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.

 

WAR: New Zawahiri Video Attacks Queen Elizabeth

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
A new Ayman al-Zawahiri video that surfaced on Middle Eastern websites today says Queen Elizabeth is "one of the severest enemies of Islam" and responsible for Britain's "crusader laws" in an attempt to justify the 7/7 London bombings. Another al-Qaeda member calls for British Muslims to ignore moderates urging integration and take part in jihad. In response, British officials at Buckingham Palace have increased security for the Queen and MI5 is investigating the tape's contents. Zawahiri is thought to be second in command in al Qaeda after Usama bin Laden.
 



news.scotsman.com
AL-QAEDA has threatened the Queen by naming her as "one of the severest enemies of Islam" in a video message used to justify the July 7 bombings in London, it emerged last night.

The warning has been passed by MI5 to the Queen's protection team after it obtained a version of a video issued by al-Qaeda after the 7/7 attacks.

In the video, Ayman al-Zawahiri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden, targets the Queen as ultimately responsible for Britain's "crusader laws" and denounces her as an enemy of Muslims.

The full 27-minute video is circulating on secure jihadist websites in the Middle East used to recruit and infiltrate prospective terrorists.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Looks like these guys didn't get the memo saying the Queen has very little real power any more in Britain, otherwise I don't know why they'd go after her so harshly, but I'm sure the Queen will be well protected after this threat has been made public. Perhaps the more important angle to this story is the call for Muslims to ignore moderates urging integration into British society and join the Islamic jihad.


[edit on 11/13/2005 by djohnsto77]




posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I'm still puzzled at how an ideology can 'release' things and why these press releases that get repeated globally all continue with the same lines. All the press worldwide say 'Al-Qaeda has released...' but anyone who traces the origins of Al-Qaeda knows that at best, it's a shared ideology (which is used by both sides of the fence) and not an actual organisation or physical entity.

The only reason threatening the Queen seems to make any sense is to lend creedence to the 7/7 bombing from an Islamic organisation bent on destroying the west - but that bombing has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

I just don't take anything that's found on a 'jihadist website' as much (and a secure one? what's that about, how did they get it then?). Why these groups can continue to exist with such an easy and tracable means of communication is a bit odd and why a lot of the major videos are sourced back to western servers is another strange tidbit that never gets questioned.

These vids work for both causes. 'Recruitment' videos create the continued threat that the west needs and it also gets a few weak minded people to band together to make a phyiscal threat that's needed to show that something is out there.

Al-Qaeda is more likely to be the banking empire if anything. Throughout history the banking empire has been playing both sides against each other to start wars to make profits and gain power and nothings changed today.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Looks like these guys didn't get the memo saying the Queen has very little real power any more in Britain, otherwise I don't know why they'd go after her so harshly, but I'm sure the Queen will be well protected after this threat has been made public. Perhaps the more important angle to this story is the call for Muslims to ignore moderates urging integration into British society and join the Islamic jihad.


[edit on 11/12/2005 by djohnsto77]


I'm pretty sure they know she is just a figure head. But its not about a power thing so much as in striking her would bring the brittish goverment down as in attacking her is hitting the "heart" if you will of the brittish empire. It would be like another 9/11 happening and this time they bombed the statue of liberty.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
I actually think that is an excellent point you made. Realisticaly Blair should be at the recieving end of these threats. However, if genuine, they are making a colossal mistake. The Queen is a symbolic target but like her or not, if there was an attack on the Royal family i would be surprised if you did not see the unity of purpose you saw in the US in the days and weeks after 911



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
if there was an attack on the Royal family i would be surprised if you did not see the unity of purpose you saw in the US in the days and weeks after 911


Yeah, I'm sure of that. Assassination of the Queen would be a major symbolic "victory" for them short term, but would accomplish little and, as you say, probably galvanize the British people against their cause more than ever.

As a side note, I wonder what Prince Charles thinks of this, especially with his "defender of the faiths" rhetoric and recent lecturing the U.S. on tolerance towards Islam.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Off topic but weirdly enough i was helping my nine year old to fill in next years calendar with special dates and I got to November 14 and said to her to put King Charles down. She looked at me funny, I looked at me funny, then realised I had a feeling that Charles would indeed be King By his birthday next year.

On topic, I guess she would be a target and also more so with the death of Diana and Dodi. The islamic community would be well aware of the rumours circulating that the palace was responsible for her death because she was with an Egyptian. That would not put the royal family at the top of any islamic party invite list.

Al Fayed snr does not like the royal family and has often spoken out against what they "may" have done and that does not help the British royal's cause once again for the islamists.

She is the head of the Church of england after all, the highest christian Brit.


[edit on 13-11-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Too bad theres no video with the article, that would make the article a lot more reliable. I noticed the related news at the bottom... Terrorism in the UK.

I'm not one to be a conspiratist but could this possibly EU media control?

*Edit ~going to bed~ Wake me up when September ends.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by SpilledBeans]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The so called "al-Qaeda" announces at a time when Tony Blair is battling to maintain his authority.. Oh how convenient is that! I bet there is no al-Qaeda in Iraq either..... blah blah blah ....

My question is, When al-Qaeda announces a threat or make an attack, why does it seem seasonably and timely beneficial for the governmental powers that be?

It would seem the governmental powers are in control of this so called "al-Qaeda" Simply because they do announce these threats and attacks at convenient times!

Zawahiri, Usama bin Laden... Who do you really work for?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
So, what are we to make of Queen Elizabeth's son, Charles, spending a week in the US pleading with GW to take it easy on the Muslims?

telegraph.co.uk

Some people are really hard to please.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Looks like these guys didn't get the memo saying the Queen has very little real power any more in Britain


ermm...you do know she is Head of State right? not Blair? she has alot of power, she can dissolve Parliament if she really wants to.

[edit]

im watching UK news channels and there is nothing on this or in the papers, is this another pro-war on terror, neo-con, agenda "faked" story (again)?

[edit on 13-11-2005 by infinite]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
ermm...you do know she is Head of State right? not Blair? she has alot of power, she can dissolve Parliament if she really wants to.


She can dissolve the Parliament but she can not make a new government, that is why they have elections, so the people can choose the who goes to the Parliament.

Anyone knows how many times Queen Elizabeth has dissolved the Parliament? The power to do something does not mean that the person who has that power will use it every time.

After all, the US president has the power to launch some nuclear missiles and that has never happened.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
She can dissolve the Parliament but she can not make a new government, that is why they have elections, so the people can choose the who goes to the Parliament.


She can, im British so i should know.

During war-time, the monarchy can form a national government and has done in the past. She will ask for a coalition to be formed, formation of a coalition goes without the people's say.



The Queen also has a functional role in executive government. Constitutionally she chooses her prime minister (though in reality no actual choice is required as the issue of whom to ask to form a government is clear from who controls the House of Commons, except in exceptional circumstances). She also decides the basis on which a person is asked to form a government. That is, whether a government should be formed capable of surviving in the House of Commons - the standard requirement - or capable of commanding majority support in the House of Commons - i.e., a requirement to form a coalition if no one party has a majority. This requirement was last set in 1940, leading to the formation of the National Government of Winston Churchill. This request is normally only made in emergencies or in war-time. The Queen also appoints ministers and all government is carried out legally in her name.


en.wikipedia.org...



Anyone knows how many times Queen Elizabeth has dissolved the Parliament?


Before every general election..didn't you know that? , the PM will go to her and ask for parliament to be dissolved and then an election is called. When an election is called there is no parliament until its been voted in. UK political system is completely different to the yanks,



The power to do something does not mean that the person who has that power will use it every time.


She has to, its her job

next time, research :u:



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
hahaha. Maybe because she's part of a royal bloodline like David Icke mentions. Hell these people are part of the people that fake this kinda stuff. If thought people would understand by now. Bombings in london = more security and laws in london. Terrorist plot foiled in Australia = more spending on anti-terrorism in Australia. Threat to Queen = more spending by the British government to protect the queen (really the money is going elsewhere though), make her palace secure, more guards etc, more anti-terror laws etc. A threat to the queen would give the governments of all the allianced countries against terror to pressure all the remaining commonwealth countries, who serve or served under the queen, reason to pass anti-terror laws, implement more advanced big brother technology, turn the countries into greater police states, and in the non-western countries implement military troops in the streets. A kind of martial law integration. This threat may also be an act to enable the resurrection of pro-active British Royal power, which is rarely used. Even today she still has the highest power over Australia and it's only delegated to the Australian governor general.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by sugeshotcha]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
She can, im British so i should know.

During war-time, the monarchy can form a national government and has done in the past. She will ask for a coalition to be formed, formation of a coalition goes without the people's say.


That was what I was trying to say, only in special situations something like that can happened, that is why there is something like a "head of state".

Also, what I was trying to know is how many times has the Parliament been dissolved by the Queen (or King) without being asked by the PM.



UK political system is completely different to the yanks


I know, but is just a little different from the Portuguese system, and being Portuguese, that is the one I know, not the American



next time, research :u:

Yes, and I have to improve my English speaking skills, that is my main problem.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

I'm still puzzled at how an ideology can 'release' things and why these press releases that get repeated globally all continue with the same lines. All the press worldwide say 'Al-Qaeda has released...' but anyone who traces the origins of Al-Qaeda knows that at best, it's a shared ideology (which is used by both sides of the fence) and not an actual organisation or physical entity.


The members of Al Qaeda were originally those that Osama met in the 80s as they were fighting the Russians. They have recruited more members since then, and some other radical groups have join them. They are all known as Al Qaeda.


Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
The only reason threatening the Queen seems to make any sense is to lend creedence to the 7/7 bombing from an Islamic organisation bent on destroying the west - but that bombing has more holes in it than swiss cheese.


The Queen of England is supposed to be the most prominent figure in England, she is also supposed to be the most protected person in England. My guess is that the radicals think that attacking her would demoralize Britain. The message the terrorists are trying to put accross is that if they can get to the most protected person in England, they can get, and kill anyone. That would be my guess, but i could be wrong.


Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
I just don't take anything that's found on a 'jihadist website' as much (and a secure one? what's that about, how did they get it then?). Why these groups can continue to exist with such an easy and tracable means of communication is a bit odd and why a lot of the major videos are sourced back to western servers is another strange tidbit that never gets questioned.


Unfortunately there are many jihadists that have college degrees and are good hackers, hence they can have their own "secure websites" at least for a while until they are found. If they do have good hackers, it wouldn't be so easy to track them. As for why so many of their videos can be tracked back to western nations, we can see that jihadists have been recruiting 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims who live in western countries.

The radical Muslims who attacked London were all 2nd and 3rd generation Muslims. If you take a look at the links that AceofBase gave us about the recruiting of Muslims for radicalism in western countries you will realize why so much intel about radical Muslims can be traced to western countries.


Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
These vids work for both causes. 'Recruitment' videos create the continued threat that the west needs and it also gets a few weak minded people to band together to make a phyiscal threat that's needed to show that something is out there.


A "threat that the west needs"?.... We don't need no threats, and there is no need to "make up any threats" as some around here keep trying to imply. BTW, would you call "a few" all those Muslim youths in France and elsewhere in Europe that have been rioting?....


Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Al-Qaeda is more likely to be the banking empire if anything. Throughout history the banking empire has been playing both sides against each other to start wars to make profits and gain power and nothings changed today.


Al Qaeda was started by Osama Bin Laden as he got Muslim fighters that fought with him against the Russians to join him. Yes, Osama is the banking of Al Qaeda, but I am sure that he has made sure that Al qaeda would not run out of funds if something was to happen to him. He is an assassin and a crazy bastard, but he is not dumb.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
So, come on now people, own up, who has actually seen an "Al Qaida" website.
The media keeps quoting them and telling us about the latest mumblings of this or that bogeyman, but they never provide a link. I tell ya, some of these "journalists" would not last 5 minutes on this board if they didn't provide links to their stories


cjf

posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
So, come on now people, own up, who has actually seen an "Al Qaida" website.
The media keeps quoting them and telling us about the latest mumblings of this or that bogeyman, but they never provide a link. I tell ya, some of these "journalists" would not last 5 minutes on this board if they didn't provide links to their stories


You can find about this information here (link).

I suppose the media does do a majority of the 'work'/critical thinking for the masses; but the reason for not ‘advertising’ should be fairly obvious. Send an email and ask the same question to the organization’s link provided (they do reply fairly quickly):


.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
So, come on now people, own up, who has actually seen an "Al Qaida" website.
The media keeps quoting them and telling us about the latest mumblings of this or that bogeyman, but they never provide a link.


There are Al Qaeda websites and I used to go to them frequently but a lot of my old links are dead now.

The funniest one is this one:
www.faloja.com...

It used to be a jihadist site but look at what's there now



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I was thinking more along the lines of a URL address or two.
Simply telling us that something exists is not proof that it does and anyone posting stories on this site must provide a link.
Just curious as to why the media talk about Al Qaida and Jihadist websites and the claims they make but never provide us with a link to the site. Do the "authorities" think we're all gonna become crazed suicide bombers if we see the material first hand



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Thanks AOB, I guess there's money to be made that way. After all, even Jihadists gotta put food on the table too




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join