While I'm not paranoid, the air activity around the base near my house HAS gone up a bit, more
A-10 practice flights (not deployed from DM to Iraq) and military helicopter overflight lately.

Makes you a bit jumpy, especially as past activity increases have presaged our adventures or near misses overseas. But it could just be equipment shufling post Iraq. And it's been quiet tonight.

But there are tactical nukes 2 miles up the road, and lately the feeling in the air has been more reminiscent of the Cold War.

Right now the only people I want to shoot are gubbmint bureaucrats, any member of the so-called travel "security" agency, and anyone from Fatherland (er..) Homeland Security.

Hell, Let's just make all Arab males enter the country in places like the Bronx, the South Side of Chicago, and East L.A. If they make it through that, we know they're terrorists, and SF can snipe 'em on the way out.

Have you ever seen what a .50 caliber Pletast can do to a human being! Heh heh heh...

Hell, I took my wife and daughter to the aquarium in Boston on Wednesday. Figured the shift to Orange Alert might keep some of the crowds away.

No such luck...crumb pickers everywhere.

Since just about every "large media outlet" of any kind keeps telling us, nay, orders us to be "terrified" with every utterance, naturally all the sheep in our midst will do as they are told and run around bleating and wailing, which will immediately be displayed on every large media outlet to prove the point they ordered up in the first place. Talk about a propoganda machine; it should be subject to anti-trust suits, if that were possible, or at the very least, exposed in such fashion that they would be run out of town!

I just caught your mention of the Chris Noble comment. He is, basically, full of it, especially after he admits "I haven't been following the shenanigans of Bin Laden and company all too much."

I would like to see his source(s) for the claim that Al Qaeda was "on the ropes" before 9/11. I don't know of any major analyst that went public with that.

I also take issue with his claim that "We thought that they might be able to pull off a truck bomb or maybe even a small bio/chem attack. Never did we imagine something on the scale of 9/11." There's so many things wrong with that sentance I don't know where to start... Anyone who had half a clue knew AQ was capable of a lot more than a car bomb. He is also wrong about the "never did we imagine" part. Well, I'm sure he didn't, but there were folks who envisioned the use of airliners as bombs, and/or simultaneously blowing up several airliners at once. There were also several failed attempts at the above reported, if you knew where to look.

The only thing that wasn't expected was that AQ would burn a valuable resource (trained agents) in a suicide mission. Training those men took time, effort, and money, all of which was lost when they died in the Towers.

This leads to the important fact that I've mentioned before: the principle of Pursuit. When you beat an army, you don't sit down and whip out a cigar; you keep after them. You chase them, nibble off the corners, wear them down, and never give them a moment's rest until they're beaten, or destroyed. You take away their ability to recuperate.

Bush has been following this policy with AQ. What a lot of folks seem to be forgetting is that a terrorist organization, in order to remain an organization needs a place to stay, resources (food, clothes, shelter, guns), and time to rest and train. They need to do all this under the radar. Most of all they need money.

Mr. Noble seems to be unaware of how the US has pursued AQ. Does he think we just threw those Taliban prisoners into Guantanamo Bay to rot? No, we interrogated them. We also sifted thru intelligence in Afghanistan. Found computers there. With hard drives. Heh... This data helped us keep pressure on AQ, confiscate or at least freeze funds, put pressure on terrorist supporters (countries), as well as ID individuals. We've also learned a lot about their methods. For example: lousy comm security, for the most part.

This data has helped us capture more AQ agents such as that goober run down in Pakistan, which leads to more intel, which leads to more pressure, and so on.

One reason that the "war on terror" has been effective which has not been commented on much (that I've seen) is the cooperation of the European law enforcement agencies. 9/11 made them realize that they could be next, and they started going after the people they knew about all the time.

And now some Arab countries are starting to wake up, too. As one blogger said "for them, this shit ain't funny anymore."

It has been an historical principle that no guerrilla movement as ever been successful without a sanctuary. I believe it's the same for terrorists who operate much the same way as geurrillas: take away their sanctuary, and you take away their power.

I have to say I've been a little surprised at Chris' posts on the topic, since they seem to come from a decidedly un-researched position, whereas he's usually quite good about doing his homework.

At the same time, I think it's rather fool-hardy of us not to feel concerned about the possibility of another strike within the U.S. Although MommaBear's point about the media hyping the matter is well-taken, I think we tend to overlook the benefit of such hype: it increases our vigilance, and that is always the best deterrent.

Unfortunately, that "hype" has done nothing to "heighten awareness"; it has only permitted the 'power grabbers' to grab unwarranted power because the sheep are so frightened they'll give up anything that their masters demand to "feel safer".

I've become quite the topic of conversation, now haven't I?

I want to set the record straight on one very key item here. I never said or claimed that anyone else said that al-Qaeda was on the ropes pre-9/11. I said that we didn't understand the scale of the threat. In recent days, several of the Democratic contenders for President have been announcing that the Iraq war was wrong, because, in their opinion, it diverted attention from al-Qaeda, which they - the contenders - are claiming is "on the ropes."

My point there was that convential wisdom, as spouted by the media and politicians, is often times wrong. Maybe al-Qaeda is on the ropes, I don't know. I wouldn't be betting money on it though.

If you disagree with me on fact, as Kate has on her site, I'm fine with that. She and I have different circumstances and different points of view. Doesn't mean that either of us is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

If you're ever unsure about the meaning or intention of something I write, please email me. My addy is on the front page of the site.

Sorry, Chris, but from what I read on your site, you seemed to be agreeing with the "common wisdom" you quoted, especially when I see "Never did we imagine something on the scale of 9/11." without any sort of context setting, or "And that is the secret to the success of al-Qaeda. They are audacious beyond our comprehension", which, well, turns out not to be the case. :)

So, I didn't feel unsure about what you said. This doesn't mean I gathered your intent correctly, natch.

I think I'll stand by my original post. It could be that I'm still mis-reading remarks such as "but we pretend that they aren't a real threat to us", but to me that is self-evidently not true. I don't know of anyone (except a deluded few) that takes that point of view.

Ok, I'll ask: just how much of that is your belief, Chris, and how much not? If the latter, how do you see things right now?

My belief is that we have consistently, as a nation, underestimated al-Qaeda. And I am seeing more and more people, primarily among the Presidential contenders but now starting to spread, that want to minimize the threat that al-Qaeda poses. It seems to me, at least, that they are becoming rather cavalier about finishing off the terrorists.

What we need now is increased vigilance. Is al-Qaeda weakened? Definitely. Bush and Co. has done an excellent job so far. But, I believe that we are nearing the point where al-Qaeda will have to pull off something big in order to maintain relevance.

al-Qaeda may be weakened and they may even be "on the ropes", but that doesn't mean that they're incapable of mounting an attack against us. Graham, Dean and Kerry want to underestimate the threat - they have put on blinders to avoid facing reality. And many of their supporters are doing the same.

We are getting close to defeating al-Qaeda. This isn't the time to rest. Until they collapse, I believe that we are in danger. Vigilance and patience will win the day. Not the cavalier stance of some.

So quickly my beliefs are: we have underestimated al-Qaeda in the past; al-Qaeda is weak, but not finished; patience and vigilance are the path to victory; there is a large part of the population that wants to pretend the threat is nearly non-existant.

Does that help to clarify my position or does it just muddy the waters?