According to the US State Dept. there is a risk of spillover from the US intervention in Iraq. In other words it's warning US tourist to be careful while travelling abroad because of the hightened terror risk. If there is a another terror attack on US or foreign soil I wonder if the same US State Dept. will say that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with it?
The State Department issued an updated worldwide caution on terrorism yesterday, warning Americans about the threat of extremist violence against U.S. citizens and interests abroad.
The warning did not list countries, nor did department officials offer any additional specifics about threats. The statement said "current information" indicates that al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups are planning attacks against U.S. interests in "multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East."
The department's official caution, which supersedes an alert issued in March, said attacks against private and official targets could come in the form of assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings or bombings.
The targets could include places where Americans meet or visit, such as residential areas, hotels and restaurants, as well as places of worship, schools, clubs, business offices and public areas, the caution said. It also noted that "demonstrations and rioting" can occur with little or no warning.
As causes of concern, the department cited spillover from the U.S. intervention in Iraq in and outside the Middle East, as well as other recent terrorist attacks in Europe. "Ongoing events in Iraq have resulted in demonstrations and associated violence in several countries; such events are likely to continue for the foreseeable future," the statement said. "U.S. citizens are strongly encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance, be aware of local events, and take the appropriate steps to bolster their personal security."
8 comments:
If there is a another terror attack on US or foreign soil I wonder if the same US State Dept. will say that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with it?
It's all one war. Iraq has as much to do with it as Tora Bora.
Is it the case that the coalition is fighting Al Qaeda (or groups inspired by Al Qaeda) in Iraq now because the Coalition failed to secure Iraq's borders?
We can't secure our own borders. What makes you think we'd ever secure Iraq's?
Oh, I see: The US is responsible for every crime it fails to prevent.
Therefore, the criminals are absolved.
Brilliant.
Brilliant repartee, do. I'm am struck to the very core by your clever, scathing response.
Gotta run. But, I'll be back. :-)
simple answer as to whether Iraq was a 'secular state' (before "where Saddam decided to put "Allah Akbar" on the flag?");
no, by 'secular state' the Iraq that slaughtered it's own people during the 80s with American made Weapons of Mass Destruction: biological, chemical, and plain ol "bombz n gunz" - the one Rumsfeld visited in '82, the one the US provided with satellite data to bomb Kurdish villages with;
oh, is this uncomfortable to remember? You're going to be hearing more of it as Saddam's trial goes on, unless Rove can bury you in more distraction about congressmen making out with their secretaries.
I asked whether the Coalition forces are now facing some "foreign" forces due to a failure to secure Iraq's borders and whether this failure is indicative of poor planning and execution.
False Dilemma
War isn't perfect. Never has been. Try not to be such an absolutist. Try again.
the one Rumsfeld visited in '82
Rumsfeld went there? Well, that changes everything.
We truly are the Great Satan. Which sucks for you.
no, by 'secular state' the Iraq that slaughtered it's own people during the 80s with American made Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Really, dawud? Do you have evidence of this? Iraq was a Soviet client state. Her weapons were mostly Soviet, French and Chinese.
What weapons did America give/sell to Saddam, and when?
Post a Comment