FBI in no doubt: we're a target (Australia)

[54anickel]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8981106%255E2,00.html

A SENIOR FBI counter-terrorism expert said yesterday that the risk of a strike against Australia had clearly increased because of the Howard Government's commitment to the US-led coalition in Iraq.

In comments strongly supporting Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty's remarks on Sunday, FBI executive assistant director counter-terrorism John Pistole said Australia was now "absolutely" a target.

"Whether it's Sydney for all of its commercial wealth; or Canberra as a capital city, as a seat of government; or the Gold Coast as a tourism centre - they are clearly seen as targets," Mr Pistole said in an interview with The Australian.

Asked to explain why, he said: "One, because of the alliance with the US and the close association, and two, (Australia) has been perceived, perhaps inaccurately, as a soft target."

more...

[Fovea]

1. Al Qaida strategy

looks like Hackett in WW3, August 1985, where the NATO
response went after Soviet smaller member states and clients.

Coalition countries have a real reason for concern. They are an easier target, and we have zero commitment to their domestic safety.


They are breaking the coalition, preparatory to a large politically
timed attack. I suspect the RNC in New York.

I am not sure you could pay me enough to be there that week.

[Coventina]

2. That would be horrible.

NYC has suffered too much!

This administration's policies are destroying lives.

[calimary]

3. GOD I hope NOT!!!

As far as Australia goes, though, I am fearful for them. Especially since the terror attack in Madrid apparent produced the desired result - if not for Al Qaeda per se, then at least for its sympathizers and/or admirers and/or wannabe's.

[hang a left]

4. I have foiled on the Olympics a bit, myself or California.

That would certainly provide Swastikanegger with some lime light ala Rudy.

[RainDog]

5. sounds like a scenario for military dictatorship

like Franks mentioned in his interview in Cigar Afficianado, it would seem to me. I cannot imagine the military not insisting, and I cannot imagine that this Congress would not allow them, sad to say.

I certainly hope your prediction is wrong, but, yes, it does seem that Al Qaeda has been able to carry out more attacks in the three years since 9-11...going on 18 now, including Spain, I believe, than they were able to do in the years from 1993 until 2001 (when there were 5 major bombings.)

So, does this mean that Al Qaeda's declaration of war in 98 or so is just now getting hot, or has the way in which Bush has tried to deal with terrorism caused more attacks by creating more terrorists?

I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone on this board can give an honest answer, either.

I do know that the way we are spending money, militarily, is the wrong way to go to fight terrorism, though, and makes us weaker because it hurts our economy.