Al Qaeda Attack on L.A. Foiled

[cccpcommie]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bus...rror/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html)

Bush: U.S. thwarted al Qaeda attack on L.A.

Thursday, February 9, 2006; Posted: 12:55 p.m. EST (17:55 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, President Bush said Thursday.

The details were the first about the West Coast airliner plot, which was thwarted in 2002 and initially disclosed by the White House last year, Bush said.

The plot was set in motion by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, a month after those happened, Bush said. It involved terrorists from al Qaeda's Southeast Asia wing, Jemaah Islamiyah. (Watch what specifics Bush disclosed on timing and location -- 1:45)

"Rather than use Arab hijackers, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion," Bush said.

Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

Al Qaeda's Southeast Asia leader, known as Hambali, had recruited Jemaah Islamiyah operatives for the plot, Bush said. Hambali was arrested in 2003 in Thailand.

The operatives met with al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and then began preparing for the attack, which was derailed in early 2002, Bush said.

The purported plot was one of 10 on a list first released by the White House in October 2005. (Full story)

The intended target of the attack was a building then known as the Library Tower. It was renamed the U.S. Bank Tower in 2003 and, at 1,018 feet, is the tallest building west of the Mississippi River.

Bush credited international cooperation in the war on terrorism with saving American lives.

"The West Coast plot shows we face a relentless and determined enemy that requires unprecedented cooperation from other nations," he said.

"By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack."

[Atlas Swallowed]

Sure they did :o

[James]

i don't understand. Do you think they didn't atlas?

[Atlas Swallowed]

Yup, makes good propaganda, everything this government tells me I take with a grain of salt that ways a ton.

[cccpcommie]

um i think this should be pinned..

[piet11111]

yeah sure.

i dont believe the cia or nsa capable of doing anything but phone-tapping poeple like some pervs.

c'mon its not that hard to go undetected unless your doing really stupid things.

[Intifada]

(cccpcommie)

um i think this should be pinned..

Why?

Moreover, why in the blue hell should I believe a word the White House says about their "War Against Terror"?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

You shouldn't, ever.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:15 PM
You shouldn't, ever.
Exactly.

[James]

I think that unconditionally not believing everything they say, simply because they say it, is just as silly as unconditionally believing everything they say, simply because it is they that say it.

[razboz]

Al Qaida only started existing when the US invented them. Ossama Ben Laden was a fringe fanatic. The US has given him enourmous prestige and has invented a name for his small group. They have expanded it and made it world wide.

[MysticArcher]

Shortly after 9/11, al Qaeda began planning to use shoe bombers to hijack a commercial airplane and fly it into the tallest building in Los Angeles, President Bush said Thursday.

And we only tell you about it now, when we're losing popularity and need further justification for our actions

<_<

[Atlas Swallowed]

Everything the government has said about the justification on the war on Iraq, lies. 9-11 attack lies. Go back further Gulf of Tonkin lies. Pearl harbor lies. The burden of proof lies on them. If someone repeatedly lies to you the best assumption is that they are lying. With all the bluster for a war against Iran this seems just a little too conveinant.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:41 PM
I think that unconditionally not believing everything they say, simply because they say it, is just as silly as unconditionally believing everything they say, simply because it is they that say it.
The Bush administration has an agenda, and has proved in the past of being capable of misleading the world, let alone the American people themselves.

I wonder if you have ever had the chance to see the documentary The Power of Nightmares.

It was shown on the BBC last year.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Intifada+Feb 9 2006, 10:16 PM--> (Intifada @ Feb 9 2006, 10:16 PM) I wonder if you have ever had the chance to see the documentary The Power of Nightmares. [/b]

I have, it is one of the best documentaries I&#39;ve had the pleasure of watching.


James
I think that unconditionally not believing everything they say, simply because they say it, is just as silly as unconditionally believing everything they say, simply because it is they that say it.

Indeed, but as Atlas pointed out "they" have a habit of lying. I think a psychiatrist would conclude that the American Government (and most other Governments) were repetitive liars, if not completely delusional.

In this respect "they" have a "pattern of behaviour" that we&#39;d be silly not to notice.

Plus, this comes at a time that is close to elections if I&#39;m not mistaken. Very "fishy" indeed&#33; :lol:

[Janus]

I think one of the major problems with Bush&#39;s speech is that there is practically no detail on the plots that the government supposedly unfoiled. The information that exists is so vague that no one knows whether the plans were serious or real.

Here are the plots that the US claims that it stopped


West Coast airliner
In mid-2002 the US disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked aeroplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 11 September 2001.
East Coast airliner
In mid-2003 the US and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial aeroplanes.

Jose Padilla
In May 2002, the US disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a dirty bomb in the US.

2004 UK urban targets
In 2004, the US and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

2003 Karachi
In the spring of 2003, the US and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

London Heathrow Airport
In 2003, the US and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 11 September operational figure.

2004 UK
In 2004, the US and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct bombings in the UK.

2002 Gulf shipping
In late 2002 and 2003, the US and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qaeda operatives to attack ships in the Gulf.

2002 Straits of Hormuz
In 2002, the US and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

2003 tourist site
In 2003 the US and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

It seems that the US government has learned to effectively use the Al-Qaeda name so that people will automatically think that there was some major, complicated plot.

[sapho]

Bush&#39;s approval rating is very low so he uses the "fear factor" whenever its convenient for him. :ph34r:

[James]

oh don&#39;t get me wrong, i&#39;m not denying that "they" have lied.
I&#39;m simply saying that it is my opinion that it is foolish to do either:
a) believe everything they say
b) believe nothing they say
simply on the grounds of who "they" are.


I also disagree with comparing the US administration/establishement with a human being. It is a bit too hobbesy for my liking.

I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if they are telling the truth in this case, although simily, i wouldn&#39;t be surprised if they are lieing.

The power of nightmares... no i didn&#39;t get chance to see the actual thing but i did read alot of the commentaries and opinion pieces that it provoked (both in favour of it, and against it). I certainly do not deny the use of such methods (beware the leader who beats the drums of war... or whatever old bill said). I think the UK though proves an interesting case study that acts as a challenge to this whole train of thought regarding the establishement and the threat of terrorist attack.

The UK admin came under fire for supposedly "exagerating" or simply "making up" a threat. Indeed, Iraq seemed to be proof that the establishement was doing exactly that. Most will remember Blair&#39;s decision to deploy the armed forces in heathrow, and the critical response that it caused. Many argued that this was another example of the establishement using fear to keep the mob down. Then came the ricen affair (although again this was seen by some to be a staged affair), which was then followed by the london bombings.
The security forces had said before the bombings that it wasn&#39;t a case of if, but when. They compared themselves to a goal keeper. It was inevitable, they claimed, that one would eventually get through.

Personally i believe the security forces on this. True, the establishment is very likely to use things for their own interest, but i think it is quite possible to go too far with this.
Yes they can, have and will lie. But that does not mean that they always lie.

I do not share the opinion that "the terrorists" are a fabrication. True, their nature/significance may have been exagerated, but i still think they exist

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:41 PM
I think that unconditionally not believing everything they say, simply because they say it, is just as silly as unconditionally believing everything they say, simply because it is they that say it.
Exactly. We have no way of knowing if this is true or not, and no particular reason to draw any definite conclusion now.

Leave it to the Democrats to proclaim that Bush is doing a bad job of protecting "us" from "the terrorists", and that they can do better.

The most improbable thing about this claim is probably the idea that Al-Qaeda would attempt to repeat the same type of attack. As shown by the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11, people are unlikely to obey the hijackers once they realize the goal is to crash the plane not to have a hostage negotiation. Nothing to lose.

Which is why there&#39;ve been few successful hijackings since 9/11, and few attempts in the advanced capitalist countries. Old-fashioned hijackers everywhere are cursing al-Qaeda.

Shoe bombs don&#39;t seem like the most effective weapon to threaten people with, either. They don&#39;t look scary and will only bring down the plane if set off while sitting over the wing fuel tank.

(As that goofball Richard Reid tried to do. That was like a Python sketch. "Excuse me sir, why are you trying to set your shoe on fire? "I&#39;m not." "There&#39;s no point in lying, I can see the match in your hand." "It&#39;s just a hangnail."

And why didn&#39;t he have a lighter? They&#39;re not contraband.)

So this isn&#39;t a particulary well-conceived plan; but it&#39;s possible al-Qaeda did try it. (Especially if it was planned before 9/11.)

[cccpcommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:12 PM
(cccpcommie)

um i think this should be pinned..

Why?

Moreover, why in the blue hell should I believe a word the White House says about their "War Against Terror"?
hey listen "comrade" there could have been socialists in that building at the time..how would u feel if you lost a family member due to that?...bad shit could have went down and didnt..

[Atlas Swallowed]

Good old Jose Padilla, a known CIA asset who was also involved in the OKC bombings.

Terrorism=Government

Yeah bad shit will go down when the government decides for it to. Fear makes one easy to control.

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 01:52 AM
And why didn&#39;t he have a lighter? They&#39;re not contraband.


Actually they are now, one of the many thing that you can not bring on an airliner in the USA now.

I going to take my bic down to the quickie mart and see how much cash they have in the drawer, later :rolleyes:

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 03:08 AM
hey listen "comrade" there could have been socialists in that building at the time..how would u feel if you lost a family member due to that?...bad shit could have went down and didnt..
I don&#39;t think I ever argued that such an attack would be good did I?

The fact is, I do not trust the Bush administration for obvious reasons, and therefore believe that to act as if "bad shit could have went down and didn&#39;t" is naive at best.

Still, there is no reason to pin this thread.

Anyway, in the news today: Bush wins deal on anti-terror law (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4699564.stm)

The Power of Nightmares - Part One (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11091.htm)

[MeTaLhEaD]

After the video of Bin laden .. threatning
the goverment was succesfull to keep the people scared&#33; and just now they come out with this kind of news&#33;&#33; i guess they should keep this news to next elections

Hooorah&#33;&#33;&#33; the Bush administrations makes the US citizens to feel more safety

[MeTaLhEaD]

Im gonna start telling my kids.. If u dont eat ur vegetables bin laden is coming

i guess the boogeman is not as fictional as Bin laden

[Global_Justice]

its propaganda bullshit to keep the american people scared.