Thread: Warning of new bin Laden attack

Warning of new bin Laden attack

I do believe the haters of our freedom will attack us, hell this is SOP, get elected, have a "terrorist" attack, the saviors will be worshiped, and the new round of legislation begins.

That's an interesting article which I tend to agree with. On the other hand Mike I can't agree with your personal opinion since there is absolutely nothing in your source article to support your radical speculation.

Well it's going to be pretty damned hard for a dead man to do anything.

With any luck they'll hit the NYSE.

Originally Posted by Blueneck

With any luck they'll hit the NYSE.

There has been allot of talk about this, and I think something is going to give soon. I fear that a nuke maybe used. Just the other day the US gov tried selling a story that Russian nukes were stolen. Then you have all those pesky missing parts that were shipped from Minot to Asia. Shit, I wonder how many know that a silo here went up in flames the other day. This could get bad.

BTW, Russia told the US they lied.

Originally Posted by michaelr

There has been allot of talk about this, and I think something is going to give soon. I fear that a nuke maybe used. Just the other day the US gov tried selling a story that Russian nukes were stolen. Then you have all those pesky missing parts that were shipped from Minot to Asia. Shit, I wonder how many know that a silo here went up in flames the other day. This could get bad.

BTW, Russia told the US they lied.

Then again there haven't been any successful attempts by al Qaeda to attack CONUS targets since 911.

The price of peace is eternal vigilence and it looks like we've been doing a pretty good job so far.

Warnings from world leaders all within 72 hours

Right, warn of an attack and then carry it out?? Come on, were being played here.

Council on Foreign Relations president predicts coups, genocide and terrorism to test Obama

I am starting to think there will be no transition at all!

Originally Posted by Bourne

Then again there haven't been any successful attempts by al Qaeda to attack CONUS targets since 911.

The price of peace is eternal vigilence and it looks like we've been doing a pretty good job so far.

Well, yeah. Kinda. Maybe. There's definitely an interesting reality here somewhere, that's quite different from what we're being told. Of that much I'm certain.

I wonder about that vigilance thing. We don't seem to know what's going on right under our own noses sometimes. I personally, know about stuff that other people don't seem to know about, and so, that leads me to believe, that our intel ain't that great after all.

I don't know what it's like "today", but two years ago ("after" 9/11, dig?) I went through a part of the UK "under the radar screen", I didn't have to show ANYTHING, nor was I EVER stopped and asked ANYTHING. And I mean, let's just say, I didn't have my passport. "My" being the operative word there. I kid you not. So, "their" intel ain't that great either, it seems....

And so, now I'm hearing, that there's this newspaper guy in LONDON of all places, that seems to have had recent contact with Bin Laden. He seems to even know what was in directives that were issued six MONTHS ago, so this must have been going for some time.....

So now, we're hearing about this in an Australian newspaper. Why?

And meanwhile, here WE are, the United States of America that seems to be able spy on EVERY-f'in'-body, and we can't find Bin Laden. We have the BEST communications gear in the whole entire world, BAR NONE. No one else on the PLANET holds a candle to our gear. We got ACRES of satellite dishes listening to every single frequency in the EM spectrum, and we STILL can't find Bin Laden. And yet, this guy seems to be able to communicate with newspaper types in London. Hm. Interesting.

What's he using? Sat phone? Nah, we can listen to those. Internet? Nah, same. Cell phones? forgetaboutit.... Hm. Interesting.

Must be "personal" communications, yes? Someone's TRAVELING, is what's happening. Now you see why I'm saying what I'm saying, yes? Hm.

Now, I don't know what's REALLY going on. I have no f'in idea. But, I know it ain't what it seems. Think: if we were really SERIOUS about the war on terror, we wouldn't be doing things this way. All this "take off your shoes and put your baby bottles and liquids in the bag" stuff, this is Laurel and Hardy stuff. This is Three Stooges stuff. This is a comedy of insanity!!!

See, this is my personal experience of incongruity: when I fly on the straight and narrow, I'm asked to take off my shoes and dispose of my liquids. When I fly in the dark, no one checks nothin'. I swear to God. These guys smile, say, "I understand you're an American. Right this way, sir", and then they nod to the guy at the door, and next thing you know they've even got a cab waitin' for you. Dude, I am NOT kidding you. This happened to me less than two years ago. With me carryin' creds so phony that I'd probably be sittin' in Leavenworth right now (or even Guantanamo) if anyone had stopped me.

And I mean, you know, I had the BEST of reasons - I was too f'in stoned the night before and I couldn't find ANYTHING that morning, and so, I had to call someone to set me up. (And I can do that, bein' a rich and well connected rock star ) - PLUS, there was this little Indian girl chasin' me halfway across the planet, and I was tryin' very hard to AVOID her, and that was another part of it. But anyway, I wasn't no stinkin' terrorist, right?

Well now, so, it occurs to me, that if these guys were REALLY so "threatened" that they're actually worried about things like razor blades and liquids blowin' up and stuff like that, man, they would have a MUCH tighter blanket on things. I wouldn't have been ABLE to find a "tame port of entry". That shouldn't have been possible AT ALL if those guys were really serious.

And, it kinda leads me to question whether they ARE really serious (or, well, "were" at that time, I suppose).

See, 'cause, my further observation is this: part of my family is from Vancouver BC. I know DOZENS of places along the border, that I've been into and out of many hundreds of times, going back to like.... 1969? Maybe even before that? And I mean, they're still there, and when they find those there's probably half a dozen others I haven't visited in a while..... know what I'm sayin'? That border is WIDE open, there's no WAY they could stop anyone who wants to get across there. Between Detroit and Toronto at least they got cameras 'n stuff. Out here, they got NOTHING. Nada.

You know? And I mean, this whole thing, just doesn't make sense. I can't connect the dots. Bin Laden's part makes sense, but "our" part doesn't. We're doin' something "different" than what we're tellin' people we're doing. And whatever that is, it ISN'T for the purpose of inhibiting terrorism. If it WERE, our borders wouldn't be porous like they are, and Bushie wouldn't have been making a JOBS issue out of the illegal immigration thing.

This whole thing just STINKS. And I mean, stuff like this, these little "planted stories", they stink to HIGH HEAVEN.

Dude, word. Somethin' going on, but it ain't what we're being told.

From the OP link:

The warning, on the front page of an Arabic newspaper published in London, Al-Quds Al-Arabi - and widely reported in the major Italian papers - quotes a person described as being "very close to al-Qaeda" in Yemen.
The paper is edited by Abdel al-Bari Atwan, who is said to be the last journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in 1996.

Link: TIME Magazine Interview with Osama bin Laden, January 11, 1999.

Anyone else care to take a shot at picking this apart?