It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

al-Qaida keeps warning people, why?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   
They warned people in London about yesterdays tragedy and others of 911, why? One of the things I keep hearing about al-Qaida is that they are a bunch of hate filled muslims who hate our freedoms and all of us. But then it just seems accepted by many that this same group warns people ahead of time. Now that seems odd to me especially when one hears that the main reason we can't get good information and intelligence on them is that they are so closed knit and not dealing with many outsiders, but yet this same group warns some people ahead of time. I find this odd and can't help but wonder if this group is even real anymore or if they are a group that no longer exists and are just being used as a front for the ones who are really doing this terrorism. Another odd thing I find about them is they seem to help the leaders of the countries they attack immensely, take Bush for instance when 911 happened; I could not help but wonder if Bush had just been handed an early Christmas present. Here are a list of people they warned during 911, if Al-Qaida did it someone gave warnings to these individuals.
www.prisonplanet.com...
more on people warned
www.prisonplanet.com...

Now scroll halfway down on this page look to the left for a tan colored box and read this story about Odigo workers being warned, isn't it nice of al-Qaida to warn so many? does this sound like the al-Qaida you have been told about?
www.couplescompany.com...

Then there are the London attacks, you guessed it people were warned ahead of time.

www.democracynow.org.../07/07/1340259

Israel Says It Was Tipped Off About Attacks
Meanwhile, a senior Israeli official has been widely quoted today as saying that British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city. Israel was holding an economic conference near the scene of one of the explosions. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend, but the attacks occurred before he arrived. The official sais that just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy and said warnings of possible attacks had been received.











[edit on 8-7-2005 by goose]




posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Maybe by them warning people, shows that they were behind it...



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
okay the thing is dont commit a mistake,well can we remember back at the time where AL-QAEDA,TALIBAN JOINT together to fight the RUSSIAN before.and who actually fund the money,weapon ect it is the CIA who the one doing their thing.and now when our mr presidente want to fight the terrorist it actually what he mean is he want to fight all the terrorist branch all over the MID-EAST and SOUTH EAST ASIA REGION so could you ever imagine right now all the terrorist are joint back to back to break europe in to chaos for their first victory.

and why not they(terrorist)disturb the peace of other country while their own country being disturb by other
well my mesegge is DENY IGNORANCE ABOUT THIS FIRST



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
If I''m not mistaken, It's standard practice in Islamic culture to give fair warning before launching any kind of offensive, personal or in this case, geopolitical. I beleive that it's a moral imparitive taken straight from the Quran.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I believe spike is correct. Not long go there was alot of talk about the Islamic higher-ups saying it was ok to use a WMD because proper warnings had been given.


cjf

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by spike
If I''m not mistaken, It's standard practice in Islamic culture to give fair warning before launching any kind of offensive, personal or in this case, geopolitical. I beleive that it's a moral imparitive taken straight from the Quran.


Correct, this ‘type’ of behavior is explained even inside the note from the alleged “Qa'eda's Secret Organisation Group of Jihad Organisation in Europe” note on 7-7-05:


-[snip]-
He who warns is excused. God says: "You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.....
Link to Source Article (emphasis added)


However warnings of a ‘creditable nature’ against the UK were coming in back in May 2005---from different sources.

Lewis Attiyatullah, a known al-Qaeda author (link)

.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Also, another reason they may give warning is to throw us off. I mean, if they say they're going to bomb a stadium, then we'll be expecting it. Then when it doesn't happen, we'll pay less credence to their warnings. It'll also disrupt our lives to some degree--if we decide to go to the event, there'll be added security, more hassels, etc. And by having an actual attack every once in a while, we'll believe them when they give us a warning until they cry wolf too many times again. Giving the devil his due, it's not a bad strategy to warn people, especially if you aren't necessarily going to go through with it.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
also they hope that warning us, they can see how we react and wat places we try to put a protection umbrella, the terrorists be like ok the Americans or Europeans are protecting this or that so that means the ones that they didnt think of protecting or cant protect will be the next target.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Maybe they think that by warning us, they will strike fear in our hearts. If they can disrupt our daily lives and routines due to fear, then they are winning the war against terror. Since they can't kill all of us, they may be trying to incapacitate the rest of us through fear.

On the other hand, in support of a government headed conspiracy, fear can be used as a motivator to get you to relinquish you rights in exchange for a sense of safety.

Either way, the idea is to terrorize the average person. Be above average, don't fall for it.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Spike is correct. I was going to say something very similar until I got to his post. In some kind of sick way, giving an advance warning somehow justifies the attack to them, and clears their conscience. It's like giving someone a 10 second head-start before you begin shooting at them.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Yes but I think you guys are missing the point, Mayor Willie Brown got warned not to fly, certain ones were told not groups. I find this type of behavior strange, warning the pentagon officials not fly, they all cancelled their flights scheduled for 9/11/01, (I would think that these would be the last ones to be told anything by al-Qaida) John Ashcroft refused to take commercial flights from JULY 2001. Don't you think this is a strange group to warn. If what you guys say is true why not the employees of WTC, why not a janitor or a cook there? No, but nice guys al-Qaida warns the pentagon officials, Mayor Willie Brown and a host of others that seem strange to me. Then there are the ones who took stock options that the two airlines stock would decline, somebody else knew. Al-Qaida helping people make money. I find this strange behavior. My point is that if al-Qaida even exists I find it strange they warned these people. If they don't exist but the ones posing as them to commit the atrocities, but want to make sure certain people are not harmed, then posting their idea to warn someone is a perfect ruse since so many fall for it. I mean after al-Qaida said it, it must be for real.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
To terrorise is to fill the enemy with terror, to make their worry and concerns promintent on their mind. To terrorise your enemy is to force them to act disfunctional and to plan their future with the element of timidness... or even better, rage.
We all remember what it's like to to attempt to show that we're uninterested with what a bully may be up to, but in reality, it consumes our thoughts and makes us focus on displaying our indifference, while underneath, we're sweating and stuggling to outwit our enemy.
Such is terrorism.
To destroy without concern and show no mercy, unless it obligates your enemy in it's people's eyes.
Put it another way... the gloves are off, no rules for the shaven ape!



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Wow I seriously doubt a terrorist group is going to "warn" people. Thats just asking to get caught and have your plan sabotaged. Why did only the "important" people get warned before 9/11? Al Qaeda personally called all the important officials while they kept it a secret? COME ON, wake up people



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Because they are warm, carring, and compasionate individuals.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Um, you are aware that those Pentagon officials that were "warned" and "cancelled their flights on 9/11" are all people that would be flying on MILITARY aircraft right? Secretarys (SecDef, SecAF, SecNav, etc), high ranking military officers, all the people that fly military, most of them would be able to get planes set aside for them from the Andrews VIP squadron, or would have access to a military flight. The only US military that I can remember seeing travel on civilian flights were lower ranking travelling on orders, Aides, again travelling on orders, or entire units travelling on charter flights in which case the entire plane is nothing but military. We occasionally get a unit flying on a commercial flight, but usually 50 or fewer members with a small amount of equipment. If all the "important" people at the Pentagon were warned, I don't think a "lowly" Commander, or Colonel would be one of the ones that Al Qaeda would warn, so therefor it would be someone who would travel on a military plane.



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Do you have proof of this that they were all military flights instead of commercial jets? I base this question on the following, I am sure John Ashcroft could get military flights too but evidently only started flying exclusively on military planes in July2001. So if that is the case that would mean before that he had used commercial airlines at least part of the time before July 2001. Another question were these people at work that day or did they take the day off? I've never heard anything beyond they cancelled their flights/

www.prisonplanet.com...

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I don't have any links to prove it, but I do have my experience working on a flightline and dealing with VIP aircraft for 10+ years. EVERY time a Sec came in, they were on a military flight, either a VC-137, Gulfstream 5, or later a 757. Anyone over a three star general would come in on a flight set aside for them, and go to a special parking spot reserved for VIPs, any general under a 3 star would come in on either a regular military plane (KC-135, C-9 etc) or on a flight that was bound to here anyway and be parked where there was space, usually near the Space-Available terminal so they could walk from the plane right into the building. We have two planes out here that were set aside specifically for the use of CINCPAC and CINCPACAF any time they need to travel anywhere in the world. That's the biggest reason that Andrews has all those VIP planes. Ashcroft and other government positions are ABLE to travel military flights, being a higher up in the government, but it takes a lot more for them to get access to the planes. The Sec position is in charge of a branch of the military, so they have access to the planes anytime they want them. Same for the higher ranking people in the Pentagon.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by spike
If I''m not mistaken, It's standard practice in Islamic culture to give fair warning before launching any kind of offensive, personal or in this case, geopolitical. I beleive that it's a moral imparitive taken straight from the Quran.


I also believe that the bible says that all priests should be pedophiles in order to create a greater connection with god.


On a more serious note it appears that whole warning thing is just so the media can portray them as bad people. As its always the bad guys that give thier plan away. Go look at Austin Powers movies, and you'll see Dr.Evil outline his plan step by step, with Mr.Power right in front of him. So its like a good guy vs. bad guy thing. But the line between good and bad guys gets blurred and and the good guys start directing blame towards the good guys, and the bad guys end up winning. That would be an ideal situation for a terrorist.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by websurfer]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Another couple of interesting facts,
www.tomflocco.com...
WASHINGTON -- June 17, 2004 11:45 pm -- Tom Flocco.com -- According to the personal written statement of Navy Captain Charles J. Leidig, Jr., entered into the record during today’s hearings before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, it was revealed that on September 10 Leidig was asked by Brigadier General Montague Winfield to stand a portion of his duty as Deputy Director for Operations for the National Military Command Center (NMCC). This would require supervision and operation of all necessary communications as watch commander

goose writes Also this heightened security measures for WTC had just been lifted just prior to the attacks, bomb sniffing dogs taken away, interesting huh, here is a link to the story. www.newsday.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I think in these days that al-Qaida is a perfect decoy. Widespread tragedy supported by "terrorism." Governments will have a great deal to gain by the word al-Qaida. A corrupt government has more to gain by referring to al-Qaida "terrorism" than al-Qaida itself.

I think al-Qaida is real but controlled, restricted by governmental powers-that-be. The warnings may come from al-Qaida or some Islamic assemblage but assigned buy a superior villainous entity.

The climate of fear is ripe for consumption.




new topics




 
0

log in

join