“Al-Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days”


PDA






w4rma
January 4, 2004, 11:36 PM
Al-Qaeda exodus triggers panic

US sparked airport alert after terrorists left secret hideouts
By Neil Mackay, Investigations Editor

THE sudden movement of large numbers of highly trained al-Qaeda terrorists across the Middle East triggered the panic over possible attacks on Western aircraft which led to the grounding of international flights to the United States last week.

The Sunday Herald has learned that the US raised its terror alert to Code Orange – the second highest level – on December 21 when Washington discovered that trained al-Qaeda terrorists had been leaving their strongholds and hideouts in the Hadhramouth area east of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

The operatives have moved north and west bearing large quantities of shoulder-launched ground-to-air missiles, a selection of other weapons and a variety of explosives.

This came as US homeland security chief Tom Ridge spoke of substantially increased intelligence that extremists were planning an attack to surpass the 9/11 atrocities.

The terrorists then moved into two areas of Saudi Arabia: Najran and Jizran, Osama bin Laden’s homeland. Terrorists in Najran are thought to be planning missions inside Saudi, while those in Jizran are believed to be readying themselves to move overseas. Jizran has a number of ports, ideal to move men and weapons out of the country.

Both areas would allow terrorists to quickly disperse across the Middle East, Persian Gulf and east Africa. Many are thought to have already left Saudi to pursue their targets.

Some may also have used unmarked, privately owned aircraft to transport themselves and weapons out of Saudi. The terrorists are said to have “crept” past Saudi, Yemeni and undercover US special forces on the Saudi-Yemen border.

The number and identity of the al-Qaeda operatives is not known, nor are the locations they are heading towards. That has caused panic and chaos for airline companies and intelligence agencies trying to red-flag the terrorists if they try to board civilian aircraft bound for the West.

Just a few days ago, the Italian newspaper Il Giornale carried a front-page story with the headline “Al-Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days”.

The threat was contained, the paper said, in a video clip on a website run by al-Qaeda, which was blocked and then removed by the FBI. The threat seemed to hint that some sort of nuclear dirty bomb would be used . The newspaper is viewed as the flagship paper of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. New Year celebrations in New York, Rome, Moscow, London and Las Vegas were all carried out under intense security.

Yesterday, British Airways flight 223 from London to Washington – which was cancelled for two days running and had previously been escorted into the US by F-16 fighter jets – was finally allowed to take off.

It was due to leave at 3.05pm but was delayed for three hours while all passengers were searched and escorted on to the plane one at a time. Their details were double-checked in the US before the plane took off. Security fears also grounded BA flight 263 to the Saudi capital Riyadh yesterday.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling warned that the threat to commercial aircraft was likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

04 January 2004
http://www.sundayherald.com/39093

If you enjoyed reading about "“Al-Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Oleg Volk
January 4, 2004, 11:42 PM
I wonder if New Yorkers would take up a collection to bribe the enemy into picking Washington D.C. instead...

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 12:06 AM
Again? <YAWN>:scrutiny:

Any Muslims who listened to Al-Queda last month and fled NYC and DC in terror must be getting pissed about having to live in those refugee camps in Delaware and Pennsylvania by now. :D

I'll be sure to aviod going to NYC (Not). :neener:

Gary H
January 5, 2004, 12:07 AM
w4rma:

Do you post anything outside of the "Legal" forum?

w4rma
January 5, 2004, 12:10 AM
Do you post anything outside of the "Legal" forum?No. Gun policy, as a subset of politics, interests me. Small talk doesn't, although sometimes I scan the other forums for info.

Don Gwinn
January 5, 2004, 12:17 AM
Interesting take. Most people would call politics "small talk." So you aren't interested in shooting?

w4rma
January 5, 2004, 12:27 AM
So you aren't interested in shooting?I'd rather do it than talk about it. :)

Politics can be small talk but it really is serious stuff, IMHO. Politics affects everyone in the world. A few votes or a politician's snafu could mean the difference between life and death for many people.

Gary H
January 5, 2004, 12:34 AM
Politics may be serious stuff, but as a matter of constant posts.. it is serious stuff for other boards. Many of us post off topic, but most do not constantly post off topic.

G1FAL
January 5, 2004, 12:46 AM
This is the part that bothers me:

... the US raised its terror alert to Code Orange....when Washington discovered that trained al-Qaeda terrorists had been leaving their strongholds and hideouts in the Hadhramouth area east of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

So, the .gov learned that these scumbags are on the move, and their response...raise the terror alert code?

Does anyone take that crap seriously? I know I sure as hell dont. Not only because I live so far from anything that I can imagine to be a decent target, but because they change the color code thing too much, without giving any kind of reason. "Be careful"...of what? What are we supposed to be looking for? Middle Eastern men with box cutters, hand grenades, bombs in their shoes, or driving a Ryder truck? Norwegians (sp?) with pans of lutefisk (I probably didnt spell that right either, and I dont know if its a Norwegian food)? Aussies with sheep shears? People walking around saying stuff like "Hey dere, how do I git to dee airport, eh"? Come on, we cant be on the lookout for EVERYTHING. Why not say "Middle Eastern Men, between 18-35 years old"? Oh, wait...that would be profiling....cant do that. Even though it wasnt German tourists who crashed planes in NYC and DC....even though it wasnt Russian reporters who attacked the WTC the first time....or Italian models that blew up Pan Am 103.

And the real kicker....we know these guys are on the move. There is suspicion they may be about to blow something up. And the color code gets changed? Huh? Am I missing something here?

Why are we not dropping a bomb on them? Or sending in CIA agents? Or better yet, tipping off the Mossad, and letting THEM deal with these wastes of flesh and air? I thought that the War on Terror was an actual WAR, not a color code game. You know, like, killing people and breaking stuff? Didnt the .gov say something about fighting terror WHEREVER IT WAS FOUND? We took out the taliban, we took out Saddam....WHY are we not taking them out, too?

This color code threat level crap is just more feel-good/do-nothing BS, tailored to those that are too stupid to understand the ThreatCon system that was already in place. We have people too damned dumb to operate a friggin BALLOT, for pete's sake, how can they be expected to understand ThreatCon Delta? They'd probably think that Delta Airlines planes were being hijacked.

But I sure am glad that the gov knows that these bags of excrement are on the move, and chooses to change the Color of the Week.

:banghead:

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 03:47 AM
Many of us post off topic, but most do not constantly post off topic.
How is w4rma "off topic"? The L&P forum is not restricted to firearms only discussion like the General Gun Discussions forum is.

This thread is very much "on topic" for this forum.

Legal and Political
Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.General Gun Discussions
Meet fellow forum members, find a common ground. Introduce new people to responsible firearm ownership. Posts must be related to firearms.

The Scandinavian
January 5, 2004, 05:16 AM
quote:... the US raised its terror alert to Code Orange....when Washington discovered that trained al-Qaeda terrorists had been leaving their strongholds and hideouts in the Hadhramouth area east of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.


The point is, there is perhaps a 0.001% chance of there being any factual information here...

Take for example those French flights that were grounded a few days back over Christmas because of "solid intelligence" etc etc... remember how that turned out?

"The six Al Qaeda men turned out to be a five year old boy, whose name had been mistaken for an alleged Tunisian terrorist, an elderly Chinese lady who used to run a restaurant in Paris, a Welsh insurance salesman and three French nationals. "

(Le Monde and RTBF TV, 2 January 2004)


Is it just my imagination or is there a pattern here?

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 08:47 AM
And the real kicker....we know these guys are on the move. There is suspicion they may be about to blow something up. And the color code gets changed? Huh? Am I missing something here?

Surely you understand that that's not the only thing that's going on? You realize that every intelligence services' actions aren't broadcast in the popular press, right?

My background is in military intelligence. I worked for the NSA for 4 years between 88 and 92. There is LOT that you and I don't know about.

You realize that in spite of thousands of fanatics ostensibly attempting to accomplish one, there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since 9/11/2001, right?

Azrael256
January 5, 2004, 08:50 AM
Is it just my imagination or is there a pattern here? What pattern? A pattern of disturbing incompentence by a thouroughly castrated intelligence agency? I think 9/11 pretty well proved that.

El Tejon
January 5, 2004, 08:53 AM
They have to go all out in '04; time to make their move is coming. The terrorists must defeat Bush in November.

Foggy Bottom knows this. Whether they will/can prevent this remains to be seen.:scrutiny:

Swamprabbit
January 5, 2004, 08:59 AM
To me, the terror alert codes are really for the LEO and security communities - I really don't see them as asking regular civilians to do anything other than help keep an eye out for trouble. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that we have kept Al Queda from doing anything else here since 9/11 is enough for me. All the complaining I hear about the alerts is becoming more mudane (boring) to me than the alerts.

I'm obviously no expert in intelligence gathering but I sincerely doubt that it is a perfect science.

The Scandinavian
January 5, 2004, 09:16 AM
You realize that in spite of thousands of fanatics ostensibly attempting to accomplish one, there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since 9/11/2001, right?

Yeah you hit the nail on the head there with the word 'ostensibly'.

There are many possible scenarios. Maybe there really are thousands of cave-dwelling fanatics who 'hate you for your freedoms'.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 09:56 AM
QUOTE]Maybe there really are thousands of cave-dwelling fanatics who 'hate you for your freedoms'.[/QUOTE]

Ah...are you another European who believes that terrorism is a myth and that George Bush orchestrated 9/11?

The Scandinavian
January 5, 2004, 09:58 AM
No.

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 09:59 AM
I'm not European, and I have problems with the "hate us for our freedoms" thing. OBL said be hated us because of our backing of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and our stationing or troops in Saudi.

He'd think we were fine if we backed out of the middle east. Nothing to do with "freedoms."

Now the Bush administration, on the other hand, may have some issues with our freedoms. Seems he's another who thinks like Clinton did, that the Government has to move to limit freedoms on occasion...

:uhoh:

The Scandinavian
January 5, 2004, 10:04 AM
...Which reminds me of a news website article (probably BBC, but sorry I can't remember, it was a while back) which said that some think-tank had come up with the notion that scandinavia was an ideal place for terrorists to take cover, because of the open and free nature of society.

I remember thinking, so... how come they don't hate us for our freedoms :)

(edited for typo)

TarpleyG
January 5, 2004, 10:06 AM
when Washington discovered that trained al-Qaeda terrorists had been leaving their strongholds and hideouts in the Hadhramouth area east of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.
I'm with G1FAL on this one...why, if you know they are there, are you not bombing the piss out of these places???

That's what I want to know.

GT

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 10:10 AM
Derek...I understand your point of view based on your religious background, but I disagree.

I expect my elected leaders to promote the cause and the well being of American citizens and , to the extent that it furthers that primary goal, her allies. That's it.

If that cause happens to be to the detriment of others, so be it...I really could care less. Sounds harsh, (and "neocon," I suppose) but that's my feeling.

If the Arab world, or the EU, or China...or whatever contingent you propose, doesn't like that (and I'm sure they don't,) they are free to compete, both economically and militarily.

9/11 was a great psychological blow, but nothing we couldn't come back from. I hope we're able to keep it from infringing on our freedoms (the reason I believe we've been so successful in the first place.)

To many parentheses in this post, but I'm too lazy to edit.

:D

MrPink
January 5, 2004, 10:23 AM
OK, maybe my view of the war on terrorism is a little too simple but help me out here.

So we know these little effers are "on the move". That would imply we knew where they were because we know they are no longer there. So why didn't we just kill the bastards when we could? Or if we want the moral high ground mount a snatch 'n grab and make them residents of Hotel Guantanomo?

I like the modern age Golden Rule: Do unto others before they do unto you.

The Scandinavian
January 5, 2004, 10:25 AM
I'm with G1FAL on this one...why, if you know they are there, are you not bombing the piss out of these places???

That's what I want to know.

GT

'coz they aint really there?

Just a suggestion....


Here's a point, does it seem really likely that "Al Quaeda" would release their plans in a newspaper (I mean the Il Giornale 35 days thing)? Doesn't this sort of thing happen every 4th july, christmas, thanksgiving, new year? When does the point come when one can start to be sceptical?

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 10:35 AM
When does the point come when one can start to be sceptical?

Skeptical of what? That they exist? I'm still not sure of your position.

Also, this is not a "war on Al Quada." I think a lot of people worldwide are missing that. They call it a War on Terror, which, so far, seems to mean a war on those who would attack civilians, specifically America and her allies' citizens. There are plenty of those still about. JMHO.

The Scandinavian
January 5, 2004, 10:44 AM
sceptical of the bona fides of all these warnings, "Al Quaeda" tapes etc.

One thing is certain though, the effect that they are having on your society is real enough. In a way, the very fact that we are having this conversation is proof of that.

Anyway I have to leave the computer now, I'm not just ducking out ;)

All the best

T.S.

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 10:45 AM
It's not a religious belief -- I don't consider OBL a Moslem -- it's just the statement he offered.

We've got a case where the president of the US said "they hate our freedoms" then moved to curtail those same freedoms, and you've got the guy who said he hit the WTC because of our middle-eastern policies and his actions had nothing to do with how we choose to live here on our continent.

I think he's officially a Bad Dude, and I cried on 9/11 like everyone else here (got to say that I've never liked NYC before or since -- call me Southern), but I'm not going to blind myself to his "cause."

What was it George Washington said about avoiding "foreign entanglements." Still good advice OMHO -- it seems our foreign policy decisions in central america, the middle east, south vietnam, and other places are as likely to backfire as work to our benefit. And I'm being generous.

Oh yeah -- I definitely feel that the 'NeoCon' mentality (and my dad is one -- he told me over christmas that his beliefs were growing more "Roman" as he aged) is a bigger threat to freedom in this country than terrorism ever was. Nothing personal, we're just not going to see eye-to-eye on those issues.

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 10:51 AM
Thumper: They call it a War on Terror, which, so far, seems to mean a war on those who would attack civilians...So, then, how 'bout this one. What if one of our allies finds a suspected terrorist leader sleeping in an apartment complex for a single night, and decided to hit said complex with a 2,000 lb bomb dropped from an F16. In the process they kill a few less than 20 innocent civilians, half of which were children.

Does this not count as "terrorism," even when said ally publicly states that teh civilian cost was "acceptable?"

In my book (or according to my 'moral compass,' or whatever), people who deliberately kill civilians and don't try to minimize civilian casualties are evil. There's no nicer way to put it -- by definition the killing of innocents is evil.

How do you stand up on the world stage and support allies like that while denouncing 'terrorism,' and expect the citizens of other nations to take you seriously?

Jonesy9
January 5, 2004, 11:09 AM
none of this can be true. I just spent the last 2 weeks listening to highly paid journalists and politicians tell me how wrong Dean was to say that the capture of Saddam doesn't make us any safer.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 11:17 AM
So, then, how 'bout this one. What if one of our allies finds a suspected terrorist leader sleeping in an apartment complex for a single night, and decided to hit said complex with a 2,000 lb bomb dropped from an F16. In the process they kill a few less than 20 innocent civilians, half of which were children.

I can't adequately answer that without turning this thread into a completely different direction. Was Israel right? No, of course not...but in my mind there's no doubt as to who still holds the comparative moral high ground in the PLO/Israel conflict.

none of this can be true. I just spent the last 2 weeks listening to highly paid journalists and politicians tell me how wrong Dean was to say that the capture of Saddam doesn't make us any safer.

Well, he's certainly no longer paying $20,000 U.S. to the families of suicide bombers. :D

Perhaps if Dean wins he can restore Saddam to power...you know, righting a wrong and all that.

As an aside, who do you think the bad guys are rooting for in November?

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 11:24 AM
As an aside, who do you think the bad guys are rooting for in November?I think they're rooting for Bush, and laughing their asses off.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 11:32 AM
I think they're rooting for Bush, and laughing their asses off.

There are plenty buried in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Phillipines who aren't laughing at all, Derek...what do you think?

I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but to think that those who celebrate our weaknesses WANT Bush in power is a little silly.

I'm amazed by the inadequacy of the attacks since 9/11...a sniper in Virginia, an idiot with a pistol in an airport in LA, and a "shoe bomber"...not a very good track record.

On the other hand, terrorist attacks in Russia, Israel, and elsewhere have been pretty spectacular. I'd have to say someone's doing a pretty good job with national security. Wouldn't you?

TallPine
January 5, 2004, 11:35 AM
An amatuer golfer and a professional golfer were going to play a round one day ...

The pro asked his friend how much of a handicap he should allow for him.

The amatuer said, "no handicap - just two 'gotchas' "

Pro: "what's a 'gotcha' ?'

Amatuer: "You'll see"

At the first tee-off, as the pro was about to make his swing, the amatuer grabbed him from behind yelling "Gotcha!"

The pro played terribly, of course - he spent the rest of the round anticipating the second "gotcha" :)


And so, that is the USA, waiting for the second "gotcha" ..............

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 11:57 AM
I believe the pro buried his 7 iron in the amatuers forehead...and went searching the bushes for more.

Ams don't like it, but the other pros? They think it's great.

Jeff White
January 5, 2004, 12:10 PM
The Sunday Herald has learned that the US raised its terror alert to Code Orange – the second highest level – on December 21 when Washington discovered that trained al-Qaeda terrorists had been leaving their strongholds and hideouts in the Hadhramouth area east of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa.

The operatives have moved north and west bearing large quantities of shoulder-launched ground-to-air missiles, a selection of other weapons and a variety of explosives.

So how many borders do you figure they have to cross with all of this ordnance to get to NYC? Should the lookouts be prepared to see an invasion fleet materialize out of the fog, like like German defenders of Normandy saw the allied fleet appear on June 6, 1944? :rolleyes:

Me thinks someone's been reading Debka too much....

Jeff

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 02:18 PM
There are plenty buried in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Phillipines who aren't laughing at all, Derek...what do you think?"Unintended consequences."

We were at 'war' with Al Quaida, and were doing a decent job of that in Afghanistan, I guess. ("I guess" = OBL is still running around, or at least hasn't been confirmed dead). Then we went into Iraq, which most people in the area understand as the country that was least likely to support Bin Ladin. It's that whole secular vs hardcore fundie thing -- Osama wanted Saddam dead, so Saddam wasn't gonna support him. Hell, odds are Saddam pissed OBL off more than we did...

Anyway, now it looks like those people screaming "the Americans hate Muslims! They hate Arabs! They want the Israelis to kill us like dogs! Look -- they're raping our country so Bush's friends can get rich!" weren't completely full of paranoid delusions like they seemed to be before.

Now people in the middle east, i'd guess, are finding it harder to back the US and support our anti-Al Quaida actions. At best, some could say that we care about the 'war on terror,' and are having difficulty differentiating from terrorists, muslims, and plain old arabs. And to be honest, discussions here make it seem like lots in the US don't make much distinction, either.

So, I've seen a couple of reports that Al Quaida recruiting is going up, and that IRaq is serving as a rallying point for wanna-be terrorists, rather than just Baathists who want to keep power.

I think we should wait a few months and see. I think we had Al Quaida on the run in Afghanistan, but I think things are really looking up for the organization now.

I understand if you don't feel that way, but there you are.

As an aside..., why do you think this is an emotional issue for me? At least, any more emotional that 1st or 2nd amendment issues?

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 02:42 PM
I shouldn't assume it's an emotional issue for you...my bad. It would be an emotional issue for me, were I Muslim.

Unfortunately, when discussing the war on terror, the followers of Islam becomes a flashpoint. I think Joe Public sees suicide bombings and the like to be part of the "terror" we're fighting. Also, the reasons behind the WOT are irrevocably intertwined with our support of Isreal and the Muslim world's hatred of that country.

I have no problem with Islam, except for the sticky point of the failure of the Imams (in the main) to denounce terror. The world is still waiting for that.

gunsmith
January 5, 2004, 03:09 PM
Being a native NY'er,it angers me that there is no way for me to visit.
I only visit places I can bring my glock or ruger.
I would suggest anyone in NY move out,it's worse then CA!
I still can not get a ccw in SF but it is "only" a misdemeanor to carry
concealed.

Andrew Rothman
January 5, 2004, 03:31 PM
You realize that in spite of thousands of fanatics ostensibly attempting to accomplish one, there hasn't been a major terrorist attack since 9/11/2001, right?

I wear my special zombie-proof undershorts, and I haven't seen a zombie yet! They must be working. :rolleyes:

M1911Owner
January 5, 2004, 03:54 PM
Well, he's certainly no longer paying $20,000 U.S. to the families of suicide bombers. (Emphasis mine)Interesting how they hate the "Great Satan" so much, but, whenever they can, they use our monetary system instead of their own...

Sean Smith
January 5, 2004, 04:06 PM
Then we went into Iraq, which most people in the area understand as the country that was least likely to support Bin Ladin. It's that whole secular vs hardcore fundie thing -- Osama wanted Saddam dead, so Saddam wasn't gonna support him.

This strikes me as a rather grotesque oversimplification. There are mountains of historical examples of countries supporting their ideological opposites to harm a third party. UK (democratic constitutional monarchy) and France (republic) allied with Russia (absolute Tsarist despotism) against Germany (constitutional monarchy) and Austria-Hungary (constitutional monarchy). Nazi Germany and Communist Russia allied to divide Poland. US (republic) and UK (democratic constitutional monarchy) allied with Communist Russia against Nazi Germany.

And what culture came up with the saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" again? ;)

Hell, odds are Saddam pissed OBL off more than we did...

Had Al-Qaeda been blowing up buildings in Baghdad instead of New York City, your assertion might be credible.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 04:19 PM
I wear my special zombie-proof undershorts, and I haven't seen a zombie yet! They must be working.

The cause/effect is evident to anyone paying attention: Al Qaeda keeps saying what they're gonna do, then they keep on not doing it.

Please see thread title for further clarification.

What do you attribute the lack of attacks to? Good fortune? Heightened security? Your fairy godfather? Incompetence?

Also, I'm not in favor of any security measure that infringes on any U.S. citizen's civil rights. That's where I and the Bush administration seem to part ways.

I do, however, believe in the concept of finding them where they are and burning them in place. It's obvious that Dubya does an outstanding job of that. I'll continue to applaud and support him.

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 04:37 PM
There are mountains of historical examples of countries supporting their ideological opposites to harm a third partyAnd yet there's no evidence that something like that happened here.

This isn't likely something we can resolve -- you see OBL and SH as people who hated us and probably colluded. I see OBL as someone who wanted a return to a more, uhhh, "simple" past where the middle east is ruled by somewhat oppressive religious fundies; I see SH as a petty dictator and tyrant who was doing everything in his power to maintain control of his fiefdom. One hated the other because he claimed to be a muslim -- a hypocrite in addition to an a-hole. Gave money to the families of bombers? Name a better PR move for someone who wanted to appeal to the crowd who supports suicide bombings. And all at a cost less than one more bigger-than-life concrete statue, too!

Al Qaeda keeps saying what they're gonna do, then they keep on not doing it.So, they announced 9/11 before they did it? Or could this be a bunch of wanna-bes who get their jollies getting us riled up.

If I were gonna nuke NYC, I wouldn't talk to the media about it in advance.

Sean Smith
January 5, 2004, 04:48 PM
you see OBL and SH as people who hated us and probably colluded.

Actually, I see you putting words in my mouth. I don't have proof of Saddam Hussein/Osama Bin Laden collusion one way or the other. I merely consider it possible. My point was that your conclusion (no collusion between Hussein and Bin Laden) is not really supported by your evidence (well-known ideological differences between the two). The latter does not make the former certain, or even particularly likely.

Consider Afghanistan: the United States supported fundamentalists in Afghanistan to screw over the Soviets. Not exactly a great deal of ideological affinity there, yet the fundamentalists somehow managed to work with the "great Satan" (that would be us) against a common enemy because it would serve their immediate interests. Kind of makes the idea that the same fundies could never work with an Arab dictator to attack the United States seem a little naive. After all, Iraq was an enemy of TWO of Al-Qaeda's enemies, the U.S. and Saudia Arabia.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 05:02 PM
Name a better PR move for someone who wanted to appeal to the crowd who supports suicide bombings.

What the heck does it matter why he did it, Derek? Surely you agree that giving 20K to the bomber's family encourages and supports terrorism, right?

Because he was just trying to pander to fundamentalists, it's ok?

War on Terror...right?

jimpeel
January 5, 2004, 05:03 PM
These guys keep picking up the telephone, calling their buddies, and saying things like "The plan ees een place. We keel all Amelicans now!" and then go back to watching Al-Jazeera TV and the latest episode of "Jihad Idol" knowing that they have just cost the American texpayers billions of dollars with a single phone call.

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 05:06 PM
My point was that your conclusion (no collusion between Hussein and Bin Laden) is not really supported by your evidence (well-known ideological differences between the two). The latter does not make the former certain, or even particularly likely.Which goes both ways, so all we can say is "we don't have any evidence one way or another, so we go with our gut." Or we can agree to disagree. :)

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 05:20 PM
Surely you agree that giving 20K to the bomber's family encourages and supports terrorism, right?I'm not convinced of that. My understanding is if your kid blows hisself up in an attack, the israelis are going to demolish your house (and everything in it). Does losing everything you own and your place to live, then receiving $20k from a neighboring dictator leave you in a better place, or would you rather have your son back?

I know how I feel about it.

War on Terror...right?That's what they keep telling us. Now, has anything the Israelis have done in the last couple of decades qualified as 'terrorism' under our current guidelines? Anything in the past 3 years or so?

Just curious: one of the reasons we went into Iraq was because of the UN decrees they'd ignored. How many were there? And how many have been issued re: Israel?

(No, I'm no UN fan either...)

Let's say this: we can all agree that the situation in the middle east is ????ed. Both sides kill innocent people without giving the matter any thought, no-one is listening to what the other side has to say on these issues, no-one cares what the UN says (unless the UN is siding with them on the most current issue), and people are dying weekly, whether from exploding people, or exploding cars, or rubber-coated steel bullets, or bombs thrown at apartment complexes from US-made fighter aircraft, or UN refugee camps being shelled by artillery, or by mosques getting shot up, or by tourists getting whacked while on vacation, or by airliners or ships getting hijacked...

It's an ugly scene. I don't think we should be there at all. If you're worried about terrorist attacks in the US, the quickest way to minimize the threat is to let these people in the middle east kill each other off/resolve their issues in some way. If I were president I'd privately tell Israel they had 6 months to figure things out, because in 180 days US support would cease. Then I'd let them figure it out from there.

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 05:24 PM
I'm not convinced of that. My understanding is if your kid blows hisself up in an attack, the israelis are going to demolish your house (and everything in it).


WRONG. It was very rare when this was done, and now the practice has been stopped by the Israeli Supreme Court.

or would you rather have your son back?

Except for some idiots that come out on TV and talk about how glad they are that their son is a martyr.:fire:

or rubber-coated steel bullets

Or gas that causes mothers to miscarry and men to become sterile...:D

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2004, 05:32 PM
So, they're not?

Those bullets are in fact made of metal encased in a rubber shell, and are different from the original rubber bullets first used in 1970 by the British in Northern Ireland. From AP (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/24/health/main510084.shtml).

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=705961

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 05:36 PM
Problem is, we don't use the bullets. We use a large rubber bullet fired with a rifle attachment. What the murderes in 2001 did was put on the attachment (to make itlook like they're firing a rubber bullet for the cameras) then fired live 5.56 (instead of the ones used for the attachment). Those people are now in prison.

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 05:46 PM
Someone told me the PLO and Hamas have decided to go to rubber bullets and to use "less-lethal" shrapnel in their suicide bombs.

Oh wait; that's [mike tyson]ludicrous[/mike tyson]. My bad...

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 06:04 PM
Derek Zeanah:

Let's say this: we can all agree that the situation in the middle east is ????ed. Both sides kill innocent people without giving the matter any thought, no-one is listening to what the other side has to say on these issues, no-one cares what the UN says (unless the UN is siding with them on the most current issue), and people are dying weekly, whether from exploding people, or exploding cars, or rubber-coated steel bullets, or bombs thrown at apartment complexes from US-made fighter aircraft, or UN refugee camps being shelled by artillery, or by mosques getting shot up, or by tourists getting whacked while on vacation, or by airliners or ships getting hijacked...

It's an ugly scene. I don't think we should be there at all. If you're worried about terrorist attacks in the US, the quickest way to minimize the threat is to let these people in the middle east kill each other off/resolve their issues in some way. If I were president I'd privately tell Israel they had 6 months to figure things out, because in 180 days US support would cease. Then I'd let them figure it out from there.


I don't think the moral relativisim argument works here, at least not since the Oslo accords. Israel over the past decade has repeatedly made significant concessions to the Palestinian side. Under PM Barak almost to a point of total agreement with every Palestinian demand short of complete return of all Palestinian Arabs to Israel proper. In return they have gotten another intifada and the new phenomena of suicide bombers.

I notice the Israelis debate constantly the ethics of Palestinian civilian deaths resulting from ISDF action against Hamas leaders for example. No corresponding debate takes place on the Palestinian side, just massive rallies in support of the latest suicide bombing atrocity.

The US belongs where ever it has a strategic interest. It goes without saying that we depend on the Middle East for a huge amount of our energy needs. We have every right to be in the region.

AZLibertarian
January 5, 2004, 06:12 PM
...cave-dwelling fanatics who 'hate you for your freedoms'....

The most cogent explanation for why we're in this War on Terror boils down to this....

The Islamists are fundamentalists. They insist on a purely religious view of the world. Go to the mosque 5 times a day. Fast at Ramadan (sp?). Women don't go out in public without a male escort, and never without their burka. The Islamists do this all because they value Virtue . Everything that does not advance their view of Virtue must be violently opposed. This includes, of course, America, Israel, most of the West, as well as Russia, and "moderate" Islamic societies such as Turkey and Morocco. Their "hate" is not limited to Christians and Jews. They also hate Hindus and Sikhs. The Islamists are strikingly intolerant.

The West, in general, and America, in particular values Freedom and Liberty. We can choose on our own whether to go to church or not, vote or not, drink alcohol or not. We tolerate drug abuse, gang crime, pornography and a host of other "sins", because we know that in order to crack down on these sins, the freedoms we value might be under attack. We further believe that the "Virtuous" Choice is made more powerful when made in complete freedom. But by having the freedom to make our own choices, we have to be a tolerant society, regardless of whether we want to as individuals.

Sean Smith
January 5, 2004, 07:45 PM
Which goes both ways, so all we can say is "we don't have any evidence one way or another, so we go with our gut." Or we can agree to disagree.

Um, no. You seem to be rather willfully missing the point, or being evasive. I'm not saying Hussein did or didn't collude with Bin Laden. I'm saying that your reasoning for dismissing it out of hand (their ideological disconnect) is bogus. :)

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
January 5, 2004, 07:52 PM
AZLibertarian:

The Islamists are fundamentalists. They insist on a purely religious view of the world. Go to the mosque 5 times a day. Fast at Ramadan (sp?). Women don't go out in public without a male escort, and never without their burka. The Islamists do this all because they value Virtue . Everything that does not advance their view of Virtue must be violently opposed.


That may be true for some, but certainly not all Islamo-Fascist terrorists. Recall a bunch of the demented 9-11 hijackers took a trip to Vegas shortly before the attacks and hit the strip clubs and casinos.

Xenopobia and jealousy of the wealth exhibited by the west are other reasons for their demented hatred.

commygun
January 5, 2004, 08:35 PM
"in 180 days US support will cease..."

And in the months or years shortly after the end of US support a
beseiged Israel will tell the Arab states seeking to end it's existence
that they have 180 hours to withdraw from Israel's borders or
Cairo, Damascus and Riyadh will cease to exist.
Despite the rank ignorance or hurt pride of the "Arab street" US
involvement in the Middle East is the best hope for the future of
all people in the region.

grampster
January 5, 2004, 10:39 PM
What AZ Lib and Cool Hand Luke said plus throw in a little fuedal tribalism for good measure pretty much sums up the Islamist Terrorist movement.

grampster

fallingblock
January 6, 2004, 02:37 AM
"that Iraq is serving as a rallying point for wanna-be terrorists, rather than just Baathists who want to keep power."
************************************************************

Than in Keokuk!:D

Derek, this phenomenon of pulling islamofanatics out of the woodwork is a good thing.

It directs them to an area where they may more effectively be dealth with, and it disempowers their backers by producing no results for the islamofanatics.:)

"Bring it on" may be a bit glib,
but it's not a bad response to the islamofanatics.:D

tyme
January 6, 2004, 09:39 AM
Journalists and hollywood are more of a "danger" than Al Qaeda. They've succeeded in turning most of the U.S. population into braindead couch potatoes who actually support politicians who vote for useless freedom-limiting legislation. I'm sick of seeing variations of the term "nuclear dirty bomb" in the media. "Nuclear" does not mean "radiocative".

Bill Hook
January 6, 2004, 11:34 AM
It wouldn't take a terrorist threat to get me to avoid NYC.

AZLibertarian
January 6, 2004, 04:49 PM
The headline in this article made me think back to that cult website that had that catchy back-music.....All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

Seems to me that we're the ones with all the bases now.

jimpeel
January 6, 2004, 06:24 PM
The response should be "And we will destroy Mecca within 36 days."

Mute
January 6, 2004, 07:14 PM
What's that? They're going to "set us up the bomb?" :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "“Al-Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days”" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!