New Al Qaeda Leader Planning Attack Against U.S. ?

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Sonkakee
And there lies our BIGGEST problem. Our diplomacy. The fabric of peace and war alike. Once it starts, it never ends... The United States is the centerfold of the world today. Being diplomatic has a great responsibility; from negotiating peace to ending a war. Terrorist are just the opposite; they'd like to throw us a monkey wrench, just to see us react to it. But what are they really fighting for, I bet they don't even know ... Supremacy? Hardly. Destruction? Absolutely. As long as there is a fight to be fought, there will always be a war to be won....

True, even the presence of a foreign nation, no matter who it is, will stir up resentment among some people...even if it doesn't lead to an extreme like acts of terrorism. But with my previous statement I was referring moreso to the United State's ability to use its power to obtain what it wants...even if that means invading a country or overthrowing a democratic government to replace it with one (not always democratic, to my knowledge) that is more friendly to the United States politically, economically, etc. Acts such as The Bay of Pigs, The Bay of Tonkin, and the Iran-Contra Affair show that the United States doesn't always play nice to get what it wants. I'm not saying that the US is bad or anything, just that it will abuse the power it has when the people leading the country feel the need to. And acts like that will lead to a lot of resentment in the parts of the world that they happen...especially a part like the Middle East where tensions in the area have a history of being rather high.

[LoneStar]

Its at times like this im glad to be British.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Nuka

Humanity needs it *shrugs* That's probably not the best explanation, but I'm quite tired today, forgive my poor skills.

I'm sorry, but to say humanity needs war is in of itself in humane. Every life on earth has significance, to say it's necessary that these lives be taken to make room for others is just wrong. War is horrendous; people, usually young men, are horribly disfigured, have limbs ripped off, skin burned off, their body torn apart, and die in ways that just aren't comphrehendable. It'll be a cold day in Hell when I shrug off war as anything but barbaric, cruel, and something that needs to be avoided through any possible means known to man; when all those means have been exhausted, and every single attempt has been made to avoid it (and thus, it's unavoidable to go to war), even then neither science nor history nor religion can add an ounce of good to it because of "Overpopulation". I cannot look at humanity as a bush that needs periodic pruning to survive, because I look at every individual instead of the humans species as a whole; that may be idealistic or misinformed, but given the choice, I'd rather live in my ignorance than accept war as something humanity needs.

[Only-now]

I am not going to type a long post, but I can say a few things.

War IS more complex than it seems, so you CAN look at it on different levels. There is the horrendous, reality of it, there is the political essence, the natural one, the emotional level etc. Nuka and your views are not opposing one, they are just different levels of the same "object" .

Secondly, just a word thing to clear up. Iraq has nothing to do with this thread because the terrorists were attacking us LONG before we went to Iraq. So, being there has nothing to do with it (not to mention the Iraqi people DO want us there), and secondly, it wasn't Iraqis who attacked us in any instance here. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and that article mentioned no one other than Pakistani terrorists.

Just some things I wanted to point out.

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

Thanks for the clear up Kiva.

And Pnt, as I stated before, I hate war as much as you do, I don't agree with it nor like it. But if you deny that it is neccasary, then you are living in ignorance (no offense). I mean,s ure we don't want war, but it's an evil that we have to live with, just like disease. We'll never be able to get rid of all disease nor war.

*sigh* That's all I have to say really =/

[Muruwa]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know the religious justification terrorists use? I had been taught that the Muslim religion was suppose to be one of peace (I never went too into depth with it, it was just a 7th grade history class XD ). I can't imagine what you would have to do to convince yourself that killing yourself while killing others would be a good thing...

[W-Eyed-Wanderer]

First of all Iraq has a lot to do with this whole topic...without 9/11 Bush wouldn't have had ANY justification to start his onslaught on Saddam (let's face it, 'war' is hardly the word). It's obvious they couldn't care less about the population - their early troop policy of killing anything that moved proves that - it was all about a political show of force, with some oil reserves thrown in for good measure. (By the way, I don't blame any of the troops in any of this, it's not their fault they're out there and we must support them now that they are).

As for the war debate it can be exampled fairly simply...think of a playground. Children of about 7 are mankind in its most basic form, old enough to know what they're doing, but still not connected with the trappings of adult life. (Incidentally, they still rank slightly higher than Bush on the sense-o-meter). In an environment such as that we see that some kids will be bigger and stronger, and take advantage of that. Some kids will form rivalries, or simply not get on, and start fights because of this...but the majority of kids will just stand at the side; sit on the fence and generally watch whats going on safe in the knowledge it isn't happening to them.

Exactly the same rules apply in an adult context, such as the politics of independent nations. They like to make their own justifications to themselves but essentially they're playing classroom games in adult shoes.

Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. It's only because it's affecting the USA and the fact we have such a media driven culture here in 'the West' that everyone's kicking up such a fuss about it. Plus why is it always Al Qaeda? Why does nobody ever mention the many other terrorist groups currently posing a threat to the world's population? Groups like Hamas, ETA and the Real IRA are just as dangerous...potentially more so, as they're actually carrying out attacks instead of just threatening to.

Anyway, sleep tight everybody!
:-)

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by LoneStar
Its at times like this im glad to be British.

You guys definetly aren't safe from terrorist threats, either. There were those subway bombings, not too long ago...

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
It's obvious they couldn't care less about the population - their early troop policy of killing anything that moved proves that -:-)

There was a policy like that? Where did you hear this? Also, though it connects to our invasion over there, probably about 75% or more of the civilian casualties resulted from insurgent bombings than US forces... Of course, it's still unjustified, and we're responsible for the consequences of removing a political power over there, but it's not entirely our fault for all of the civilian casualties. If there weren't the insurgents, the casualty count would be somewhere in the 5 digits or less.

[W-Eyed-Wanderer]

I heard it from interviews with soldiers relating to the orders they had been given. They admitted it was attributed to a fear of the unknown as in every house and behind every corner there could have been someone with an AK-47. As I stated I don't blame the soldiers for any of this, they're just following orders. That is, with the possible exception of the small minority who have been found to have been mistreating the Iraqi Prisoners of War, there can be no justification for that.

[Sombolia]

Originally posted by LoneStar
Its at times like this im glad to be British.

Heh, thanks for the support, there. I didn't see anyone in the thread about the London bombings go, "It's at times like these, I'm glad to be American."

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer

Terrorism has been around for thousands of years. It's only because it's affecting the USA and the fact we have such a media driven culture here in 'the West' that everyone's kicking up such a fuss about it. Plus why is it always Al Qaeda? Why does nobody ever mention the many other terrorist groups currently posing a threat to the world's population? Groups like Hamas, ETA and the Real IRA are just as dangerous...potentially more so, as they're actually carrying out attacks instead of just threatening to.

The reason terrorism is such a big deal now in the media stemming from the attacks on America is because America was thought to be untouchable in her homeland. The last major terrorist events in America before 9-11 was the failed WTC bombings in 1993 and the Oklahoma Bombing...also the Atlanta Olympics one, too. Many countries also have ties with America. I don't think you can find a country as diversified as America.

And Al Qaeda is world wide. The others you mentioned are local terrorist groups, affecting mainly the places they are based. And, to my knowledge, the ETA stopped commiting terrorist acts several years ago.

[Whitewolf]

LOL I SAY SENT IN SARABI TO EAT THEM ALL WHOLE


Well it messy over there and i still think it only going get worst before it going get better...

[W-Eyed-Wanderer]

ETA are still carrying out quite regular attacks but I don't think people are hearing much about them because of all the media coverage given to Al Qaeda. The definition of local terrorists can be questioned as well, didn't all the 9/11 hijackers live and work in the US? If so, that would technically make theirs local attacks. But anyway enough of being pedantic...Al Qaeda incorporate more in the way of global issues but the principles remain the same, whether the people dying are American, Isreali, Iraqi or Spanish. I agree with the concept of putting a stop to these organisations, but the way the governments of both the US and UK are going about it appears to show questionable motives on their parts.

It does strike me as odd that the 9/11 attacks have worked so well in Bush's favour; many would argue that they are all that kept him in the presidency. All you ever hear these days are 'issues of national security' and 'in the interests of public safety' but really the mojority of the laws that have been forced through in the last 5 years serve little purpose other than to allow the state to keep tabs on your actions.

In no way do I endorse the actions they undertake but it seems to me that Al Qaeda is using its resources very well. Seeing as many experts doubt their ability to formulate a global attack strategy it seems their best form of attack is not physical, but mental. They are fully aware that the media is completely paranoid about another attack on the United States so if they release a new video every few months then they can keep the population and, more importantly, the government in that state of perpetual fear. They also have the upper hand in terms of location...if they were set in one place then America would blow them away but as they have many small cells across the Middle East they can give the impression that they are a huge global force, also helping with the fear factor. The greatest fear comes from an unknown danger...

Of course there's also the theory that the governments have deliberately created a media frenzy around the subject so they can get away with forcing through the aforementioned 'anti-terrorism' laws but that's a whole new debate...

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by W-Eyed-Wanderer
ETA are still carrying out quite regular attacks but I don't think people are hearing much about them because of all the media coverage given to Al Qaeda. The definition of local terrorists can be questioned as well, didn't all the 9/11 hijackers live and work in the US? If so, that would technically make theirs local attacks. But anyway enough of being pedantic...Al Qaeda incorporate more in the way of global issues but the principles remain the same, whether the people dying are American, Isreali, Iraqi or Spanish. I agree with the concept of putting a stop to these organisations, but the way the governments of both the US and UK are going about it appears to show questionable motives on their parts.

Hmm...seems you are right about the ETA. That situation is kinda frusterating for me as I am French, Spanish, and Basque. But what I meant by local is that a local terrorist group is like that of Hamas and the ETA, they affect only the region they're based and don't carry out attacks on a world wide level nor do they have a world wide presence. Al Qaeda is world wide, they have a world wide presence, thus they affect a larger amount of nationalities and countires on a more constant level. For example, people in Brazil aren't worried about the ETA or Hamas...but Al Qaeda can pose an actual threat to them because they do have a presence there.

The 9/11 hijackers may have resided in the United States, but to my knowledge, most, if not all were originally from a foreign country.

I am no fan of Bush, the Patriot Act, the recent spying thing, etc...but I doubt that he had anything to do with 9/11. Now the Bay of Tonkin Incident was a setup to persuade America to enter Vietnam, and there's evidence to support that claim...but I don't see 9/11 with that same strength of evidence. Sorry for going off on a tangent, I'm sure you weren't implying that 9/11 was possibly setup.

[unregistered user]

Well... I'm not sure if the 9/11 terrorist lived and worked in the U.S. or not, but I'm sure of one thing; they were the al-Qaeda network.

...in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaida's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted his direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."

The liberal media plays a huge role, Bush openly admitted that the media is so keen, that it has more gathered intelligence than the United States combined intelligence. The media doesn't exaggerate, it more or less exuberates itself to the fullest extent. It's the world's largest shared market in margin.

Now about eradicating the use of weapons of mass destruction. I think all nuclear States should adopt Japan's "Three Non-Nuclear Principles" pledge.

Originally posted by lion_roog
But with my previous statement I was referring moreso to the United State's ability to use its power to obtain what it wants.

The joyness of out-of-context-ness... But my bad, yes, our imperialistic, uh I mean our capitalistic/democratic venues....

Originally posted by LoneStar
Its at times like this im glad to be British.

I'm glad you're too, holla!

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Well... I'm not sure if the 9/11 terrorist lived and worked in the U.S. or not, but I'm sure of one thing; they were the al-Qaeda network.

They lived here. My friend's father built a house for one of them here in Tucson about 5 years before 9/11.

[unregistered user]

Those local terrorist groups ain't nothin' but a pie in the oven. The local government has the power to suppress 'em before they grow in actability. But why don't they?

Here's a fundamental fact: A lot of terrorist organizations are funded by governmental over-expenditures. The al-Qaeda network is funded by ex-Saudis and ex-Taliban officials. Al-Qaeda threats is something to take very likely, and it isn't because of media exposure, it's because of demonstrations like 9/11 and the London bombings that these people will stop at nothing to get their point across and it doesn't even matter who they kill in the process to get it done.

[Kovu The Lion]

Originally posted by Sombolia
Heh, thanks for the support, there. I didn't see anyone in the thread about the London bombings go, "It's at times like these, I'm glad to be American."

*Goes to bump that thread up and say that* Well, technically it makes me feel good to be an American at these times, for people and us will get through this, and when we do. (if we do which we probably will) It makes you feel, Good. :P *Points to his Proud to be American Siggy* Owned, IRL xD!! <333

But the 9/11 attacks (old stuff) I do belive was not residents of the US, I don't really see our own people doing something that big, but i can see some probably doing it... However I don't really like the fact that everyone targets the US for some reasons, I've heard Bush say "we are targeted because we are a beacon of light, a place for opportunity, etc" But I don't see why we should be attacked, just because we are a free country, and a place of possibilities, if other countries want what we have, they should try to work for it. Like the fathers of America did so long ago.


~KTL~

[W-Eyed-Wanderer]

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Al-Qaeda threats is something to take very likely, and it isn't because of media exposure, it's because of demonstrations like 9/11 and the London bombings that these people will stop at nothing to get their point across and it doesn't even matter who they kill in the process to get it done.

Ironically reminiscent of the political history of a country not a million miles away from this debate...


Still it's not America's fault they act that way really, the British had been doing it for centuries before them...and the Romans before them...it goes on.

Anyway back to topic: I'm sure even Americans will concede that they had grown complacent with their situation as the world's only superpower before the 9/11 attacks. Where opinions differ is on their reaction when they did get hit. It was a sharp wake-up call and, I must admit, I can understand their actions; but still feel it was a bit 'knee-jerk'. Flying in and blowing up the few towns and cities Afghanistan has was a misguided approach, in my opinion, especially seeing as they didn't even capture Osama Bin Laden. That's not even to mention the fact that they put the Taliban in there in the first place...funny how so few American mediators mention that really...

As to Osama and Al Qaeda claiming the attacks...They probably did orchestrate them but imagine you were a terrorist, and a huge attack like that was being attributed to you, you wouldn't exactly deny it would you...? A terrorist's claim is not always as it seems. The media has turned Al Qaeda into almost a second superpower at times...or at least they have implied a similar sense of danger. According to the politicians Al Qaeda are a well-organised, clinical and professional terrorist operation; when in all likelyhood before their fame, and most probably fortune, they were no more powerful in terms of numbers and resources than Hamas or ETA. With this considered, it is highly possible that the Western media has aided Al Qaeda much more than they have hindered them. They've turned Western society inside out, with people persecuting all Musims and fighting amongst themselves. Perfect. We've all been there before as well of course...'Reds under the beds' anyone?

[Juniper]

What I don't understand is how the US is always turned into the bad guy. Hell, people nowadays think these terrorists, who want them dead, are the victims in this story and the big bad US came in throwing its weight around. That is how sick the world has become, that when "People" (of which I strain to call them) kill innocent civilians in times of general peace are considered the victims and the people that defend themselves from such attack are considered the bad guys. I know a lot of people do it to look cool, because they're different, and I know a lot of people are mislead by the media, but for God's sake, is that what the world's coming to? We have people who go out and blow things up or burn things down because of some cartoons in a Danish newspaper and the world sympathizes with them? Seems like all intelligence has been lost, and the US is becoming the whipping boy of the world.