Salty
07-13-2004, 07:35 PM
I know the war on terror may never be won based on the fact we're fighting "terror" in itself.
But aren't we making progress in the right direction? Terrorists, such as, Khaled al-Harb "a big fish" and Othman Hadi Al Maqboul al-Amri (No. 21 on the U.S. most-wanted list) have already turned themselves in and are encouraging other militants to follow suit.
It's been said that Khaled al-Harb, and other terrorists that've taken amnesty provided by King Fahd, have had a direct link to 9/11 in one way or another. Granted the link isn't as strong as US officials suggests but it's still a step in the right direction for intel on other militant's whereabouts.
"We think this guy does know a great deal of information on Bin Laden's operation ... what he knows is more structural info ... recruiting methods, his contacts may be useful to tell us more about what safehouses may be protecting these terrorists and what routes they are using to get in/out of Afghan."
"This shows the Al Qaeda organization is not nearly as structured as it use to be,"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125550,00.html
Other lesser known terrorists have been captured since by our forces. One less terrorist in the sandbox is better than having the same amount of terrorists known to exist pre 9/11. It's just like the war on drugs... there will always be a the occasional crack dealer on the corner but why not try to significantly rid them of the neighborhood?
So far we've managed to capture, detain and/or kill a large number of known terrorists, destroyed Saddams dictator regime and provided an infrastructure for Iraq.
So what's the problem? ;)
My question's for you...
Do you think think there's something else here regarding Iran's "amnesty" period? Is Iran in bed with the al Qaeda network regarding terrorism? I have always thought this was the case...
If they aren't, then why won't they hand them to U.S. officials?
If Iran turns out to be majorly involved, should they be on the Bush "to-do-list"?
But aren't we making progress in the right direction? Terrorists, such as, Khaled al-Harb "a big fish" and Othman Hadi Al Maqboul al-Amri (No. 21 on the U.S. most-wanted list) have already turned themselves in and are encouraging other militants to follow suit.
It's been said that Khaled al-Harb, and other terrorists that've taken amnesty provided by King Fahd, have had a direct link to 9/11 in one way or another. Granted the link isn't as strong as US officials suggests but it's still a step in the right direction for intel on other militant's whereabouts.
"We think this guy does know a great deal of information on Bin Laden's operation ... what he knows is more structural info ... recruiting methods, his contacts may be useful to tell us more about what safehouses may be protecting these terrorists and what routes they are using to get in/out of Afghan."
"This shows the Al Qaeda organization is not nearly as structured as it use to be,"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125550,00.html
Other lesser known terrorists have been captured since by our forces. One less terrorist in the sandbox is better than having the same amount of terrorists known to exist pre 9/11. It's just like the war on drugs... there will always be a the occasional crack dealer on the corner but why not try to significantly rid them of the neighborhood?
So far we've managed to capture, detain and/or kill a large number of known terrorists, destroyed Saddams dictator regime and provided an infrastructure for Iraq.
So what's the problem? ;)
My question's for you...
Do you think think there's something else here regarding Iran's "amnesty" period? Is Iran in bed with the al Qaeda network regarding terrorism? I have always thought this was the case...
If they aren't, then why won't they hand them to U.S. officials?
If Iran turns out to be majorly involved, should they be on the Bush "to-do-list"?