Bob Woodward: ISIS Has More Money, Anti-American Anger than Pre-9/11 al Qaeda

[mystery-ak]

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/08/24/Bob-Woodward-ISIS-Has-More-Money-and-Anti-American-Anger-Then-Pre-911-al-Qaeda

 on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014, 11:48 AM PDT

On "Fox News Sunday," Bob Woodward, associate editor of The Washington Post said ISIS is more of a treat then al Qaeda before Sept. 11, 2001.

Woodward said, "The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when he said we have to destroy it, I mean, that is a mighty task. We have not yet destroyed al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda still exists, and I think you've got to look at what's the threat, and there's a big debate in the intelligence community about whether ISIS is going to send people to the United States to attack here."

"And let's remember, I hate to go back to 9/11, but it's a critical turning point here," he continued. "Mohammed Ada, the leader of the 19 hijackers, spent as best we have been able to tell $400,000 on that attack. It was pretty cheap. He came here a year before, planned it in a very sophisticated way. And if you have a very aggressive, unfortunately, talented middle manager like that, you can do something very, very serious. and everyone says, ISIS has got more money, and has this vengeance quotient."

[NavyCanDo]

I've said that a couple of times here myself, after hearing the same on the Michael Medved show. But still some here sticking with their ISIS is not a threat to us argument. ISIS will attack us here, mark my words. They have the money, they have the will, and in their minds they have a much higher objective, to usher in their messiah. AQ's objective was just revenge and a hot headed leader with something to prove.

[truth_seeker]

Why have the last 3 administrations stood still while al Qaeda and now ISIS have grown, attacked, with our full knowledge?

[Dexter]

I've said that a couple of times here myself, after hearing the same on the Michael Medved show. But still some here sticking with their ISIS is not a threat to us argument. ISIS will attack us here, mark my words. They have the money, they have the will, and in their minds they have a much higher objective, to usher in their messiah. AQ's objective was just revenge and a hot headed leader with something to prove.

Attacking us is the dumbest thing they could ever do. I'm pretty sure we made our point after 9/11, which was if you bleep with us we will pulverize you. They're not stupid; they know we outclass them militarily in every possible way, and that in a direct confrontation we would absolutely decimate them. Attacking us would be a surefire way for them to lose everything they have gained, and I imagine they must know that. I think their interests will be more concentrated in the Middle East.

[massadvj]

I've said that a couple of times here myself, after hearing the same on the Michael Medved show. But still some here sticking with their ISIS is not a threat to us argument. ISIS will attack us here, mark my words. They have the money, they have the will, and in their minds they have a much higher objective, to usher in their messiah. AQ's objective was just revenge and a hot headed leader with something to prove.

I have not said ISIS is not a threat to us.  I have said that ISIS, like Al Qaeda, is in all likelihood in part a creation of our CIA.  Now all of a sudden they are the enemy.  What happens to the original enemy -- Iran and Syria -- if we destroy ISIS?  Are they going to stop threatening the west?  Is ISIS a bigger threat to our security than Iran getting nuclear weapons?  If we kill off ISIS we aid and abet Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Is it worth it?

My point is the Middle East is a quagmire and the American people are kept in the dark as to our true motives there.  I simply am not ready to start beating the war drums just because the establishment wants war.  I want to know what the strategy is and what the objectives are.  At this point, the USA has no idea who is the enemy and who is an ally in the Muslim world.

In the last 50 years we have made no progress there.  At some point I think maybe it is time to recognize we are being played for suckers by all the parties

[Dexter]

I simply am not ready to start beating the war drums just because the establishment wants war. 

In the last 50 years we have made no progress there.  At some point I think maybe it is time to recognize we are being played for suckers by all the parties

 

We should always question and scrutinize what our government wants us to do, especially when it all seems way too convenient.

[massadvj]

 

We should always question and scrutinize what our government wants us to do, especially when it all seems way too convenient.

This entire beheading thing is very fishy.  The main suspect is a Brit who is well-known in intelligence circles.  There are thousands of Europeans and hundreds of Americans in ISIS.  It is all too coincidental to be taken at face value.  The American people are being whipped into war without being told the truth about our own culpability in the mess.

It seems the same people who believe the administration lied about Benghazi now believe them about ISIS.  Odd.  Very odd.

[Dexter]

It seems the same people who believe the administration lied about Benghazi now believe them about ISIS.  Odd.  Very odd.

I could have used your support the other day when most of the forum was raining hellfire down on me for questioning this administration and the necessity of more war. 

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ I'm pretty sure we made our point after 9/11, which was if you bleep with us we will pulverize you...]]

Sounds nice, but we didn't "pulverize" anybody.

Yes, we made some selected strikes, knocked out Saddam's army, scattered al-qaeda in Afghanistan for a little while.

But again, what nation did we "pulverize"?
As compared to, say, Germany and Japan in World War II?

You continued:
[[ They're not stupid; they know we outclass them militarily in every possible way, and that in a direct confrontation we would absolutely decimate them. Attacking us would be a surefire way for them to lose everything they have gained, and I imagine they must know that. ]]

We "outclassed" al-qaeda and the taliban "in every way" in Afghanistan, yet they waited us out, and now we're gone and they are still there. Who won?

[Fishrrman]

Folks here may be tired of it, but I'm going to post my "apple tree analogy" once more.

Not long after the World Trade Center attacks, I was down in my backyard, as I am every year, picking up the apples from my trees and throwing them against the fence (they're no good for eating).

Every year, I have to pick up all the bad apples and toss them against the fence. I can clean them up this year, every one -- but next year, they'll be back, and I'll have to do it all over again.

Question:
What would I have to do, once and for all, if I wanted to get rid of my "bad apples" for good?

Told you that to tell you this:

al-qaeda was but one season's bad apples, to be cleaned up after.

ISIS' bad apples are those of a new season. We can clean them up, every last one, but before too long -- next season -- they'll be a whole new bunch of "bad apples". And so it goes.

This will get us nowhere.
If we really want to get rid of the apples once and for all, what must we do to the tree from which they fall ??

[Dexter]

Dex wrote above:
[[ I'm pretty sure we made our point after 9/11, which was if you bleep with us we will pulverize you...]]

Sounds nice, but we didn't "pulverize" anybody.

Yes, we made some selected strikes, knocked out Saddam's army, scattered al-qaeda in Afghanistan for a little while.

But again, what nation did we "pulverize"?
As compared to, say, Germany and Japan in World War II?

You continued:
[[ They're not stupid; they know we outclass them militarily in every possible way, and that in a direct confrontation we would absolutely decimate them. Attacking us would be a surefire way for them to lose everything they have gained, and I imagine they must know that. ]]

We "outclassed" al-qaeda and the taliban "in every way" in Afghanistan, yet they waited us out, and now we're gone and they are still there. Who won?

You really can't win a war against an insurgency like the one that existed in Iraq/Afghanistan. There was no standing army or obvious enemy to destroy; the bad guys looked like everybody else. They attacked us and we brought death and destruction to the Middle East for over a decade. They want us out of their countries and out of their politics; attacking us again is not the way to do that. They are still there because they live there. Their homes and families are there, and the longer we wage war the more we fuel their hate propaganda towards the U.S and increase their numbers. We didn't win because we couldn't win, unless our plan was to turn the Middle East into a glass crater.

[Dexter]

If we really want to get rid of the apples once and for all, what must we do to the tree from which they fall ??

So what exactly are you suggesting? We did everything we could to find and kill the bad guys. Are you implying that we should have just nuked the place?

[Fishrrman]

Dex wrote above:
[[ So what exactly are you suggesting? We did everything we could to find and kill the bad guys…]]

You have completely missed the point. It went right over your head.
Please re-read post 9 above.

Killing "the bad guys" won't do much to end the struggle at all.

It is something else which needs to "die".

Hence, the analogy of the "apples" as distinguished from "the tree"….

[Dexter]

Dex wrote above:
[[ So what exactly are you suggesting? We did everything we could to find and kill the bad guys…]]

You have completely missed the point. It went right over your head.
Please re-read post 9 above.

Killing "the bad guys" won't do much to end the struggle at all.

It is something else which needs to "die".

Hence, the analogy of the "apples" as distinguished from "the tree"….

Then how do we end the struggle? What is the solution? Your apple tree analogy is nice, but what exactly is it implying? How do we kill what you say needs to die? 

[DCPatriot]

Then how do we end the struggle? What is the solution? Your apple tree analogy is nice, but what exactly is it implying? How do we kill what you say needs to die?

Drop a nuke on Mecca.  Right in the middle of Haj.   

[NavyCanDo]

Nukes are messy, and apples, well their messy too. If I had my way I'd  land 300,000 men and 5,000 tanks on the shores of Tripoli and not stop until we hit New Delhi. Until that whole rats nest is cleaned out once and for all or it will never end. These A-holes have been causing untold death and destruction my whole life, held our people and economy hostage too often to count, and do I  have to count all the American lives lost fight them? I'm tired of it.

[DCPatriot]

Nukes are messy, and apples, well their messy too. If I had my way I'd  land 300,000 men and 5,000 tanks on the shores of Tripoli and not stop until we hit New Delhi. Until that whole rats nest is cleaned out once and for all or it will never end. These A-holes have been causing untold death and destruction my whole life, held our people and economy hostage too often to count, and do I  have to count all the American lives lost fight them? I'm tired of it.

Don't expect it to ever cease entirely.  But I can settle for a generation or two, of calm.