Leon Panetta warns America will suffer a fatal terrorist attack worse than 9/11

[Suburbia]

Former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta warned Sunday that the withdrawal of military forces from Afghanistan could pave the way for future attacks on the United States if al Qaeda reforms under the new Taliban regime.

Panetta, who served under former President Barack Obama, alluded to a recent interview in which a spokesman for the Taliban denied any evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

“And if that is the case, then it's clear to me that they're going to continue to support al Qaeda and allow al Qaeda to basically continue to develop and expand," he told Greta Van Susteren in an interview. "And I think they will plan additional attacks on our country, as well as elsewhere.”

As the Taliban began naming their Cabinet this week, the group selected Sirajuddin Haqqani, an FBI-wanted militant, as the acting interior minister. The FBI alleges that Haqqani participated in a 2008 Kabul hotel attack in which six people died, also accusing him of attempting to assassinate former Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

When asked about what the U.S. accomplished during its 20-year war in Afghanistan, Panetta said, "We were successful at making sure that the United States did not suffer another 9/11 attack … We were able to go after bin Laden and get someone who was in charge of the attack on our country and send a message to the world that nobody attacks us and gets away with it."

Like many people in the intelligence community who have raised doubts that the Taliban will stand by their promise to protect women and refrain from committing human rights abuses, Panetta held firm to his belief that the Taliban will falter in their ability to keep the region stable.

“I am reading, and those actions and the other actions that are being taken to shut down protests and really inhibit women's rights there, that this is a Taliban that will indeed continue to provide a safe haven for terrorists, and that spells trouble for the United States,” he said.

President Joe Biden, who visited each of the three crash sites on the 9/11 attacks' 20th anniversary Saturday, said a surge in militancy from al Qaeda is possible after asserting previously that the group was "gone" from Afghanistan.

“Could al Qaeda come back? Yeah," Biden told reporters in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, near the site where United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into an empty field on Sept. 11, 2001. "But guess what? It’s already back other places. What’s the strategy? Every place where al Qaeda is, we’re going to invade and have troops stay in? Come on.”

https://www.yahoo.com/now/former-cia-director-predicts-future-143500057.html

[progressive85]

I would have never ever made pulling out an idea that received any support whatsoever.

Donald Trump harshly criticized Bush's wars - and he has pulled with his powerful rule over the GOP many of his supporters against intervention in the Middle East.

Democrats seem to be split between a liberal point of view that holds that human rights must be upheld and that the United States has a moral obligation to defend the rights of the vulnerable marginalized and persecuted... and then there's the anti-war crowd that does not believe in any military actions or missions in the Middle East.

I certainly believe that there was never going to be a time when the U.S. would leave Afghanistan.  I always felt that it was a permanent part of our Middle Eastern involvement. 

None of this sounds good - this idea of just jumping ship when it's going into what is likely very choppy, very dangerous waters.

It's reckless, it's stupid, it plays into the hands of the enemy.

It is the thing I most strongly oppose this administration on, but I know a Republican administration would be too weak (too willing to capitulate to dangerous elements, such as the Saudis, or corrupt business entanglements with Big Oil and Big Middle East Money) so I don't think either party has a leader that the time calls for to make the hard decision to invade Afghanistan, evacuate as many children as possible out of there, women as well, and men (but taking men who would be very much persecuted under a Taliban government, such as gay men) out of the country and here to the United States, until the Taliban is finally rooted out from power and never returns.

I would rethink strategy but continue our involvement as long as necessary and not a moment too soon.  It is vital and imperative that the United States has the eyes and ears on the ground in Afghanistan to know exactly what's coming.

In 20 years since 9/11, we have not had another terrorist attack from a foreign government on American soil - and so as much as people may gripe and complain about steps the country has taken such as the Patriot Act, foreign surveillance, even certain torture techniques used by the military at Guantanamo - they've likely been the reason why terrorist cells have been thwarted and subverted..

so we need the intelligence on the ground inside of there.  Far too dangerous to pull out now.

[Person Man]

I would have never ever made pulling out an idea that received any support whatsoever.

Donald Trump harshly criticized Bush's wars - and he has pulled with his powerful rule over the GOP many of his supporters against intervention in the Middle East.

Democrats seem to be split between a liberal point of view that holds that human rights must be upheld and that the United States has a moral obligation to defend the rights of the vulnerable marginalized and persecuted... and then there's the anti-war crowd that does not believe in any military actions or missions in the Middle East.

I certainly believe that there was never going to be a time when the U.S. would leave Afghanistan.  I always felt that it was a permanent part of our Middle Eastern involvement. 

None of this sounds good - this idea of just jumping ship when it's going into what is likely very choppy, very dangerous waters.

It's reckless, it's stupid, it plays into the hands of the enemy.

It is the thing I most strongly oppose this administration on, but I know a Republican administration would be too weak (too willing to capitulate to dangerous elements, such as the Saudis, or corrupt business entanglements with Big Oil and Big Middle East Money) so I don't think either party has a leader that the time calls for to make the hard decision to invade Afghanistan, evacuate as many children as possible out of there, women as well, and men (but taking men who would be very much persecuted under a Taliban government, such as gay men) out of the country and here to the United States, until the Taliban is finally rooted out from power and never returns.

I would rethink strategy but continue our involvement as long as necessary and not a moment too soon.  It is vital and imperative that the United States has the eyes and ears on the ground in Afghanistan to know exactly what's coming.

In 20 years since 9/11, we have not had another terrorist attack from a foreign government on American soil - and so as much as people may gripe and complain about steps the country has taken such as the Patriot Act, foreign surveillance, even certain torture techniques used by the military at Guantanamo - they've likely been the reason why terrorist cells have been thwarted and subverted..

so we need the intelligence on the ground inside of there.  Far too dangerous to pull out now.

Before the pull out, I’d agree with you but after seeing that most of them never wanted us over there, I think we made the right decision. Maybe if we would have stayed forever, there would have been no issues but that’s still a trillion dollars a decade we weren’t using elsewhere. Next time we have to go to war and we occupy another country, we must make the decision quickly about whether or not we could trust them after we leave. There’s always the idea of just turning vanquished foes into protectorates but just like Afghanistan did, it would cause a sea of red ink. What good would it be try to settle and build towns on top of them?

[DINGO Joe]

He said could not will, you dishonest fellow.

[Meclazine for Israel]

With nuclear technology now in the hands of Iran and Pakistan, I would be surprised if the US does not suffer a nuclear terrorist incident within the next 200 years.

Once a nuclear device can be small enough to be mailed by Fedex, it's all over bar the shoutin'.

Elon Musk has the right idea.

[Person Man]

With nuclear technology now in the hands of Iran and Pakistan, I would be surprised if the US does not suffer a nuclear terrorist incident within the next 200 years.

Once a nuclear device can be small enough to be mailed by Fedex, it's all over bar the shoutin'.

Elon Musk has the right idea.

Which idea?

Apocalyptic thinking like this is generally pretty useless. I’m pretty liberal on global warming but I don’t there’s enough fossil fuel in the Earth’s crust to render the planet completely uninhabitable for people.

On the other hand, decisively winning a nuclear war would be like winning the lottery….if you’re Hitler… but I’m sure the idea of what the world be like if everyone who is mean to you just going away has come into everyone’s mind at least once.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Who?

[Suburbia]

Who?

The former Defense Secretary and CIA Director.....also former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, the ultimate politician.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Who?

The former Defense Secretary and CIA Director.....also former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, the ultimate politician.

I’m well aware of this Beltway stooge. My quip was really about why we should take him seriously.

[Suburbia]

Who?

The former Defense Secretary and CIA Director.....also former Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, the ultimate politician.

I’m well aware of this Beltway stooge. My quip was really about why we should take him seriously.

We should take him seriously because he was the former CIA head and defense minister. He is one of the Democratic Party's elder statesmen...

[Meclazine for Israel]

With nuclear technology now in the hands of Iran and Pakistan, I would be surprised if the US does not suffer a nuclear terrorist incident within the next 200 years.

Once a nuclear device can be small enough to be mailed by Fedex, it's all over bar the shoutin'.

Elon Musk has the right idea.

Which idea?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-30/elon-musk-starship-to-get-back-to-the-moon-and-on-to-mars/100498076

The idea to get off the planet.

[Kamala's side hoe]

With nuclear technology now in the hands of Iran and Pakistan, I would be surprised if the US does not suffer a nuclear terrorist incident within the next 200 years.

Once a nuclear device can be small enough to be mailed by Fedex, it's all over bar the shoutin'.

Elon Musk has the right idea.

Which idea?

Apocalyptic thinking like this is generally pretty useless. I’m pretty liberal on global warming but I don’t there’s enough fossil fuel in the Earth’s crust to render the planet completely uninhabitable for people.

Don’t worry, there’s more than enough petroleum/coal/natural gas deposits and permafrost methane to dismantle our global civilization. You only need so many heat waves, megadroughts, and widespread floods to send hundreds of millions of climate refugees packing.