Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: do you remember this guy!

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bin Laden Is Said to Be Organizing for a U.S. Attack
    By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID STOUT

    ASHINGTON, July 8 - Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenants, operating from hideouts suspected to be along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, are directing a Qaeda effort to launch an attack in the United States sometime this year, senior Bush administration officials said on Thursday.

    "What we know about this most recent information is that it is being directed from the seniormost levels of the Al Qaeda organization," said a senior official at a briefing for reporters. He added, "We know that this leadership continues to operate along the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan."

    Counterterrorism officials have said for weeks that they are increasingly worried by a continuing stream of intelligence suggesting that Al Qaeda wanted to carry out a significant terror attack on United States soil this year. But until the comments of the senior administration officials on Thursday, it was not clear that Mr. bin Laden and top deputies like Ayman Zawahiri were responsible for the concern.

    Another senior administration official said on Thursday that the intelligence reports - apparently drawn partly from interviews with captured Qaeda members and partly from other intelligence - referred to efforts "to inflict catastrophic effects" before the election.

    This official said that the reports did not refer specifically to Mr. bin Laden's instructions or desires, but did make clear that instructions were coming from Qaeda leaders. "It sounds like a corporate effort," the official said.

    The new information about Al Qaeda came as Congressional Republicans barely managed to block an effort by Democrats to ban the government from demanding records from libraries and book sellers in some terrorism investigations. Although the Democrats' effort failed by a single vote, it reflected the deep divisions over President Bush's signature antiterrorism legislation, the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which allowed the government access to such records.

    In discussing the latest threat information, one of the officials said the intelligence was "cryptic," about both timing and location. There is a widespread assumption in the intelligence community that past targets - New York, Washington, the Los Angeles airport - all still have symbolic value to Al Qaeda. There is no specific reference to the coming political conventions, the official said, but that remains an immediate focus of concern.

    Mr. bin Laden's precise role remains somewhat uncertain. It does not appear that he is trying to take an active leadership role in formulating a specific plan, as he did in preparations for the September 2001 attacks, an administration official said. There is evidence, the official said, that he is able to communicate with his followers, urging them to carry out operations in the name of the terror network.

    In the past, Mr. bin Laden has used a variety of methods to carry his messages, and he is acutely aware of American efforts to monitor his conversations. He has used couriers to carry private instructions and issued public statements that contained threats and exhortations. In addition, his followers have used cellphones and computer messages to disseminate his directives.

    At a news conference on Thursday, Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, said the intelligence about Al Qaeda's intentions was credible, even if it lacked specifics. He said that the chances of heading off an attack were better than ever, and that there was no reason to raise the terrorist threat level for now.

    Mr. Ridge said reliable information pointed to an attack in which terrorists would try to "disrupt our democratic process," suggesting an attack designed to disrupt the national political conventions or the elections in November. He added that extra protective measures would be in place at the conventions, even though there was no specific indication that they were targets.

    "We lack precise knowledge about time, place and method of attack, but along with the C.I.A., F.B.I. and other agencies, we are actively working to gain that knowledge," Mr. Ridge said. But several other officials said there were "strong indications" that Al Qaeda might strike at targets it had attacked before, "including those that they were able to attack, as well as those that they were unable to attack."

    That suggested possible targets would include New York and the Los Angeles airport, which was a target in a millennium-related plot that was foiled by the authorities in December 1999.

    Mr. Ridge brushed aside any suggestion that the administration was trying to create a widespread sense of unease that might work to President Bush's advantage less than four months before the election.

    "It's a wrong interpretation," he said. "We are basically laying out before the general public the kind of information that we're received." And despite the dearth of hard, specific intelligence, Mr. Ridge said, "These are not conjectures or statements we are making, these are pieces of information that we can trace comfortably to sources that we deem to be credible."

    Mr. Ridge said he and others in the intelligence field were evaluating information daily, that security had been enhanced at every level in recent months, and that he would personally inspect the sites of the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, where the Secret Service will be the lead agency overseeing security measures. (The Democratic National Convention will be held in Boston at the Fleet Center from July 26 to 29. The Republican National Convention will be held in New York at Madison Square Garden from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2.)

    In New York, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said that the city had long ago heightened security, first after 9/11 and again with the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

    "The notion that terrorists may attack during convention has been part of our planning from the very beginning," Mr. Kelly said in a televised briefing. "Nothing in today's announcement from Homeland Security causes us to change our posture."

    Mr. Ridge declined to discuss in detail what circumstance might cause the administration to raise the country's color-coded terror alert level from its current yellow, which indicates a heightened threat, to orange, which would warn of an imminent threat of attack. "We wouldn't want to necessarily broadcast to the terrorists what it would take for us to raise it to orange," he said. "But we know internally that there are a couple of tripwires that might cause us to pull everybody together to begin that whole process."

    Before his public briefing for reporters, Mr. Ridge and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, privately briefed senators. Afterward, Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader, said he had heard no startling information in the closed session.

    "The essence of the briefing is that during this period of elections, this campaign season, that there is increased risk of a terrorist attack in the United States of America," Mr. Frist said. "The nature of that risk is very nonspecific."

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    I though bush would hold everyone who harbors terrorists accountable!
    what an absolute joke!
    this guy murdered 3000 people..we know what region he's in...why weren't there 100,000 troops searching door to door for him in that border region!!

    NO..BUSH had to attack iraq...
    what a joke...The families of the 9-11 victims should be outraged...Bin Laden himself is said to be planning this next attack!

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 11:21 AM
    [b] I though bush would hold everyone who harbors terrorists accountable!
    what an absolute joke!
    this guy murdered 3000 people..we know what region he's in...why weren't there 100,000 troops searching door to door for him in that border region!!

    NO..BUSH had to attack iraq...
    what a joke...The families of the 9-11 victims should be outraged...Bin Laden himself is said to be planning this next attack! [/b][/quote]
    bman, they CAN'T go into Pakistan or Iran. What is your solution?

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    5,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    so then Bush is a liar?
    I thought he said that he would hold any nation harboring terrorists accountable?

    why can't we go into the tribal region where bin laden is? do you really think pakistan will attack us? so we piss off 1 million pakistanis...so what? we pissed off 1 billion muslims by killing 30,000 innocent iraquis for no reason....at least we have a reason to go capture bin laden.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 11:28 AM
    [b] so then Bush is a liar?
    I thought he said that he would hold any nation harboring terrorists accountable?

    why can't we go into the tribal region where bin laden is? do you really think pakistan will attack us? so we piss off 1 million pakistanis...so what? we pissed off 1 billion muslims by killing 30,000 innocent iraquis for no reason....at least we have a reason to go capture bin laden. [/b][/quote]
    Mushareff is not hosting Bin Laden like Saddam was hosting Zarqawi or like Iran is now harboring Bin Laden's kid and other AlQeada.

    Those tribal regions are not run by Mushareff and you know that. I wish Mushareff would allow a U.S. attack there but I don't know all the diplomatic reasons as to why he won't allow it. However I'm sure a small number of some special forces and CIA are operating there with the approval of Mushareff

    If you say Bush should attack Iran then you'd have a point.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    i got news for you Pope the tribal regions of Pakistan AS WELL as the tribal regions of afghanistan are contolled by no one... We did a s**t-ass job in Afghanistan, and before it was even close to being done we moved on to a much larger job in Iraq... one that was far LESS relevant from the perspective of actual, real national security... ps the pakistanis are our ALLIES just like the Saudis - with Allies like these who needs enemies.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Isn't this the same clown who was pissing and moaning yesterday that the administration put out a terror alert after pissing and moaning the day before that because the President did not jump up and run around like his hair was on fire in a class full of kindergaden kids after finding out the second plane hit the WTC???

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 12:58 PM
    [b] i got news for you Pope the tribal regions of Pakistan AS WELL as the tribal regions of afghanistan are contolled by no one... We did a s**t-ass job in Afghanistan, and before it was even close to being done we moved on to a much larger job in Iraq... one that was far LESS relevant from the perspective of actual, real national security... ps the pakistanis are our ALLIES just like the Saudis - with Allies like these who needs enemies. [/b][/quote]
    Bit, you can say there were faults in Afganistan and I completely agree, especially that ridiculous 24 cease fire in Tora Bora when they had Bin Laden but before the Iraq war began Bin Laden & Al Qeada were already in Pakistan and Iran. A

    I don't understand putting 100,000 American troops along a border they can't cross. What exactly would be the point?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    we can do whatever we want on that border - Pakistan is one our closest Allies, and a nuclear power -

    my point is that we didn't finish up with Afghanistan before we went onto Iraq - a terrible mistake that guys like pat tillman learned the hard way

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 02:24 PM
    [b] we can do whatever we want on that border - Pakistan is one our closest Allies, and a nuclear power -

    my point is that we didn't finish up with Afghanistan before we went onto Iraq - a terrible mistake that guys like pat tillman learned the hard way [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti - c'mon now, dude. If we had "finished up" in Afghanistan, that would have likely meant more troops and more casualties there. You know that. Your Tillman line is a cheap shot....

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 02:24 PM
    [b] we can do whatever we want on that border - [/b][/quote]
    Now that's just plain silly talk bit, c'mon you're better that..

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    5ever if Bush and Cheney paid as much attention to Afghanistan as they did to Iraq, men like Tillman would be alive. We finished with active warfare and basically opted out of nation-building - i disagree that casualties would have been higher - for example Iraq's army went home with their guns and started resistance - Afghanistan had no army to speak of and considerably less guns. It would have been tough but well within our capabilities to work that country in to some sort of shape - why was Iraq a higher priority? especially now that it comes out that OBL is getting stronger and still in charge in Afghanistan/Pakistan border?

    to answer my own question, Iraq has the world second largest Oil supply, perhaps that had something to do with why we really went to war?

    i think it's hilarious how everyone wants to take these indefensible positions about links to Al_Queda and WMD and all this ridiculous nonsense - one wild-ass theory gets disproven people take up another wild ass theory - haven't you all ever heard of Ocham's Razor?

    the simplest answer is usually the correct one

    Bush is an oil man

    Iraq has more oil then every other country but Saudi Arabia

    do that math and get back to me :ph34r:

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Tillman would be alive[/b][/quote]
    So Tillman's death is Bush's fault??

    [quote][b]Bush is an oil man

    Iraq has more oil then every other country but Saudi Arabia

    do that math and get back to me[/b][/quote]

    If that were true, then gas prices would go down not up

    [quote][b]Afghanistan had no army to speak of and considerably less guns. It would have been tough but well within our capabilities to work that country in to some sort of shape [/b][/quote]

    Look at the size of the country and how many thousands of caves in the mountains.

    Your theory is ridiculous.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ugh, this gets tiresome, it really does. The word "oil" is all the proof you ever need to believe in any wild conspiracy theory, yet the idea that Saddam was a threat or supported terror or had WMD is "indefensible" or "wild-eyed?" Now OBL is 'stronger' and Afghanistan could be in "some sort of shape" if only we had "paid more attention" to it? Wow, trenchent.

  15. #15
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]If that were true, then gas prices would go down not up
    [/b][/quote]

    Oil is not based on supply and demand. The price is determined by OPEC and market speculation. Besides, we havn't secured the oil fields yet. First we have to hand over billions in contracts to Halliburton to rebuild the infrastructure.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    10,475
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 03:31 PM
    [b] Oil is not based on supply and demand. The price is determined by OPEC and market speculation. [/b][/quote]
    Exactly, and if we were taking over the Oil supply, then Opec speculation would be a price reduction in America.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    jetman since when are corporations interested in passing off the savings to the consumer?

    section105 is right we haven't got the oil yet, the infrastructure isn't there and the foreign investors are scared... but the point is that 10-15 years from now when China is booming and Russia is booming and everyone wants oil, the US will have first dibs on that Iraqi crude - the price of oil will never fall again... but that doesn't mean that oil companies will stop making tons and tons of money.

    as for Pat Tillman in the sense that we started something that we didn't finish in Afghanistan, Bush is responsible for his death... also in the sense that he sent hundreds of men to their death in Iraq and Afghanistan, in situations that were not ESSENTIAL for national security - all of their casualties are on Bush's head.

    this works both ways - the guys in black hawk down were on Clinton's head... the guys who got butchered in the jungles of Nam were on LBJ's head

    it's easy to blame "the enemy" but lets be real, unless there are tanks rolling down flatbush avenue all of these wars are wars for US agenda, US power but NOT for US national security. Our nation is secure against conventional threats - against terrorists not so much, but fighting unending wars 6000 miles from home ain't exactly the most efficient or intelligent way to fight terror.

    ---

    5ever you throw about words like trenchant and behooved like anyone gives a s**t ;) look at the facts buddy - Bush is an oil man, Iraq has more oil than every country than Saudi arabia - i want you to honestly tell me that's some sort of coincidence? Please explain to me how we just "happened" to take over the world's second largest oil supply while we were "making the world safer" - there's a hundred banana republics more "dangerous" than Iraq, you know it and I know it, the only difference between them and Iraq is the billions of barrels of oil underneath that country - if you choose to ignore the most basic FACTS of the argument time and time again, that's your business, however please don't use 100 dollar words to dismiss opinions you don't believe in this is a football board not the tiger's club :D

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jetman67+Jul 9 2004, 03:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jetman67 @ Jul 9 2004, 03:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Section109Row15[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 03:31 PM
    [b] Oil is not based on supply and demand. The price is determined by OPEC and market speculation. [/b][/quote]
    Exactly, and if we were taking over the Oil supply, then Opec speculation would be a price reduction in America. [/b][/quote]
    jetman as long as foreigners are getting beheaded no one is going to want to invest the billions it will take to get Iraq running as smoothly as Saudi...

    as things settle down we will get there... but remember the world&#39;s oil demand is increasing exponentially - there used to be a time when people in China/Russia/India didn&#39;t want/afford cars - those days are gone, mark my words oil will NEVER be as cheap as it was again, regardless of improvements in supply.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 03:31 PM
    [b] [quote][b]If that were true, then gas prices would go down not up
    [/b][/quote]

    Oil is not based on supply and demand. The price is determined by OPEC and market speculation. Besides, we havn&#39;t secured the oil fields yet. First we have to hand over billions in contracts to Halliburton to rebuild the infrastructure. [/b][/quote]
    Of course it is based on supply and demand. Even cartels cannot simply charge what they want without losing money. There are other factors, but to dismiss S&D entirely is foolish.

    Section - if Halliburton is performing a service (and a dangerous one at that) why do you characterize their remuneration as us "handing" them money? What other firm has the expertise?


    Bitonti - firms pass savings on to consumers or else they go out of business. You may not think what they pass is &#39;fair&#39; but emotion has little place in economics. The market will decide if it is fair or not by their reaction to prices. We are not victims.

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jul 9 2004, 04:09 PM
    [b] Bitonti - firms pass savings on to consumers or else they go out of business. You may not think what they pass is &#39;fair&#39; but emotion has little place in economics. The market will decide if it is fair or not by their reaction to prices. We are not victims. [/b][/quote]
    sometimes they do sometimes they don&#39;t

    when the music industry switched from vinyl to CDs it raised the unit price of music about 100% - even though the cost of production dropped from a dollar per unit to roughly pennies per unity.

    people will get used to paying high gas prices and with some small collusion the prices will remain high even if the supply increases - it&#39;s not like if they lower gas prices people are gonna buy more gas - it&#39;s a staple and it&#39;s required.

    from the perspective of the oil companies with this war Bush has made sure that the US will have a reliable supply in the near future, regardless of the instability in Venesuala, Nigeria or even Saudi. Hence the extension of the status quo for several decades.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us