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.

 

OP/ED: Is the Stage Being Set II

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:14 PM
link   
The big question is: was Al-Qaeda, or anybody else for that matter, able to bring any kind of WMDs into the country? The Answer is not known, only speculated.
 


Part 2: May 20,2004
Part 2 of ?
Part 1
We have had assertions at numerous times from Al-Qaeda, or those who claim they speak for them, that they in fact have 7 Nuclear Devices in the United States. The drug problem in The United States has not subsided. Traffickers are still getting product into the US. This leads me to believe that the threat is still very real. If one thing is slipping into the country, why not another: A more deadly one at that. Lets face it our borders are not secured.

The Presidential Election is months away. Many predictions have been made on another attack on US soil before the election. Al-Qaeda has seen what happened with the Madrid Bombings, it totally changed the political makeup. This question is will that happen here? If I asked this question back in February, My answer would have been no. In the last three months, my answer has swayed to yes.

Another attack on US soil comparable to that of 9-11 would mean a failure of the Bush Administration. The administration is already taking a lot of heat due to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Throw in the Nick Berg beheading, I see the American Public having enough of Bush.

In recent days, numerous articles have come out on a chemical attack on US soil

The discovery of sarin gas in Iraq and the use of anthrax and ricin against Congress spurred the Senate Wednesday to approve $5.6 billion to help prepare for possible germ or chemical attacks on American soil.
Lawmakers are moving quickly on the legislation because America is not prepared for a major bioterror attack, said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. The sarin gas discovered in a roadside bomb Monday in Iraq, and the ricin and anthrax attacks on the Capitol complex "demonstrated that bioterror is here," said Frist, whose office was mailed a letter containing ricin last fall. "It's on our own soil, it's hit this nation, hit this Capitol, hit the entire East Coast, and indeed it was deadly."
Yahoo News

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

My one and only question is Why Now? One would assume the Government would have come up with this idea after the Anthrax attacks 3 years ago.


The top intelligence official at the Homeland Security Department, worried about an increased risk of attack in coming months, says al-Qaida wants to strike on U.S. soil with something other than a conventional explosive perhaps with a chemical or biological weapon.
Still, significant threats remain, especially now, as high "background noise" from terrorists and heightened sensitivity during the election year has officials on guard for a possible attack whose nature they can't quite pin down.
"We have a new norm," said Hughes, who believes terrorists learned about security checks and changes implemented during that alert and have adapted.
Now based on captured material, interviews and other sources of information Hughes said he believes al-Qaida wants to strike with something other than a conventional explosive device.
Yahoo News

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I know that many ATS members, as well as myself, having been talking about WMD attacks over the last couple of years. But this Nowbased on captured material just blows my mind. It was proven that in the eyes of the government, Al-Qaeda was behind the Anthrax attacks, why all of a sudden is it Now?
Im seeing another 9-11 type commission waiting in the wings.

The thing that really bothers me of The Department of Homeland Security is: The lack of information released in a timely matter. Most of the time it is not the DHS releasing information, it is News sources.
For Example:


Shocking news reports show empty suitcases being found in secure areas of New York City at the beginning of April. This was done in almost the exact same way as just before the train bombings in Madrid Spain.
It could be that terrorists are testing the security of the trains and other potential targets in New York City.
Terror Analysis

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Although this happened in the beginning of April, this did not come to light until May. Why was information not released the day of or after? What if their was a suitcase bombing in the middle of April, yet the public was not made aware of any possible threats?


Local New York City news (NBC Channel 4) broke the news of the theft of a "highly toxic chemical", rheocrete from a New Jersey facility on Monday. Combining this with other recent regional developments of missing nuclear fuel rods from the Vermont Yankee Reactor in Montepelier, Vermont, and a missing tanker truck also from New Jersey, and we have the major ingredients for an effective "dirty bomb."
Terror Analysis

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The tanker truck was not noticed missing for a couple of days. Yet the information was not released for over a week.


The Hawaii Channel is reporting another suspicious diver in their waters. The unauthorized diver was spotted about 10:23 p.m. near the Coast Guard Cutter Kukui. This is the Fourth report of suspicious activity around US coastal waters. One in upstate New York, one in Honolulu Harbor, and one in Hollywood, Florida.
Terror Analysis

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The FBI had released a memo pertaining to terrorists using divers, yet none of this has shown up in Mainstream Media. At the time of this posting, there have been no updates either.

Most of have seen the outcome of Amber Alerts in The US. Once the information is out, the quicker the response is from the public. Regardless of Scaring the public, any and all information should be made available. If it is not, we have that commission waiting in the wings. They want us to be on the look out for suspicious activity, yet when they find something, they do not want us to know.

George W. Bush would be able to claim that his policies and administration is working. This would go huge in his favor for re-election. Yet there has not been one, NOT ONE, claim to stop a terrorist attack in the US since 9-11. Yes, none have happened, but its a question of the reality of Al-Qaeda or the reality of the Bush Administration. IMO. If you believe the Bush Administration was behind 9-11, then you know why there has not been any attacks, or attacks thwarted. If Al-Qaeda was behind it, why is there not any praise or more talk as to the functionality of the DHS?

Seeing as time and ratings are slipping out of GWs hands, the many scandals involved with his administration, the only thing that can save him now is an attack on US soil. Kerry does not seem too involved with Homeland Security and terrorism. Although I have claimed to think GW is an idiot, I give him credit for sticking to his guns, whether I believe in his principals behind it or not. This honestly has to be the worst Election in my time. You have a buffoon who can render himself unconscious with a pretzel and one who cant remember what he says one day to the next.
Oh yeah, what ever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Remember Him? He is the mastermind behind the 9-11 attacks, right? My sources still lead me to believe he was captured January 16, 2004 in Iran. This is another option for GW. The Spring offensive should be starting pretty soon. As many of us have claimed, what more of a perfect political trophy.

Its only a matter of time.


















[Edited on 20-5-2004 by TrickmastertricK]




posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Al Quaida is not a middle eastern terror group but a paid bunch of corporate mercs who work for the oil interests around the world and are condoned by the US Government. Think about it, Berg has some americans cut off his head, Bin Laden's family is who paid for the Texas Rangers for Bush and it goes on and on. Fits pretty nicely if you look at the facts.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   
I really can't buy in to the theory that the Bush administration was behind 911. If we are asked to believe that, then we would also have to believe that they were also behind the Madrid bombings. I don't think so. And what about the Saudi bombings? Again, that's even more far fetched than Madrid. Is another attack coming? Unfortunately, I think so - courtesy of your typical radical Islamic fundamentalist.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
I really can't buy in to the theory that the Bush administration was behind 911.


Im not in anyway asking anyone to by into the theory of the Bush Admin. Just research I have done, has made it more of a possibility to me than not. Their are numerous connections between Bush, and Bin Laden. Do I want to believe it? Hell no. Is it possible? Hell yeah.

This would take one major coverup and conspiracy to be able to pull this off. The only reason I do not see them behind the Madrid bombings is that it was not a brilliant political move if indeed so. This caused Spain to pull out of Iraq, Yes?

There is indeed many Islamic Radical Groups. But for some reason I just can't buy into the fact that they alone cordinated 9-11. I'm not saying they are idiots, but this just has to much intelligence behind it.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Yea I don't think you have the pulse of the American people. IMO most people EXPECT another attack on the US right now. If one happened it wouldn't be Bush's fault it would be the terrorist's good fortune. Americans are fully capable of taking a punch and saying, "Ok fair one, now it's my turn" If Al Queda uses nuclear weapons on the US, all bets are off on our response. Everyone knows this. The gloves would come completely off and the War-Hawks would have a free hand.
I fully expect to wake up one day and hear about NYC or DC gone from a terrorist nuke. If this happens I'm willing to give the government free reign to decimate Syria, Iran, NK and any other area that is against us.

Variable



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
If one happened it wouldn't be Bush's fault it would be the terrorist's good fortune.


Your kidding me, right?

How many billions of dollars are being spent on The War on Terror? I stopped counting after $250,000,000,000

His whole claim to presidency is The War on Terror, this is also huge in his re-election campaign. He has said numerous times that we are doing everything we can to protect the American people. Good Fortune is me winning the $250 million powerball, not a Nuclear attack on a US city.....



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
His whole claim to presidency is The War on Terror,


I really don't think so. The was no war on terror when he ran. That came after the fact and quite frankly, given a choice, Bush wouldn't want to be in the middle of it now. It needs to be dealt with but, overall it's a major distraction to domestic issues.

What we're living with now is 8 years of neglect by Clinton to what was building up during the '90's.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
and those who breathe life will open their eyes. Bush himself was not behind 9-11 but his buddies who run the oil companies were. They, all the big oil interests, are the ones funding and hiring Al Quaida and I am sure somewhere Al Quaida is a code word for destructors of the homeland. Mark my words, someday it will all come out that Bush and Company let the oil companies rule the world through terror and Al Quaida was their hired merc army who did it.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   


Your kidding me, right?


Well thats a great way to completely ignore what I said and make up an argument


I said, it would be the terrorists good fortune, not ours.
Please read the post again.

No doubt, every time Al Queda kills innoscents they think that Allah has blessed them with good fortune. I could be wrong; maybe they think its bad fortune they are successfull but, that does seem a little counter intuitive..


Variable



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable
Well thats a great way to completely ignore what I said and make up an argument

I said, it would be the terrorists good fortune, not ours.
Please read the post again.
Variable


I did not ignore what you said, I was replying to it. How could you claim that with the biliions and billions of dollars he is spending on this that it would not be his fault? I know you said it would be the terrorists "good fortune", With what Bush is claiming to have done with Homeland Security, "Good Fortune" would not exist.


I really don't think so. The was no war on terror when he ran.


I know this, this has made his presidency. He is running campaign commercials with 9-11 in it. This is his claim to presidency. As far as Clinton is concerned, congress was more concerned with him getting oral sex, than they were about Terrorism.


What we're living with now is 8 years of neglect by Clinton to what was building up during the '90's.


What about the CIA training OBL. What about Reagen and Georges Dad? This does not just lay during clintons Reign.

Maybe if GHWB would have taken out Sadamm in '91, we might not be in this situation, but then again maybe we would. We wouldn't be in Iraq right now if he did.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
wmd's or convential methods? I don't know which, but I feel that we are being programmed for another attack, perhaps one that is carefully staged?



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
TMT, you had mentioned the missing fuel rods in your editorial, maybe this story is of interest.

No Luck Finding Missing Fuel Rods

BRATTLEBORO - Despite three weeks of searching through its nuclear fuel records for the past 25 years, Entergy Nuclear still hasn't found any documentation that shows where the two pieces of highly radioactive nuclear fuel are, Entergy Nuclear vice president Jay Thayer told a state nuclear advisory panel Tuesday.

Members of the public and the panel said it was clear that the missing fuel was only discovered by a persistent inspector of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, David Pelton, who made Entergy Nuclear employees go back and make a visual confirmation that the pieces were in a stainless steel pail at the bottom of the 40-foot-deep pool.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
On the missing fuel rods:


Thayer told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel that the fuel rod pieces from Vermont Yankee in all likelihood are in either a low-level nuclear waste site in South Carolina, Washington state or a now-closed federal facility in Beatty, Nev.
Rutland Herald

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


"In all Likelyhood"? Come on now. We are tlaking about Nuclear products here.

I still have not seen any info or updates concerning The NJ Problems.

Thanks Phoenix



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 08:27 PM
link   
"In all Likelyhood"? Come on now. We are tlaking about Nuclear products here.

Thanks Phoenix

You welcome TrickmastertricK

You know we're talking about a facility that should have security and procedures one level below our weapons stockpile - and we're seeing answers like "In all likelyhood" that really worries me in respect to whats happening at the next level down with industrial use of radioactive products and finally at the bottom of the security ladder medical equipment and products.

I'm not confident at all that it would be difficult to obtain radioactive products if one knew where to look or infiltrate, thats why I agree with your conclusion about an attack.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 08:40 PM
link   
The Government decided to spend time on making Nuclear sites more secure, Last Month.


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Security upgrades ordered at nuclear weapons sites after the September 11 attacks may not be fully in place for five more years, auditors say.

Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., asked why it took nearly two years from the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon for the Energy Department to develop its revised May 2003 assessment of the kinds of terror attacks security forces probably would have to defend against. He also wanted to know why it will take another two to five years to deal with the increased risks.
CNN

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This to me is just outta hand. This is one of the things that gets me as to The Bush Administration's knowledge of 9-11. I would have made this a top priority. Apparently they think we are totally safe for the next 5 years.

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   


I did not ignore what you said, I was replying to it. How could you claim that with the biliions and billions of dollars he is spending on this that it would not be his fault? I know you said it would be the terrorists "good fortune", With what Bush is claiming to have done with Homeland Security, "Good Fortune" would not exist.


I don't understand this train of thought. If you are saying that because we are forewarned, and spending money on preparation for a future attack, any attack that takes place is Bush's fault; I would say you're grasping at straws in an effort to pin blame on Bush.
Banks for instance, are well aware that they may be robbed and take many measures to secure themselves; if they are robbed successfully it is not the bank manager's fault, unless he did not take prudent security measures.
No plan, however cunning, is proof against failure. Your premise fails the test of common sense.

Variable



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Bank Managers do not have the resources the US Government has. Bank managers have not sent Troops around the world to hunt down bank robbers, they have not spent billions of dollars on securing their banks, they have not made legislation to stop potential robbers. Your comparing apples and oranges.

Nothing is 100% foolproof. But what I have written about should be stopped, and if it is not, It Is Bush's fault.

In HIS Words, not mine:



"We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the
worst threats before they emerge."
-President George W. Bush
to graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in June 2002

"this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome
except victory."
- President George Bush, addressing the nation 20.march 2003

We must continue to give law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act, which allows federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells and to seize their assets. Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens. You need to renew the Patriot Act.
-President George W. Bush 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress Jan 20, 2004

Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. 28 months have passed since Sept. 11, 2001-over 2 years without an attack on American soil-and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable and comforting-and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Jerusalem, Istanbul and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated.
--President George W. Bush 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress Jan 20, 2004

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports 3 great goals for America: We will win this war, we will protect our homeland, and we will revive our economy.

It costs a lot to fight this war. We have spent more than a billion dollars a month-over $30 million a day-and we must be prepared for future operations. Afghanistan proved that expensive precision weapons defeat the enemy and spare innocent lives, and we need more of them. We need to replace aging aircraft and make our military more agile to put our troops anywhere in the world quickly and safely.

Our men and women in uniform deserve the best weapons, the best equipment and the best training and they also deserve another pay raise. My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay.
--President George W. Bush State of the Union speech to joint session of Congress Jan 29, 2002

We have begun a comprehensive review of the US military, the state of our strategy, the structure of our forces, the priorities of our budget.

We do not know yet the exact shape of our future military, but we know the direction we must begin to travel. On land, our heavy forces will be lighter. Our light forces will be more lethal. All will be easier to deploy and to sustain. In the air, well be able to strike across the world with pinpoint accuracy. On the oceans, well connect information & weapons in new ways, maximizing our ability to project power over land. In space, well protect our network of satellites.

All of this will require great effort and new spending. My first budget makes only a start. Before we make our full investment, we must know our exact priorities, and we will not know our priorities until the defense review is finished. That report will mark the beginning of a new defense agenda and a new strategic vision and will be the basis for allocating our defense resources
--President George W. Bush Speech at Joint Forces Command headquarters, Norfolk, VA Feb 14, 2001

In December 2001, following months of negotiations and discussions with Russia, the US provided a formal six-month notice that it was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. The President's FY04 Budget provides over $9 billion to begin the deployment of defenses against long-range ballistic missile threats, including new interceptors to be deployed over the next two years.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 30, 2003

We must prepare our nations against the dangers of a new era. The grave threat from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has not gone away with the cold war, it has evolved into many separate threats, some of them harder to see and harder to answer, and the adversaries seeking these tools of terror are less predictable, more diverse.

With advanced technology, we must confront the threats that come on a missile. With shared intelligence and enforcement, we must confront the threats that come in a shipping container or in a suitcase. We have no higher priority than the defense of our people against terrorist attack. To succeed, America knows we must work with our allies. We did not prevail together in the cold war only to go our separate ways, pursuing separate plans with separate technologies. The dangers ahead confront us all. The defenses we build must protect us all.
President George W. Bush Speech at Joint Forces Command headquarters, Norfolk, VA Feb 14, 2001

President Bush initiated a comprehensive reorganization of the border agencies as well as other administrative measures to increase departmental services and capabilities to better protect our borders and facilitate legitimate travel and commerce.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 30, 2003

The Department of Homeland Security has provided for increased security at critical facilities for water supplies, power plants, bridges, and subway systems, reducing the chances of an attack that could disrupt our daily life or the economy.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 30, 2003

President Bush's budget proposed $379.9 billion for the Department of Defense, increasing defense spending by $15.3 billion. The budget fully reflects the Bush Administration's defense strategy, which calls for a focus on countering 21st century threats such as terrorism. The United States must strengthen its defenses to protect the nation's interests and to assure a leading role in global affairs.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 30, 2003

America is no longer protected by vast oceans. We are protected from attack only by vigorous action abroad and increased vigilance at home.

My budget nearly doubles funding for a sustained strategy of homeland security, focused on four key areas: bioterrorism, emergency response, airport and border security, and improved intelligence.

We will develop vaccines to fight anthrax and other deadly diseases. Well increase funding to help states and communities train and equip our heroic police and firefighters.

We will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the US.

Homeland security will make America not only stronger but in many ways better. Knowledge gained from bioterrorism research will improve public health. Stronger police and fire departments will mean safer neighborhoods. Stricter border enforcement will help combat illegal drugs.
--President George W. Bush State of the Union speech to joint session of Congress Jan 29, 2002


As far as I'm concerned the blame should be put on GW's shoulders.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
The Government decided to spend time on making Nuclear sites more secure, Last Month.


Its not the weapons sites nor the power plants that worry me so much, Its the Industrial and medical users and disposal companies that are going under the radar while everyone concentrates on the obvious threat.



posted on May, 20 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Yeah Phoenix, I hear where your coming from. There are plenty things that are not being paid attention to.

The FBI issued a Suicide Bomber in the US warning.
TIME

I believe this had been overlooked to an extent, although it may not cause large scale destruction, It could create alot of havoc.

*edit for spelling

[Edited on 20-5-2004 by TrickmastertricK]



posted on May, 21 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK

George W. Bush would be able to claim that his policies and administration is working. This would go huge in his favor for re-election. Yet there has not been one, NOT ONE, claim to stop a terrorist attack in the US since 9-11. Yes, none have happened, but its a question of the reality of Al-Qaeda or the reality of the Bush Administration. IMO. If you believe the Bush Administration was behind 9-11, then you know why there has not been any attacks, or attacks thwarted. If Al-Qaeda was behind it, why is there not any praise or more talk as to the functionality of the DHS?


If you mean that there has not been one claim of "having stopped a terrorist attack in the US" you are far from the truth.

First, you have the response from Colonel Qadhafi to end his weapons of mass destruction programs due to the war in Iraq.

Second,

"Chicago, L.A. towers were next targets


By Paul Martin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


LONDON Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes.
Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators.

Excerpt taken from.
www.washingtontimes.com...


"
U.S. said to have prevented two other attacks
Associated Press
St. Petersburg Times,
published September 28, 2001


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON -- The government's global manhunt has thwarted two terrorist attacks since Sept. 11 and gathered evidence suggesting collaborators were in various stages of planning on several other plots to harm U.S. interests here and abroad, officials said Thursday. "

Excerpt taken from.
www.sptimes.com...

Those are only a few of the terrorist attacks that have been avoided...

The only link I have seen between the current, "and past administrations", with the Bin Laden is with some members of the family, not with Osama.

If any terrorist attacks do happen again, its because the terrorist are being more careful knowing that up until now saying too much about possible attacks have given enough information to pertinent agencies and stopped further terrorist attacks on US soil.

If you want to find who was behind the September 11 attacks, look to what the U.S.S.R...err, i mean Russia and China have been doing by helping some terrorists groups against the US.




[Edited on 21-5-2004 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join