Be Alert- New Al Queda plot?

Ty Webb

Hostage to Fortune
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Posts
6,525
Total Time
11000+
US, German intel: Al Qaeda plots multiple attacks on US-, Israel-bound airliners

DEBKAfile Special Report
July 7, 2009, 9:54 PM (GMT+02:00)
Target of new al Qaeda hijack plot

Western anti-terror agencies have warned that a large group of 15-20 al Qaeda terrorists, trained in Pakistan and Algeria to hijack and blow up airliners, deployed secretly in at least six European and Middle East countries in early July. They are standing ready to carry out multiple terrorist attacks.
The terrorists are believed to have landed in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Turkey and Egypt.
The dates to watch, local authorities were warned, were July 4, July 7, the fourth anniversary of the 7/7 attacks on the British transport system in which 52 people died, and July 8-9, when the G8 summit meets in the Italian town of L'Aqila. US president Barack Obama will fly in from talks with Russian leaders in Moscow.
Al Qaeda planners, say the Western sources, know it is extremely hard to break through the massive security cordons protecting summit leaders. They are therefore planning to hijack passenger planes of airlines belonging to the targeted states and blow them up in mid-air.
DEBKAfile's counter-terror sources report the first specific red alert on Saturday, July 4, referred to the possible hijack of Turkish Airways planes taking of from Turkish airports for US destinations or Tel Aviv. Special precautionary measures were put in place at both ends of their routes.
The alert is still in force.
 

maxblast72

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Posts
931
Total Time
9000+
I thought the proper term now was man-caused disasters. I don't think we are allowed to say war on terror.
 

Ty Webb

Hostage to Fortune
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Posts
6,525
Total Time
11000+
It was the kindest thing I could come up with, and it was about fourth on my list. I have no tolerance for those with no tolerance . . .
 

zonker

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Posts
629
Total Time
....
Good post.

The main problem is that we do this job, day after day and we don't expect any problems. It''s habitual..

Next thing you know, someone has a fork in your neck and they are storming the cockpit. Brief your FA's and stay vigilant.
 

Draginass

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
1,852
Total Time
5000+
I thought the proper term now was man-caused disasters. I don't think we are allowed to say war on terror.
That's pretty sexist. How about "homo-sapien instigated" disasters. Or then again Obama could stop being dishonest and call it what it is: Islamo-facist Terror Attacks.
 

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
Personally I was happy to see the term "war on terror" go. We way over use the word WAR. We have a war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, war on terror, war on this war on that. Every time you use the term war this way it degrades it just a little bit more until the true meaning of the word is lost.

War is that...war. You can't declare war on the mass feeling of being very afraid.
 

skyaddict

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Posts
651
Total Time
6500
Personally I was happy to see the term "war on terror" go. We way over use the word WAR. We have a war on drugs, war on crime, war on poverty, war on terror, war on this war on that. Every time you use the term war this way it degrades it just a little bit more until the true meaning of the word is lost.

War is that...war. You can't declare war on the mass feeling of being very afraid.
Well said. You can't have war on a tactic, and terror- at least that propagated by groups like al Queda and their many hydra-headed associates, is directed at policy. We need kinetics, sure, but subtlety - and the ability to distinguish different shades of grey - is the key to operating in the murky world of terrorism and is the key to defeating terrorist movements, and declaring a "war" on terror is about as un-subtle as you can get. I hate political correctness, but silly terms like "war on terror" and "axis of evil" did us more harm than good. (The success of the surge in Iraq came about because the black and white worldview buffoons finally stepped aside and let the grey-area specialists - such as Petraeus- have a greater say.)

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/will-ferrell-axis-of-evil/3856051560
 
Last edited:

gunfyter

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Posts
3,781
Total Time
11000+
War is the good and correct term.

What needs to be understood is that military operations are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to War. What is seen. What is not seen is the most important part of the war.

Like intelligence gathering through so-called warrantless wire-taps. Unless there is a War ... you can't have this. You would never suggest to a commander on the field on foreign soil he needed a warrant to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum to gather intelligence. Yet people complain about using our capabilities to listen in on people communicating with terrorists in foreign countries from within the United States... creating a safe-zone for terrorists to operate from on our own soil.

In my view ... if its war ... there can be no such restrictions on intelligence gathering. The battlefield is here ... so this is where we must employ all our capabilities.

I understand we are now reading Miranda rights to enemy captured in Afghanistan? "You have the right to remain silent." Really?

It is a War ... and it is an Axis of Evil. Its so obvious that is exactly what it is.
 

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
War is the good and correct term.

What needs to be understood is that military operations are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to War. What is seen. What is not seen is the most important part of the war.

Like intelligence gathering through so-called warrantless wire-taps. Unless there is a War ... you can't have this. You would never suggest to a commander on the field on foreign soil he needed a warrant to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum to gather intelligence. Yet people complain about using our capabilities to listen in on people communicating with terrorists in foreign countries from within the United States... creating a safe-zone for terrorists to operate from on our own soil.

In my view ... if its war ... there can be no such restrictions on intelligence gathering. The battlefield is here ... so this is where we must employ all our capabilities.

I understand we are now reading Miranda rights to enemy captured in Afghanistan? "You have the right to remain silent." Really?

It is a War ... and it is an Axis of Evil. Its so obvious that is exactly what it is.


One problem...McCain lost.


Get f'ing over it. Terror is a feeling. You can't declare war on feelings, even if it's what you pin your hopes for election on. "Axis of Evil"? really? Do they consort? Are they really an "Axis"? I think not. They're just a group of countries that we don't like right now.

"so called warrantless wire-taps"...Who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"? Probably a commie, eh? Oh wait, I think it was Ben Franklin! He only won the revolutionary war for the USA. What would he know? You would have a WAR simply to justify gross breaches of civil liberties? YOU are the communist if that is your view.

On 9/11 we lost 3,000 people. Every year 180,000 people die from diabetes. How about we declare a war on diabetes, spend 1/100th of what we already have on "terror" and declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! We could even get a really big banner and fly our president in on a fighter jet to announce our victory. You fricken righties are so oblivious it makes me want to puke. Thank God the GOP is self destructing. I'm all for a third party...one to replace the GOP and thier nut jobs.
 

Nevets

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
2,431
Total Time
5000
They are not terrorists acts, the are "man caused disasters."
They are not terrorists, they are, "formerly known as enemy combatants."
They are not wars, they are "overseas contingencies operations."

Get your political correctives straight people!:p
 

WabiSabi

Well-known member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Posts
437
Total Time
n/a
War is the good and correct term.

What needs to be understood is that military operations are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to War. What is seen. What is not seen is the most important part of the war.

Like intelligence gathering through so-called warrantless wire-taps. Unless there is a War ... you can't have this. You would never suggest to a commander on the field on foreign soil he needed a warrant to exploit the electromagnetic spectrum to gather intelligence. Yet people complain about using our capabilities to listen in on people communicating with terrorists in foreign countries from within the United States... creating a safe-zone for terrorists to operate from on our own soil.

In my view ... if its war ... there can be no such restrictions on intelligence gathering. The battlefield is here ... so this is where we must employ all our capabilities.

I understand we are now reading Miranda rights to enemy captured in Afghanistan? "You have the right to remain silent." Really?

It is a War ... and it is an Axis of Evil. Its so obvious that is exactly what it is.
How about a war on propaganda? You should be the first to support it. After all, you took the bait and fell for it.
 

ImbracableCrunk

Unregistered Un-User
Joined
Feb 5, 2003
Posts
1,481
Total Time
6AM
What ever happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?
 

JustaNumber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
922
Total Time
5000
One problem...McCain lost.


Get f'ing over it. Terror is a feeling. You can't declare war on feelings, even if it's what you pin your hopes for election on. "Axis of Evil"? really? Do they consort? Are they really an "Axis"? I think not. They're just a group of countries that we don't like right now.

"so called warrantless wire-taps"...Who said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"? Probably a commie, eh? Oh wait, I think it was Ben Franklin! He only won the revolutionary war for the USA. What would he know? You would have a WAR simply to justify gross breaches of civil liberties? YOU are the communist if that is your view.

On 9/11 we lost 3,000 people. Every year 180,000 people die from diabetes. How about we declare a war on diabetes, spend 1/100th of what we already have on "terror" and declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! We could even get a really big banner and fly our president in on a fighter jet to announce our victory. You fricken righties are so oblivious it makes me want to puke. Thank God the GOP is self destructing. I'm all for a third party...one to replace the GOP and thier nut jobs.
I agree that arguing over semantics is stupid. I also agree with you on the civil liberties viewpoint. But I do believe the federal government has an obligation (one might argue it is it's primary constitutional obligation, the whole reason Franklin et al. decided the States needed to be United) to protect our citizens from harm from enemies foreign and domestic. You make the claim that this is not necessary because far greater numbers of Americans die from disease. That is illogical and contrary to the federal government's charter. Al Quaida needs to be engaged, and we need to defeat them, however you want to call the operation. We should throw all of our available resources at the problem (to fight in a half-assed manner is immoral as many would die for nothing), but the constitutional rights of American citizens should never be compromised along the way. I don't see how every American would not be on board with the above.
 

glasspilot

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
1,622
Total Time
9K'ish
I agree with you.

I would argue though that the best way to fight extremists is not with bullets and bombs, but with education. Ever notice that the most religious areas in the world are also the least educated? From Americas "bible belt" to the Middle East. That correlation holds pretty true. Ignorance is the clay of religious fundamentalists.

I say find policies that promote democracy and hence education.
 

C-150ETOPS

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Posts
499
Total Time
8800+
On the surface, it sounds like democracy is a good start for education, but the problem is with Islam in general, and the two biggest money backers of it worldwide (Saudi Arabia/Iran), it doesn't exist in anything but a token form.

Like it or not, with the tribal mentality infecting most of our problem areas, the only thing understood and respected is brute force when necessary.


I'll disagree on the Miranda rights reading by another poster. While it does seem stupid and I would prefer a SEAL take care of the problem and leave the clowns in a ditch, keeping them alive may have some use and conviction may need the Miranda reading without needing a seperate Military Junta justice system that could conceivably turn on us and the Constitution 100 years down the road.
 

Pull To Guns

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Posts
321
Total Time
13 Yrs
I haven't heard the term Al Qaeda used in quite some time in regards to those who would do the US harm. Now we are fighting the Taliban. Do we even know who our true enemies are anymore?
 

JustaNumber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
922
Total Time
5000
I haven't heard the term Al Qaeda used in quite some time in regards to those who would do the US harm. Now we are fighting the Taliban. Do we even know who our true enemies are anymore?
Every American knows we are fighting Islamic fundamentalists. Some would have us believe, though, that we are only fighting a few criminals who should be treated as such. This serves the purposes of not having to choose sides in a religious war, not having to confront organized evil, and not having to devote national resources abroad, when they could be used for social programs at home.
 
Top