[cratz2]

I was watching MSNBC today (stuck in a hotel room during a move) and noticed a poll that said 53% of CIA analysts believe that there will be an attack on America involving a weapon of mass destruction in or before April 2003. About 30 something percent believed a weapon of mass destruction would be used on America after April 2003.

I was just a bit taken aback with that number. Of course, I suppose they (MSNBC) could make up and claim any number they desired with no proof due to the nature of the poll, but 53% seems like an awfully high number.

[.45Ruger]

It may be a large number that MSNBC made up. or maybe they have more information than we insignifigant little people are entitled to receive from our benevolant big brother. We probably won't know until we here about it on the news or our friends and family start getting sick.:cuss:

[standingbear]

believe none of what you hear..and half of what you see.all that they are doing is creating panic in some peoples lives.

[Standing Wolf]

I doubt the C.I.A. could count its way out of a soggy paper bag.

That said™, I'm surprised the Islamic terrorist savages haven't attacked America again, if only because the way we don't look after our borders is tantamount to a gilt-edged invitation.

[4v50 Gary]

They'll hit us especially if we go to war with Iraq. Any attack against us will rally more to the cause of extremist Islam. What does it mean? We'll just have to kill more people.

[Kaylee]

You know.. I keep hearing this about how "We don't look after our borders" stuff, and I have to admit.. I just don't get it. What's to do, build a frickin' thousand mile wall between us and Mexico, then another one up in Canada (where the Y2K LAX guy was busted, remember), and put a blockade on all our coastline??

Can't be done. The resources that would take are inconcievable.. and anything built, remember, is doomed to the fatal flaw of the Maginot Line. I can't see how it'd be any harder to smuggle in a nuke than a crate of coke.

Don't get me wrong, the illegal immigration issue is an important one.. but I think they're being tied together wrongly here. Focusing on the border to stop terrorism is like trying to build a wall around your sandcastle to keep the waves from washing it away.

I guess I just get irritated seeing pet causes taken up in the name of "stopping terrorism" from all sides. Anyhow.. I dont said my piece. I'll hush now. :)

-K

[PATH]

People! People! Please, a little faith in the CIA. You may end up pleasantly surprised!;)

[JPM70535]

Not having control of our borders,especially the one to our south is a disaster. Any terrorist with a 5th grade education could infiltrate a band of Illegal Mexicans crossing the Border and bring a suitcase full of Bio Hazard or Chemical agents with no one being any the wiser. He would be just another wetback, NOT TO WORRY.

I have no doubt that there will be another attack sometime in the near future, and if it is not far more heinous than the World Trade Center, I'll be very surprised. What makes this even more demoralizing is that after the attack, the same bunch of PEACENIKS who were demonstrating against going to war with Iraq, will be pleading for more negotiations and deliberations with God knows who in the hopes of averting the killing of innocent Arabs. (especially the children) Never mind that the terrorist killed thousands of innocent americans including children.

If the word got out that the next act of terrorism by whomever, would result in the total destruction of his country of origin, then the State sponsors of terrorism like Iraq, and Saudi Arabia would bust their *** to prevent the act from taking place. The only requirement would be that the policy would have to be carved in stone, no exceptions. There might be one more terroristic act but there would not be two.

[cratz2]

He would be just another wetback, NOT TO WORRY.

Hey hey hey... No racial slurs in my thread, OK! :scrutiny: