FWIW:
An Al Qaida Internet site reported last week that terrorists are planning a major attack in the United States in the coming weeks.The Jan. 12 posting titled “A Large Operation in America, God Willing,” stated that the upcoming attack was imminent. Other participants chastised the writer for tipping Al Qaida’s hand.
Counterterrorism analysts said the threat could be real or Al Qaida deception designed to test U.S. security by announcing an planned attack and observing the level of increased security.
For those seeking more information, the author of the posting said they should be patient but assured forum members that “the lions have taken off and you will see [the proof] in the coming weeks.”
An image of the body of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi displayed at a news conference in Baghdad. Ali Haider/European Pressphoto Agency
“We ask God to guide the aim of the jihadists and to grant them success in the revenge campaign for Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi,” the message said.
Another discussant expressed doubts about the claim, noting that “to my knowledge, Al Qaida does not announce about any operation before it takes place. We are hopeful that the news from our brother (the poster) is true and that God will guide the aim of the mujahidin, grant them victory, and heal the (wounded) hearts of the believers."
One of the moderators of the forum cautioned other members about discussing the potentially sensitive information, noting “there is no gain in escalating this topic."
“It is not wise or deceitful to announce something before it takes place, because I fear that you will commit two dangerous mistakes: 1. Foiling the operation before it takes place as a result of the enemy's knowledge after your announcement. 2. I am concerned that you might be deceitful with this hasty announcement. God is all-wise and all-knowing. Please accept this advice from a brother who loves you for the sake of God."
In responding to doubts from forum members, the author stated that “the hint was given only to ensure that the matter does not get attributed to others when it occurs.”
“Should they succeed, you will hear news that will make your hearts jump with delight,” the message said, requesting that supporters publish “evidence” from Muslim scholars showing that “it is permissible to use weapons of mass destruction against the infidels, and to use human shields."
The posting included a religious edict from May 2003 written by Saudi cleric Nasir Hamad al-Fahd on the validity of using weapons of mass destruction against the infidels as well as human shields.
7 comments:
My only thought is "before the election?" . . .
It doesn't add up, but then again, math was never allahs strong point.
I don't like that "human shields" detail one little bit, but I agree the timing would be weird. At the very least I should think they would want to know who was running and what they wanted to accomplish. Besides chaos and apocalype, of course.
Ever since the disclosures about the Islamists at the Pentagon I've taken Walid Phare's speculative scenario more seriously than ever. His theory is that if they think the time is right they will hit with a multi-pronged "conventional" attack (planes in buildings or the equivalent, Beslan-style school attacks, cyber-sabotage, truck bombs hitting first responders, all the ususal niceties) and then use nuclear blackmail ("we have dirty bombs in your cities, they'll go off if you don't obey") to force us to withdraw militarily from the rest of the world. Do it or be forced to unleash WWIII, that sort of thing. But why do that now and tickle the sleeping dragon as they'd say at Hogwarts? Of course, they were apparently planning to bomb 4 subway systems in Europe before they got caught. Do they really think we're already at the stage where we could be cowed by another attack?
Worse yet, are they right?
“the hint was given only to ensure that the matter does not get attributed to others when it occurs.”
Assuming the post was real and not a probe, remember that we have been warned of "lily-whites", islamists/jihadis who don't appear as such, with a profile so low it won't appear as a jihadi attack even after the fact. The note could be meant to assure that afterwards proper credit, if you will, is given to their obscene god so that neither politician nor journailst can deny it and any screams of inside job, this-close-to-an-election-I-question-the-timing, are immediately dispensed. (How many times has Al Qaeda taken credit for 9/11 and STILL we have the truthers).
I also do not subscribe fully to the idea that they have tied it in to the election cycle. Their thinking being more concerned with a probability of success rather than proximity to November. Their goal being the destruction of the West overall, not just the U.S., and establishing their global caliphate. If they can hit us closer to November they like it so much the better but they'll strike when they're ready instead of waiting and possibly have a plot foiled. We would (you'd think) be even more alert to such shenanigan's closer to the election.
It's also possible they may have a follow on attack planned. Hit us hard now, divide us even further (they must note the divisions even in the parties themselves already) and then go for the kill, so to speak.
But I don't think we're as divided as is portrayed. You have shriekers in New York and L.A. in the media and the politicians, but Mr. and Mrs. America are concerned with paying their bills, raising families safe and secure, and that's what binds us still despite efforts to portray otherwise. ANd if they think that we'd sit still when they come after us, our livelihoods, our children, then they have learned nothing from 9/11 or our history. That little piece of irrationality we Americans keep tamped way down is, for better or worse, truly terrifying in ways they can't imagine when unleashed in defense of our own (ok, gotta admit, read that somewhere else a long tie ago so I can't even remember who to credit, but there, paraphrased, it is). Whether you agree with Iraq or not, you must admit we have been rather restrained since 9/11 when you consider things like Antietam, Gettysburg, Dresden, Verdun, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. We can visit horrors on them they've neevr dreamed of.
Can we be cowed by another attack? Maybe, especially if we let the media and shriekers TELL us how we should feel. But more likely, those poor misguided pitifully politically incorrect souls in places like Kansas and Nebraska and Texas and Oklahoma and my own Pa. Dutch Country (where G-D goes to get away from it all) are more likely to finally say enough! Thus far and no farther. And heaven only knows what will be on the tip of the spear we finally drive into the ground.
If we were ever to lose this war, it would be because we chose to do so. Our military might is so amazing that when compared to any other army on Earth we are like an army of invading aliens.
Excellent analysis, Anonymous, and I hope you are right about that little piece of irrationality. I know it lives in me and I do not care what we have to do to them to stop them. As bluerose says, we have the military might to do so. But the window is closing as these savages come closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. If they unleash another 9/11 on us, and it results in more division and bickering and a half-assed response it will have had the result they want. Which is why I'm uneasy about the "human shield" element and possible "lily white" diversion tactics. If they force us to kill our own people to stop them they will play the moral equivalency card for all it is worth. Something has to enable us to break through the PC shield and mobilize the people. I work in a bookstore, part of a major chain. The next morning I could be directing customers to Phares, Emerson, Spencer, Bolton, Phillips, Williams, etc. until we run out, and give them a list of websites to go with it. Know what would happen? My manager would haul me into his office and threaten to fire me for engaging in "political discussion" with the customers. I need to be able to tell him that this is war and to go to hell and make it stick. Short of conditions of declared war, how do I do that?
RRA - subtly.
For democracies, winning a war will ALWAY BE A NEAR RUN THING
It just can't come out any other way.
Put the books on aisle end.
Put Zinn on the bottom shelf, in teh section with Harry Turtledove ;)
Exactly, Bluerose. When we started in Iraq I could see th case for it but thought we should contiue with more aggressive containment since we still had unfinished business in Afghanistan. Once in, however, I support the effort and troops wholly. But within 30 days we already had nitwits screaming "quagmire" "Vietnam" etc. The only comparison to Vietnam is the screaming nitwits. probably the SAME ones, trying to reclaim their youth, relive their glory days. And dividing us as we were then. And then forcing us to fight this war with "our hands tied around our balls". Geez, we need a Sherman now. They don't get that we are in the early rounds of a fight for our very survival.
EPA's right, RRA, subtly. In my hole in the cube farm I have hanging quites by Churchill, Fallaci and such. On breaks I'll read books by such without trying to hide the titles. The messagequietly gets out without me saying anything. But if asked why then they've opened the door for my opinions. Walkout to have smoke and greet my friends as Fellow Infidels. Others hear it. The message gets out. Discuss topics on the news and gently steer the conversation toward this "hey, I saw where. . ." etc.
It's a stroll on thin ice to be sure.
I read early into this thing somewhere (Hamid Mir, maybe?) that AQ and OBL's tactics would be to divide and conquer us. This was pre-Iraq. From above it may look that way. ANd in some ways it is. But down at dirt level, if you see the nad guys strolling down the road trying to take your neighbor's wife or son or daughter, REGARDLESS of how you feel about that person I doubt many wold just stand and watch it happen. I hope I'm right.
Let's put all the jihadis in the woods of Pennsylvania on opening day of buck season with antlers tied to their heads. . .
Post a Comment