TERRORISM: Bragging Terrorists earn stern lecture from Cleric

Seems that even terrorists are not immune from beating their chests from time to time. In doing so, they have angered Al Qaeda representative Sheikh Abu Makdessy forcing him to issue a statement condeming their loose tounges.

www.homelandsecurityus.com...
Be sure and click on the links in the story, so you can read the translation of the notice given by the Cleric. Interesting stuff, especially this

"16 January 2004--From those for me by with tired (spoiled) walking .She walks gently and arrives in first place."

Code perhaps?


[edit on 9-12-2004 by Banshee]

The so-called Global Islamic Media Center that this article quotes from has been a source of much disinformation including this article where Bin Laden threatens to use nukes:

209.157.64.200...

Take anything from this place with a grain of salt. Anyone could have posted these articles. It is a forum, like ATS. Anyone could have posted those messages.

Good point Archangel, however it still has some gems among the trash.

BTW, in terms of translations I read that only 350 books a year are tranaslated from other languages into Arabic. Spain alone translated 16,000 books into spanish in a year, equivilent to 30 years of translations into arabic.

What does this mean?

That people who read only arabic only have a vague understanding of what is happening in the rest of the world and are totally at the mercy of the propaganda processes of their media.

In reverse there are not many translations from Arabic to English either it seems, this site is the only one along with Memri that does it.

As a result we need to watch and take note of the articles that are being posted there, as they are one of the few sources of information from Arabic.

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by Netchicken]

Both the sites you named are Pro-Israel.

Whether or not you agree with this you should understand that stories about Muslims, and Arabs by them will be biased.

and your point is? ........

Do you think that the arabic media is in any way neutral? Even the arab speakers themselves try and get western news services recognising that Al Jezerra itself is biased.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Both the sites you named are Pro-Israel.

Whether or not you agree with this you should understand that stories about Muslims, and Arabs by them will be biased.

and your point is? ........

Do you think that the arabic media is in any way neutral? Even the arab speakers themselves try and get western news services recognising that Al Jezerra itself is biased.

My point is exactly what I stated. Would you look to Al Jezeera for news from Israel?

Why would you look to a pro-Israeli source for news of Arabs?

If you want the truth look at both sides and see where they agree.

Where and often do they agree? When they do it is so seldom that its not funny.
Media sources as with authors of articles are biased. The bias varies per author, only difference, per se'.

In respect to al Qaeda and nukes, as much as many may feel it is disinformation, is there any source that can empirically claim that al Qaeda does not have such ability or access to such abilities? Example:
IAEA, in their investigations in Libya, found that the international black market has access and the abilities to sell just about anything to build a nuke.
Another example:
Numerous threads within ATS discuss that Russia is still missing a dozen or more nuclear suitcases and that reports are that either al Qaeda has some or is seeking to acquire some....

Yeah, an article, such was quoted, may have loads of what can be termed "disinforamtion" but there are elements of 'fact' within its content, if one takes the time to 'piece' together past events and news reports.


regards
seekerof

Numerous threads within ATS discuss that Russia is still missing a dozen or more nuclear suitcases and that reports are that either al Qaeda has some or is seeking to acquire some....

Who is not seeking nuclear warheads? If these nukes were on the balckmarket they would have been out of even Bin Ladens price range. Did not Lybia offer a billion dollars for a nuke years ago?

It would be speculation to say they did have nukes.

And if they did does invading any nation end the threat, or only make it greater?

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

Yeah Seekerof, it is most likely that nuclear materials can be bought on the black market. But in all this time there has never been a serious danger (except on the series 24) of this actually happening? Not as far as I know anyway...
You've got to have the balls to use them first, and as we all know this would likely bring about the end of the world you best make sure you're making the right decision even if you've got a nuclear weapon.

I feel it is just more fear mongering, keeping us fighting amongst ourselves.

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by John Nada]

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by John Nada]

"It would be speculation to say they did have nukes."

Hey Arch, though I might agree, it would be equally foolhardy to speculate otherwise, wouldn't it?
To speculate that they don't is leaving national security hangin' with another unexplained 50%, because your thinking its 'speculation' is not a guarentee, thus equates to a 50-50 probability....correct?



regards
seekerof

To speculate that they don't is leaving national security hangin' with another unexplained 50%, because your thinking its 'speculation' is not a guarentee, thus equates to a 50-50 probability....correct?

I hardly think it is 50-50. I never suggested that we leave our security hangin.

What can we do if they do have nukes in America already?

Our soldiers in Iraq, and Afghanistan are not doing anything to prevent it, nor can they. They can only make the threat worse.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The so-called Global Islamic Media Center that this article quotes from has been a source of much disinformation including this article where Bin Laden threatens to use nukes:

209.157.64.200...

Take anything from this place with a grain of salt. Anyone could have posted these articles. It is a forum, like ATS. Anyone could have posted those messages.

Then our problem, is that we have no "reliable" source of info (unless you count the majors , CNN, Reuters etc)
I didn't refer to the website you talked about(209.157.64.200...)nor did I see a link to that website from Global Islamic Media Center. A search for Global Islamic Media Center return anything back to that website. Any suggestions who we should use since my Arabic is rusty and I can no longer get a hold of my friend that would ocassionaly translate for me.
Do you have more reliable and less "salty" sources?
The major news centers are reporting on what they want to report. I find that info on the terrorist ,what they are doing and who they are talking to ,very hard to find. But thats the whole idea behind terrorism isn't it?
Hide in plain site.


[Edited on 18-1-2004 by NetStorm]

A search for Global Islamic Media Center return anything back to that website. Any suggestions who we should use since my Arabic is rusty and I can no longer get a hold of my friend that would ocassionaly translate for me.

The name "Global Islamic Media Center" is translated from Arabic. Sometimes it is called the "International Islamic Media Center". The two are the same. I do not have a link to their site, but it would do no good unless you read arabic. Here is an article about a message supposedly from Al Quada.

Al Qaida claims responsibility for blackout

Monday, August 18, 2003

Al Qaida's Abu Hafs Brigades has claimed responsibility for the blackout last week in the Northeast and Midwest United States. A communiqu� by the Abu Hafs Brigades made reference to Operation Quick Lightning in the Land of the Tyrant of this Generation."

Continued....

216.26.163.62...


I remember reading several other articles about supposed messages on this site.

Pure propoganda.

I wonder if the real source was terrorists, or even Muslims.

I'll look for the critical articles I read months ago.