Internet warnings... about major attacks on the United States

[Dead_Parrot]

Just throwing this out for comment - Any thoughts?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3401261.stm

Intelligence agencies are investigating a series of internet warnings, said to be issued by al-Qaeda, about major attacks on the United States. Messages posted on several Islamist websites include claims that an entire city could be destroyed. One message warns of an attack stronger than that of nuclear weapons.

[dd123]

1. They must be laughing their heads off.

Now all they need to do is send an email and we go off into a panic.

Blah.

[laylah]

2. I certainly shouldn't have

read the article :scared:

[acmavm]

3. And these messages are verified as being from Al Queda? And

what is the standard of proof? And who determines this?

As long as the current administration is in power we are going to be hearing about possible 'attacks' by Al Quaeda. Buy I don't understand why that would be because I distinctly remember Bush* declaring that he had Al Quaeda 'on the run' or something like that. That was right around the time he declared 'Mission Accomplished'. So what's the story? Aren't we safer now? Remember, Saddam was found in a hole in the ground. Crap, I wish they would make up their minds. This is the most schizophrenic administration in the history of the universe.

But just for shits and giggles, what if we were attacked? Then wouldn't that mean that Asscroft and Inc. have failed to protect America? Wouldn't that sort of mean that Patriot Act I and Patriot Act Junior are just an infringement on our Constitutional rights and absolutely no deterrent or help in the fight against terrorists?

[Dead_Parrot]

4. I wouldn't normally give them a second thought...

...but the intel agencies are investigating, so does that mean:
A: They know something we don't, or
B: Everyone is now scared of thier own shadow?

:shrug:

[Jose Diablo]

6. I wonder if Plame outing would make an attack more probable

After all, wasn't she a NOC gathering information from a world wide web of informant agents within organizations that could supply terrorists with material to make a weapon?

Didn't whomever out her as a NOC put the entire network in danger of being exposed, thus exposing the American people to higher risks of being attacked?

[RedSock]

5. feb 2

didn't one warning a few weeks back say NYC will be destroyed on feb 2?

:nuke:

that is bad becase i am in nyc

[mike1963]

9. Isn't Feb 2 ground hog day? Take a field trip to Punxatawney.

;-) I have no idea if I spelled it right.

[Odessey]

14. Punxsutawney ;-)

[Must_B_Free]

7. what is an attack stronger than nuclear weapons?

AFAIK, there is nothing, is there?

[mike1963]

10. A trillion ton asteroid hitting Kansas City by remote control, maybe?

:eyes:

[Lone_Wolf]

22. supposedly, nukes along a fault line...

These people have watched Superman the Movie one too many times

[lagniappe]

23. Destroying a major dam...

would release quite a bit of energy - not sure how it compares to a nuke though. Not only would major flooding be the result but some of the larger dams produce a significant amount of electricity used in the U.S. Of course we don't have to worry because the neocons are sure that all the terrorists are going to Iraq.

[Terwilliger]

8. Bush's numbers dropped WHEN? Today?

Probably 15 minutes later these new "threats" surfaced.

[radwriter0555]

11. LOL Like al queda would WARN we're going to be attacked? uh WHY?

That makes no sense.

Timmy McVeigh didn't warn us.

WTC #1 didn't warn us.

WTC #2 didn't warn us.

Terrorists and bombers don't warn, they want the MAXIMUM deaths possible.

[Military Brat]

12. The warning is part of the psychological factor of fear

That's why we're all so angry on DU. We never know who is really terrorizing us, al Qaeda or bushco.

We know al Qaeda is capable idealogically of attacking us viciously, but are they capable of it physically?

Let's see if bush's poll numbers go up in the next few days. That should tell us if this is bogus or not. And is it just me, or haven't we had an awful lot of "imminent attack" threats in the last month? Maybe we need to peer behind the curtain to see what's happening in the shadows that they don't want us to know.

[Terwilliger]

13. I don't fear...al Qaeda is a myth

There are folks that want to do this country harm, but the threat is wildly overblown.

[...Alltogethernow]

16. Maybe so, but certainly not for me

I'm going about my business as usual.

[MacCovern]

20. Al Qaeda claimed respon. for east coast blackout

Although Al Qaeda would love to kill all of us, the fact is that
right now their bark is most likely worse than their bite.

After all, they also claimed reponsibility for the east coast
power blackout last year. Apparently they will try to take credit
for anything now, since they have been severely weakened.

However, they would love to try something big - really big.

[randr]

15. The real horror is that this administration

has only infuriated these wackos. They are present in the world and are no different than the far right nut cases we already have except that they very well may have found extreme weapons. The plenitude of WsMD has been made possible all over the planet by the friends of *.

[Cleita]

17. Has anyone ever been able to destroy an entire city

in modern times? I know we came close to it in WWII, but still it seems like a pretty big order for guys who might be scraping for weapons these days.

[Old and In the Way]

18. Ever wonder why this administration hasn't given us an Al Qaeda

deck of playing cards? Odd, isn't it, that 2 years after 9/11, we still don't know who the top leadership of Al Qaeda is. Since we know Bush/Cheney has gone out of their way to avoid taking on AQ, I wonder if it's because, like Saddam, they are leveraged by the fact that Poppy created AQ in the 80s? Or is it just convenient to keep an enemy around to keep the American people fearful? Or perhaps the Bush family is being blackmailed by Saudi Arabia?

Whatever the reason, the only way to truly fight terror will be to vote Democrat.

[RainDog]

19. earthquake?

What could "a stronger strike than nuclear weapons" mean?

It is possible that this could refer to an earthquake. One jihadi contributor, Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj, has been quoted as discussing the triggering of explosions along America's continental fault lines.

Do we know the messages are genuine?

We do not. Those posting such warnings tend to use only aliases, often based on historical figures whom they see as playing a heroic role in Islamic history.

It is also hard for Western governments to work out where the messages were sent from, but most are thought to originate in public internet cafes in the Middle East and Asia - the cyber equivalent of the phone box on the street corner.

[Cleita]

21. I'm not a geologist but I lived in a mining community once

where they used to let off some mega explosions in a place with many faults and volcanoes. Sorry no big one or tsunamis happened in a century of operation. An earthquake the size of what they would have to induce to destroy everything in earthquake zones in a place like Los Angeles would take at least a magnitude 8 and probably a nine because just about everything in every major city in earthquake prone areas has been retrofitted and brought up to earthquake code. These people are dreaming.

[Sperk]

24. wouldn't they communitcate in code? Like everyone did during WWII

seems kind of dumb to be gabbing over the internet. They all know the internet is watched.