ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/21/2018 03:12 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  7.263 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/11/2008 10:08 AM ID: 74736 Permalink   

Al-Qaeda Will 'Outdo by Far' Attacks of 9/11

 

According to a report published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, a London based newspaper, Al-Qaeda head Osama Bin Laden has threatened the US with new terrorist attacks which will 'outdo by far' the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The newspaper report quotes sources allegedly close to the Al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen adding that it may hint future plans within the coming days

According to an Italian anti-terror official quoted in the Los Angeles Times, Bin Laden may be looking to test the new US Administration while it is still in its infancy.

 
  Source: www.presstv.com  
    WebReporter: Hugo Chavez Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  31 Comments
  
  This doesn't make any sense  
 
Wouldn't al-qaeda want to wait first and see what the new administration will do? Maybe pull out of Iraq and other Muslim countries?
I thought that was their goal from the beginning..

Like causing another terrorist attack will help their cause...
Either they are completely stupid or there is a bigger plot here.
 
  by: baraka     11/11/2008 11:28 AM     
  @baraka  
 
Causing another terrorist attack *will* help their cause. They wanted us there - it's very hard for terrorists to get to this country to do the damage they wish to inflict upon the "infidels" - why work that hard to get to them when you can make them come to you?

That's what Al Queda did on 9-11, they brought America to their footsteps just as they had intended. They want America to stay, they don't want America to leave. America prevents a Saddam Hussein from rising to power, who for all their faults, has an iron fist and keeps people in check. It's why Iraq was as stable as it was prior to George Bush's war. Saddam kept things in check.. we disrupted that, allowed these elements to invade their country that while under Saddam's rule could have never happened.

The terrorists love the situation just as it is.
 
  by: vash_the_stampede     11/11/2008 11:53 AM     
  So how do we gain the upper-hand?  
 
You know...the word Terrorist, it just manifests too many...fears. I say, we de-power these "terrorist" by calling them something else. Something with kittens, because no one is afraid of kittens. How would the headline have looked on September 10th
"Kittens attack World Trade Center"
We win.
 
  by: blac   11/11/2008 12:36 PM     
  Terroists  
 
are a bunch of pansies.

Seriously. Blowing themselves up, blowing other people up, getting others to do their dirty work.

A serious bunch of lazy wastes of sperm. I say bring it on, we'll take it on and take them down without needing to be in an endless war in Iraq.
 
  by: Jediman3     11/11/2008 02:45 PM     
  He thinks he doesn't even have to attack anymore  
 
He's threatened several times since 2001. I'm not saying he won't. In fact he may well be thinking of giving us a refresher course but he knows that when we're scared we do what he wants.

It's why he wanted McCain to win. He needs his enemy to engage him. He's going to have a serious recruitment problem getting new blood to fight the evil western infidel named Barak Hussein Obama (whom I voted for).

It is funny though that the far right was saying that if Obama won the election then Muslim's around the world would be dancing in the streets. They were right. But it wasn't the Muslim's they thought would be. I don't think that Obama is going to fight them on their level.
 
  by: VermiciousG     11/11/2008 02:49 PM     
  It will be like 911  
 
times a hundred. That's right -- ninety-one thousand, one hundred!
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     11/11/2008 05:49 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
 
What?!?!?

THAT'S OVER 9000!!! O_O
 
  by: Daev     11/11/2008 05:59 PM     
  @baraka  
 
By all accounts, the idea of al-Qaeda has beaten the US government. At least monetary wise.

Let me explain: Prior to 9/11, international terrorism and extremist Islam was actually in decline.

After 9/11 nothing really changed. That is until, the US invaded 2 Islamic nations. After that, there was a call to arms by Islamists around the world.

The US could have used Delta Force to capture or kill bin Laden. However, as reported just a few weeks ago, the Defense Department turned down those plans for some reason.

Instead, the US occupied the country without actually placing a heavy emphasis on capturing the ones that the US government was accusing of 9/11.

After this the US government then decided to invade another nation (Iraq) instead of capturing or killing bin Laden.

International terrorist groups everywhere started recruiting in record numbers as a result of these occupations, as well as receiving fresh funding and materials.

At the same time the US government started dumping trillions of dollars into these 2 wars.

Simultaneously the US government disbanded its team that was assigned to actually track down and find bin Laden.

So with what has happened you have to ask the following questions:

1) Why did the US government block all attempts at killing or capturing those responsible for 9/11?

2) Why hasnt the Justice Dept. even made any criminal charges whatsoever against a single person for 9/11?

3) Why occupy nations instead of go after those responsible for 9/11?

4) Why disband the groups assigned to track down those responsible for 9/11?

So instead of paying out maybe a handful of billion dollars to track down and bring to justice those responsible, the US govt. has spent trillions and now risk the possibility of financial collapse.

So that is why I would classify them as winning.

However with the questions I have posed, it appears that the only beneficiaries are large corporations.

If you follow the money trail, then you will find that corporations rather than terrorist groups or the government are the ultimate beneficiaries.

They now have access to oil fields once controlled by a despot, they now have no-bid military contracts for billions, they have contracts to build infrastructure projects for the occupied nations, etc.

Corporations, not terrorism is really who has won.
 
  by: slavefortheman     11/11/2008 06:27 PM     
  Terrorism Is Very Effective  
 
It is a tool that can be used by both a very small power or a very large one. The 911 attack was designed by a group with limited resources to strike out against a much larger perceived enemy. The response by the Bush administration was to use this attack to its political advantage. The attack on Iraq with "shock and awe" using the "Mother Of All Bombs" with a much superior military looks like it was designed to strike terror into the Iraq population.
Try this little mind exercise. If the United States was forcefully occupied by a foreign nation would you use any method available to you to strike at the occupiers?
I personally think that the Bush administration used and was used by the terrorists. I believe that the retaliation against the Al Quaeda in Afghanistan may have been necessary but I believe that the Iraq invasion was discretionary and damaging to us. Although it did keep Bush in power and gave him a platform to undermine what he called "just a Goddamn piece of paper".

Do not misconstrue this as advocating terrorism or violence. I personally believe that it is wrong and ultimately defeats its own purpose. The 911 attack supported the "violence begets violence" theory.
 
  by: ichi     11/11/2008 06:29 PM     
  Is Al-Qaeda real?  
 
is what I typed into google after reading this summary.

I only read a bit here and there in the search results... the best sentence was:

"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet"

...and yes, I do know that you can probably find anything you want to on the web.

But I did start wondering why nothing seemed to have happened after the Danish cartoons and found this:

http://www.prophetcartoons.com/...

..there is so much crap, from all sorts of view points from "reputable" sources out there. Hard to imagine what could have been achieved with all the resources that went into creating it.

@Daev: ???
 
  by: mousejunkie     11/11/2008 06:39 PM     
  Hopefully ..  
 
.. we will do something regarding this warning this time around. i mean who in their right mind can just write something like this off?"oh, this is nothing to worry about." Tell us once thousands more die. Take action. and i dont mean start a war.
 
  by: pineal420   11/11/2008 06:53 PM     
  real question here...  
 
ok so what do you all think we should do about this problem??
I ask this especially to democrats/liberals...
Lets say obama ends the wars, what do you do about the problem of al quieda??

I certainly hope you do nothing like clinton did and let al queida grow huge and plan attacks.

So whats the plan
 
  by: cray0la     11/11/2008 07:12 PM     
  What should have happened after 9/11  
 
10 Death row inmates (former armed forces) released, implanted with gps chips.
Each given full pardons granted they accomplish the task.
Left with a sniper rifle, a box of shells and a side arm with 2 magazines.
Mission: find and kill Bin Laden.

Sounds like it would make a good movie no?
 
  by: t0bbage   11/11/2008 07:30 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
I'll give that a try. First and foremost, we need to concentrate on preventing another 9/11-style attack. Protecting our innocent civilians must be our most important consideration.

I would then focus on using U.S. special forces to assault terrorist training camps. These are great targets because everybody you kill/capture is pretty much guaranteed to be a terrorist. You won't have the Defense Secretary having to apologize for civilian deaths; you won't have al Qaeda able to recruit new members simply because "they killed your family."

There are two big things we could do that I haven't seen much of. One is to disrupt their Internet operations -- we've done some of that, but we could do much more. That's been a huge thing for terrorists as far as recruiting, training and communicating ideas.

Secondly, we need to work on some of the most staunchly fundamentalist Islamic clerics to help us. The terrorists are thriving on their "struggle" being a religious one; if we could get some influencial imams to repeatedly undercut the terrorists' religous argument, that could really help dry up the recruiting well.

Finally, some gestures of goodwill could go a long way. For example, the U.S. could have done much more to help Pakistani earthquake victims recently. It couldn't hurt to give people in these regions fewer reasons to hate us.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     11/11/2008 07:37 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
Well obviously electing a Republican would fix everything. Ya know, Just like last time.
 
  by: VermiciousG     11/11/2008 07:38 PM     
  I hope...  
 
Obama thinks about if this; it sounds like some sort of stirring going on here, this just does not sound right to me!
 
  by: captainJane     11/11/2008 07:44 PM     
  @captainjane  
 
Your fears are justified; remember that al Qaeda attacked the U.S. shortly after Clinton was inaugurated and again shortly after Bush was inaugurated. Frankly, I'd be floored if they weren't planning another attack.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     11/11/2008 07:48 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
That is a very simple solution:

1) Recreate the teams that originally were tracking bin Laden since Bush had them disbanded for some reason.

2) After locating bin Laden, send in Delta Force to capture or kill him.

3) Bring up Charges for all those involved in 9/11 since for some reason the Justice Dept. refuses to charge anyone under Bush...

4) Start scaling back support for Israel and help build Palestine to a degree. Just enough to cut the Anti-US rhetoric.

5) Quickly pull troops out of Iraq.

6) Pull troops out of Afghanistan once bin Laden is captured or killed.

Of course all of the above except for the Israeli situation all involve the belief that bin Laden himself is alive at the moment. From all the evidence that has come forward, it is very difficult to believe he is still alive.

I personally think he has been dead since late december 2001 or january 2002. The person in the videos the last few times seems to actually be several different people. They went from a larger fatter Santa looking bin Laden to a dyed beard bin Laden...

The people who did those videos are just terrible...

For 1, bin Laden is left handed and the person in "Confession" video writes a note with his right hand. 2ndly bin Laden wears no jewelry since it is against Sharia law. 3rdly, the ear to nose ratio does not match on several of the videos meaning, the person in them can in no way be bin Laden!

But anyhow if chasing phantoms is the name of the game, I gave several suggestions on how to best deal with this situation.
 
  by: slavefortheman     11/11/2008 08:00 PM     
  @mousejunkie  
 
You need to brush up on your internet pop culture:

http://ca.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Daev     11/11/2008 08:37 PM     
  @Cray0la  
 
When you were young, did you spend a lot of time beating hornet nests with a stick?
 
  by: valkyrie123     11/11/2008 08:45 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
Lets sell them weapons and train them in guerrilla warfare!
 
  by: Ub3rTristan   11/11/2008 09:06 PM     
  @valk  
 
snort!
 
  by: VermiciousG     11/11/2008 09:07 PM     
  watching the chess pieces...  
 
I'd like to see the real source of that threat. Osama hasn't been spotted in a long time - unless you want to count the 'fakes/ringers' on the media a year ago.

One nutcase from Tennessee doesn't constitute a civil war. One overblown quote from a mouthy militia cheif doesn't constitute 'Al-Qaeda' armageddon.

I thought we'd gotten over that orange-alert bulls**t.

Kim Jong Il: "It will be 9/11 times 2,356." - (Team America)
 
  by: redstain   11/11/2008 11:43 PM     
  I hope he can see through this!  
 
This has to be some insane meddling going on here, from who? Maybe the same people that took us all to war?
The very same people that gave us the all the miss-information, like the weapons of mass destruction that could destroy us all?
They were never found, strange that, don’t you think?

And as for these people who are dying for the course, like the thirteen year old or the two mentally ill sisters in the market, a while back now, it was said that the latter were not aware of carrying the bombs, so what about the kid?

As for Bin Laden I think he has either disappeared into life (a complete unknown now) or he is dead.

Others have their role in keeping these parties going, and I would like to know just who these people are? You can bet money is their game, and this is deeper than we are all getting here, the never ending bottomless pit comes to mind now.

 
  by: captainJane     11/12/2008 02:17 AM     
  i asked a serious question  
 
and i get alot of dumb attack remarks.

how mature of you all.

only ones that made a actual attempt to answer was slave and ben

i think langlais your ideas fit best, seems more and more we are agreeing on certain issues, like the energy issue and this.

slave, i just cannot see pulling quickly out of iraq of making it a better place, it has to be phased and planned correctly
 
  by: cray0la     11/12/2008 02:35 AM     
  @cray0la  
 
Ya know what? Maybe it's your tone. When you ask a question with that accusatory superior tone your going to get that kind of response.

Hell, I didn't even think that you wanted a real answer. I thought it rhetorical.
 
  by: VermiciousG     11/12/2008 04:10 PM     
  @cray0la  
 
But you see my point. My suggestions were valid ones. However under Bush, all effort to locate and stop bin Laden has been met with a brick wall. I am unsure why this is so since he is supposedly responsible for so much death.

It is as if the admin has something to hide. Why not prosecute bin Laden under the federal Rico statutes like they did for the embassy bombings? Why not authorize delta force to get him? Instead they ordered delta force to let him go. Why disband the teams within the FBI assigned with locating bin Laden?

All of these things lead me to believe that good ole "Tim Ozzman" aka Ossama bin Laden is still a CIA asset. Why else would the CIA have visited him in the weeks leading to 9/11...
 
  by: slavefortheman     11/12/2008 04:32 PM     
  So the consensus is: Al Qaeda is real...  
 
...without any doubt.

@Daev: yes I probaly do... I've reached the age where people say "Have you heard...?" and I go "Who...what?". The video is unfortunately not available in my country.
 
  by: mousejunkie     11/12/2008 06:41 PM     
  SOME MISSING DATA  
 
US cannot really support Palestinians, the jews wont allow it!

If you analyze where the money comes from to fund wars then look no further than the jews. They control the money within the US Govt. They are the US Govt. See how many wear yamulkas!
The other thing to note is that war for the US is the whole economy, without it unemployment would be high. The steel industry, weapons factories would have to lay off staff and sales would decline. Economically then it is imperative that the US is engaged in war somewhere in the world in order to financially survive.

Next, look at all the Despots that have got up the nose of the US in the past and even the present. Ghadaffi, PolPot, Aytotollah Koemini, The latest lil Hitler with a name that sounds like a large bottle of wine ( Dimmajohn) Bin Laden, Kim Jon Il . Now given that holywood paints such a techological ability of agencies like CIA and FBI and Delta Force. Non of these agencies have ever succeeded in bringing down any of these agitators.
Doesn't it make you wonder, how one man with a 22 rifle and a sidearm controlled so many renegade tribes in Iraq. Yet the mighty USA is powerless despite all its bombs, ground soldiers and super weapons. It doesn't want to catch these villians, because it is financially damaging to the warmongering economy Rumsfeld and co stands to gain by having the US in a war. Even in his retirement he is making millions from Iraq Afghanistan and wherever else US troops are based.
Lets all hope that Obama has the balls to put a stop to all this thievery in the name of democrasy and really bring genuine change
 
  by: nettiser   11/14/2008 10:44 AM     
  @nettiser  
 
I'm all about free speech but it's my understanding that shortnews frowns upon hate speech.

There dozens of anti-semite, conspiracy nut websites that would welcome with open arms your contribution.
 
  by: VermiciousG     11/14/2008 02:17 PM     
  @nettiser  
 
I would not say Pol Pot was an enemy of the US. He wouldnt have been able to take advantage of obtaining funds and weapons from the CIA if he were an enemy.

"it is imperative that the US is engaged in war somewhere in the world in order to financially survive."

That is the same logic used under Hitlers regime. If they did not wage war, the economy would collapse because that is all it was geared towards.

Those dollars invested in the military could be directed into other industries. This is what Britain, France, even Germany did after the war. Instead of putting massive amounts of money into the military, they create social services. IE: Health systems, schools, energy plats, etc. Basically rerouting from one area to another. As a result, France now has the best health care in the world and some of the top schools and energy systems in the world.

I will agree with you in part that a good portion of US tax payers dollars go to pay the Israeli war machine though. I do whole heartily agree on the part of the US not wanting to end the wars. The US loves war. It thrives on war and you are correct in this manner that the US will not want to stop fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Especially when oil or natural gas is concerned.
 
  by: slavefortheman     11/14/2008 02:31 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com