| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| New Al Qaida statement warns of major attack on U.S. | |
| 2004-02-05 | |
| From Drudge: Al Qaida has again warned of a major strike in the United States. I wish I had a nickle for everytime one of these knuckleheads pop up and starts to squawk about a "major strike", What happened to the big 2/2 hit we were threatened with? The Al Qaida warning was relayed via the Tajamu Reform Party of Yemen in a statement proposing terms of reconciliation with the government which has been under pressure to cooperate with the United States in the war on terrorism. "A major strike, a big event will take place in America soon," the statement said. Unless threats are all you have left, its time to put up or shut up In its statement, Al Qaida termed Sanaa as the second most cooperative partner in the U.S.-led war against the Islamic insurgency movement. The group said Pakistan was the chief ally of the United States. On Jan. 24, Yemen acknowledged that it cooperated with the United States in the assassination of Abu Sinan Ali Al-Harethi, the leading Al Qaida insurgent in Yemen, in December 2002, Middle East Newsline reported. Yemeni Vice President Abbed Rabbo Mansour said Yemen turned to the CIA for help in tracking and killing Al Harethi, who was targeted by a Predator unmanned air vehicle armed with an anti-tank missile. The Tajamu Reform Party has been regarded as an ally of Osama Bin Laden, whose family comes from Yemen. "The branch of the organization in Yemen promised the state – as a goodwill gesture – that the initiative will be favoured by Sheik Osama Bin Laden or one of the senior leaders of the global Al Qaida organization, through a communique or statement in which the subject will be referred implicitly or explicitly," a statement released by the so-called Yemeni branch of Al Qaida and published in Al Sahwanet, the mouthpiece of the Islamic-oriented opposition party, said. In its purported statement, Al Qaida offered to reconcile with Yemen. Bin Laden was said to have offered a deal to end attacks against Western interests in Yemen in exchange for allowing insurgents freedom of movement. Yemen has been under heavy U.S. and Saudi pressure to cooperate in operations against Al Qaida. Al Qaida, the statement said, wanted Yemen to allow Islamic insurgents to fight the United States and Israel in such countries as Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. Yemen, however, was said to have rejected the proposal. [In Kabul, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan predicted that Bin Laden would be captured in 2004. "Their day has ended and this year will decisively sound the death knell of their movements in Afghanistan," Lt. Gen. David Barno said during a ceremony on Tuesday.]
| |
| Posted by:JerseyMike |
| #19 I sent the President an email right after 9/11, and info'd a couple of friends in the Puzzle Palace. I said then that the only thing the Arab mentality understood was power. I urged him to call in the Arab heads of state, either one at a time or all together, and have a nice chat with them. The gist of that chat was "Either you cooperate with us to eliminate these nutjobs, or next time, I'm going to eliminate these 289 targets" - gesturing to a drape-covered map of the Middle East with every major city circled, as well as thirty or fourty key cultural and religious sites, including Mecca and Medina. I don't know if he read it, or if he ever considered it, but it's still good policy. As the Marines are fond of saying, "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow". I'm sure Al-Qeada and most of the Middle East is working very hard to see a Democrat elected to the White House. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-2-5 10:14:27 PM |
| #18 My seatbelt's still buckled from June, two years go. What ever happened to Sully? Haven't heard from him lately. |
| Posted by: Fred 2004-2-5 8:24:07 PM |
| #17 Al Queda only started calling their shots after they lost the ability to strike. Prior to 9/11 I don't recall any threats, they just attacked. Yeah there was a fatawa or two but no threats about specific attacks. They are trying to sew terror using words. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-2-5 3:51:57 PM |
| #16 "What happened to the big 2/2 hit we were threatened with?" Thankfully the Groundhog Society over in Pennsylvania was able to thwart the abduction attempt! |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-2-5 3:33:53 PM |
| #15 Ah ha then the Janet Jackson thing was really an ALQ operation!! God help me this is what the Dem Underground would say........Going for some sanity checks now... |
| Posted by: dataman1 2004-2-5 3:04:03 PM |
| #14 Didn't you guys see the Super Bowl? Al Q's attack came a day early. However, all they could do was destroy MTV's chance of producing a half-time show again. |
| Posted by: spiffo 2004-2-5 12:05:51 PM |
| #13 the US govt gives a very clear warning that any major attack with wmd on american soil would warrant a nuclear response on Tehran. I've always suspected we told the soddis after 9/11 very much the same thing. We know the aq mutts HAVE nerve agent (remember the doggy video?), and with the khan mutt coming clean we know there are plenty of programs up and running that aq had easy access to. I imagine if we had any dialogue with any iranian govt that wasn't crazy we'd make it clear to them, also. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-2-5 11:29:39 AM |
| #12 What happened to the big 2/2 hit we were threatened with? It was thwarted by our intelligence agencies. Remember the cancelled flights? A lack of something happening doesn't mean AQ isn't trying its damndest to kill a huge number of us. Empty threats, pshaw. |
| Posted by: gromky 2004-2-5 11:26:31 AM |
| #11 I'd laugh except for the virus hitting the Onions in vidalia land. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-2-5 11:14:11 AM |
| #10 Yes more empty threats - but we still cannot take it lightly. I would recommendt that the US govt gives a very clear warning that any major attack with wmd on american soil would warrant a nuclear response on Tehran. Iran supports these bastards, at least one of iran's governing powers - not our fault they cannot get their govt to act as one, and should pay the piper. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-2-5 11:10:19 AM |
| #9 Arthur King: What are you gonna do, bleed on me? Al Queda: I'm invincible! Arthur: You're a looney. Al Queda: Come back, or I'll bite your leg off. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-2-5 10:58:18 AM |
| #8 Personally, I'm completely desensitized to vaporware. The aq mutts mast be taking cues from microsoft's marketing dept. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-2-5 10:25:55 AM |
| #7 Every day I sit in my office in NYC waiting to be nuked, and it never happens. These al Qaeda guys are all chicken shiite. There's no more Rudy to deal with, but they still can't get to us. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-2-5 10:11:12 AM |
| #6 Al-Q better watch out. IBM has a trademark on the term 'Real Soon Now'. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-2-5 10:00:36 AM |
| #5 We probably have enough disaster threats from AlQ and 'unleash the gates of hell' treats from Hamas to have a "The Religion of Peace Calendar" with something on every day that isn't already an anniversary of a suicide bombing, massacre, etc. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-2-5 9:58:10 AM |
| #4 "Yeah, but this time we really, really mean it!" |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-2-5 9:51:07 AM |
| #3 "Yemen, however, was said to have rejected the proposal." 'We have noted the current situations of Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein, and have consulted our good friend Muammar Kadaffi, and while we find your proposal interesting, we must respectfully decline. We look forward to working with you in the future, however in the future we ask that you not send unsolicited proposals, but check our website for Requests for Proposals.' |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-2-5 9:34:56 AM |
| #2 Another "Doom By Day 'X'" passes and another promise of Doom By Day 'Y'" is announced. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-2-5 8:21:50 AM |
| #1 through a communique or statement in which the subject will be referred implicitly or explicitly The reference will very definitely be either implicit or explicit -- one of those two possibilities. |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-2-5 8:07:02 AM |