the base of the report. The report is not about Afghanistan which you are trying to present it as but about a small section of Pakistan. As strong as before 9-11? Doesn't say that either but I guess a vivid imagination could attempt to spin it that way.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

You're right the "fastly approaching a trillion dollars" wasn't in the report. I was lumping all the money we've spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the entire war on terror effort together. Since it all stems from the 9-11 attack.



> The report is not about Afghanistan which you are trying to present it as but about a small section of Pakistan.


It's about Afghanistan in that the terrorists that are in Pakistan crossed the border from Afghanistan, which is all I said. I said they were in the same region, on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. I guess I should have stressed they were on the Pakistan side, which I didn't do.

The point I was trying to make was that although they've crossed a border they still reside in the same geographic location they did when they planned 9-11.



> Nothing in the report you linked says the terrorist are as strong as before. Closest it comes is to say they have regenerated themselves in their ability to attack the US.


I guess I took that as meaning they were as strong. Since the last time they attacked us was 9-11, so if they regenerated themsleves into being able to attack us again I thought it was fair to say they were as strong as they were then.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The Shiites and the Sunnis hate each other. Hence the problems in Iraq


Another often quoted falsehood. A recent gallop poll of nine Muslim countries found that radicals are no more likely to attend religious services than moderates. What that means is the two sects get along just fine with each other until religious leaders, radicals, or politicians use the two beliefs against each other for personal gain. They get along just fine with each other in Turkey and Afghanistan even though one is more dominant than the other. As reported by the Middle East Project Director of the International Crisis Group, the Iraqis of both sects who fled to Syria and Jordan generally get along just fine with each other since they are left alone to lead a normal life. In Lebanon, there are no fewer than 17 different Muslim and Christian sects which get along just fine. It's not the peoples beliefs that really separate them but their leaders that are using them for their own personal gain. Reverend Wright is a good example how easily that is accomplished.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The point I was trying to make was that although they've crossed a border they still reside in the same geographic location they did when they planned 9-11.


I don't mean to be nit picking but prior to 9-11, wasn't the terrorist (Al Quada) whooping it up with the Taliban down in the towns and cities of Afghanistan while it was the anti-Taliban resistance fighters living in the hills?


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

:lol: :lol: This thread went south in a hurry eh' Jones......


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> This thread went south in a hurry eh' Jones


Guess when a thread stays on topic and people pass opinions and information back and forth in a civil manner it is going south in your opinion. :eyeroll:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Goodness, you may want to pull the thorns out of your backside. Seems to be a little touchy or are you another thread monger.

Another wordly important indvidual going on the "IGNORE" list.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> I don't mean to be nit picking but prior to 9-11, wasn't the terrorist (Al Quada) whooping it up with the Taliban down in the towns and cities of Afghanistan while it was the anti-Taliban resistance fighters living in the hills?


You're correct. It wasn't until the US came in right after 9-11 that they moved to the hills.



cwoparson said:


> Another often quoted falsehood. A recent gallop poll of nine Muslim countries found that radicals are no more likely to attend religious services than moderates. What that means is the two sects get along just fine with each other until religious leaders, radicals, or politicians use the two beliefs against each other for personal gain.


Also correct, but not in the context of what we're discussing. There's sunnis and shiites living side by side peacefully in several countries. Even in Iraq the majority of both want peace. Unfortunately there's enough who are pitted against each other where that isn't going to happen.

So in the context of the what Bob was asking that isn't correct, because in that case the shiites and sunnis do not tolerate each other.



4CurlRedleg said:


> :lol: :lol: This thread went south in a hurry eh' Jones......


I wouldn't say so.

I guess I'm asking you guys to see the forest through the trees here.

The point I was making was that the war against terror was started in response to 9-11. It's goal was to go after and take out the people who attacked us. So here we are 7 years later, and after all the efforts we've made this hasn't happened.

We should all be asking the question, "Why Not?"


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Haven't seen one attack since on American soil and major attacks around the globe are way down.
The only hot bed is in the war zones where it belongs, I'm satisfied.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

That's a good point, we haven't seen any attacks lately. You could speculate as to why we haven't seen any though. I'm not naive enough to say that our efforts haven't done anything to prevents attacks, I'm sure they have. But I think there's a great deal of debate over how safe we really are and how much of an impact we have made, and whether or not the right decisions were made to protect us the most and directly target the people who should be our highest priority.

All it would take would be one attack, and then we'd be back to 9-11 trying to evaluate what went wrong and why that attack wasn't prevented...and essentially why we failed.

So are we not seeing attacks because we've squashed all threats of them? Or are we not seeing attacks because the terrorists simply haven't attacked us again? With the possibility they are planning on doing so.

I think Pakistan is a huge threat to us. These are the same exact people who were responsible for 9-11 and we're letting them sit in a safe haven.

IMO we're expending too many resources going after people who haven't attacked us, but who we think might. When we have a group who is already responsible for attacking us on multiple occasions idly biding their time and regenerating...totally unmolested.

I am not satisfied with that. We should take out the people who are already responsible for attacking us before we move on to those who might.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But I think there's a great deal of debate over how safe we really are and how much of an impact we have made, and whether or not the right decisions were made to protect us the most and directly target the people who should be our highest priority.





> shiites and sunnis do not tolerate each other


Shiites and sunnis, democrats and republicans, shiites and sunnis, democrats and republicans????? :huh:

We get worked over as bad by democrats and republicans as shiites and sunnis do by their leaders. My point is we don't know much about how much progress we have made. The media certainly wouldn't tell us attacks have been foiled by that nasty patriot act. I don't have the answers, I just want to throw my skepticism into the mix so none of you are to sure about your answers.
Why don't we go after these guys on the Pakistan border? I don't know, but I hope you don't mind me taking a wild guess at it. I suppose these guys hop back and fourth across that border. When they hop to the Pakistan side I would suppose we have to contact Pakistan authorities or they get all bent out of shape and things would be even worse. We have been fighting with one hand tied behind our back since about 1948. I am sick of crap like guard duty in Viet Nam with unloaded weapons, and the media getting all over our soldiers because some guy had a pair of panties pulled over his head. It sure would feel good to kick the crap out of somebody. Maybe the world would respect us again. Maybe fewer people would be hurt in the long run if we did something to end this war quickly instead of drag it out with pansy liberal policies.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Shiites and sunnis, democrats and republicans, shiites and sunnis, democrats and republicans????? :huh:


LOL! :lol:

Yeah, it really makes you wonder who's the bigger group of lemmings sometimes, us or them!



plainsman said:


> Why don't we go after these guys on the Pakistan border? I don't know, but I hope you don't mind me taking a wild guess at it. I suppose these guys hop back and fourth across that border. When they hop to the Pakistan side I would suppose we have to contact Pakistan authorities or they get all bent out of shape and things would be even worse.


I'm not sure either but I would guess you're right. What pizzes me off is that we're giving them billions of dollars to fund their military to go after these guys and they're not.

IMO, any country that we are giving money to fund their military should have an open border policy for our troops. If they're willing to accept our money then we should have access. Especially since we'd be there to assist in what we're giving them the money for.

We really need to apply some pressure to them.



plainsman said:


> Maybe fewer people would be hurt in the long run if we did something to end this war quickly instead of drag it out with pansy liberal policies.


That's where I'm at. I'd have no problem being there if I felt we had the means to win...even despite feeling like going there was a mistake. But we don't have the means to win, not with modern rules of engagement. When the enemy doesn't have to play by the same rules that we do it's simply not possible for us to make progress significant enough for this war to be worthwhile.

I know guys like Ron say that if we pull out we'll be back fighting to regain ground we already had. For starters, we don't know if that's true. Second of all, if he is right I don't see that being a problem. Let's be honest, the only thing that worked for us in Iraq was going in! Hell, it took us 2 weeks to take the country. That was the cheapest, and least bloodiest part of this conflict. That's the part we're good at. If that's the worst that can happen, what are we afraid of?

If we make the decision to pull out, it isn't a decision we can't undo. I think the absolute worst thing we can do, is continue to do what isn't working while troop fatalities and costs continue to pile up with little signs of progress to show for it.


----------

