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.

 

Front page of drudge says 'Seized Al Qaeda Documents Years Old.'

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Front Page of Drudge Report has the following



Much of the information that led authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the NY and D.C. areas was 3 or 4 years old... NYT Tuesday Page One Splash To Claim: Intelligence and law enforcement officials 'had not yet found concrete evidence that a terror plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way'... WASH POST Page One: Alerts Stemmed from Pre-9/11 Acts /// 'There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new,' said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. 'Why did we go to this level?... I still don't know that'... POST: 'Most of the information was compiled prior to the Sept. 11 attacks and that there are serious doubts about the age of other, undated files'...


If this is true (and well, i'm not a fan of Drudge really....) but @!$%##!!!!!!!!

This Campaign of Fear-mongering NEEDS TO END!


[edit on 3-8-2004 by John bull 1]




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:45 PM
link   
and, nytimes.com now has the story....

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:57 PM
link   
The New York Times reporting at its best again....

*shakes .*
Let me know when The NY 'Slimes' prints their 'credible' source for this news story, k?

It also seems apparent that the NYT's, as many others, has/have forgotten that it takes good ole' Al Qaida seemingly years to plan and enact a major terrorist event(s)......



seekerof



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I believe the Washington Times has the story as well...



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The New York Times reporting at its best again....

*shakes .*
Let me know when The NY 'Slimes' prints their 'credible' source for this news story, k?


...here comes the talking points...



It also seems apparent that the NYT's, as many others, has/have forgotten that it takes good ole' Al Qaida seemingly years to plan and enact a major terrorist event(s)......


Ah there we go, right on queue!

This is information from BEFORE september 11th and was a threat THEN. This is an OLD plan.

This is pure politics to steal any thunder from Kerry and the DNC.


If they have had this information for so long, why is it so important all of a sudden?! They've given vague threat after vague threat and well i'm sick of it.




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:08 PM
link   
and here is the washington post's story:

www.washingtonpost.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:06 AM
link   
As far as this information being old and now being used to steal steam away from the DNC bounce, that is pure speculation and also fear mongering. Doesnt really make much sense considering the RNC is coming up here soon and it will also have a 'bounce'.

What I would be worried about is that, if this information actually *is* old, what could the true terrorist threat really be? Do you think that they would want to hold off any longer? They are just biding their time and the clock is running out. Anyway, again, if this information is old; whats really next?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Hmm, could the new terror alert have anything to do with this:

Bush announces new intelligence czar post



WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush, declaring the nation was still not safe from terrorist attack, announced Monday the creation of a national director to oversee federal intelligence gathering and the creation of a National Intelligence Center to monitor and coordinate all government counter-terrorism plans and activities.




"The work of securing this vast nation is not done," Bush said. "The elevation of the threat level in New York and New Jersey and Washington, D.C., is a serious reminder, a solemn reminder, of the threat we continue to face."


Ah yes, I think thats it. Don't worry, more bureaucracy is good for our intelligence. That's right, go to sleep. Excellent...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   
As I commented in another thread on this topic, the information IS old.
It had NO concrete planning, and no timeline.

This seems to be scare mongering and contrived hysteria. The question is WHY?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
With all respect for netchicken, if why is the only question than this is the most useless thread in recent memory, because I think the several whys stand out like a pimp at a Mary K convention.

1. They are drawing attention to New York right on time for the RNC. Even dems are gonna watch, just to see if it gets blown up. It's gonna get Republican attention and hopefully create an inflated "bounce". Honestly I think "bounce" is a bunch of crap- a mundane minor detail being hyped up to create the impression of a horse-race although all indications are that this election will be a slaughter. (the confusing part is that depending on your source it's hard to tell who will do the slaughtering). Either Bush's numbers REALLY are as good as FNC's polling on individual issues suggest, or Kerry's numbers really are as good as the more generic "who will you vote for" poles suggest. Either way, this one is gonna go 55-60 percent to one side, which is a massacre compared to last time.

2. The threat is justifying the new counter terrorism position, which even Bush had some reservations about. Also, the most conservative (read fascist) elements can spin this to suggest that a cabinet position is necessary. Ironically, it opens the door for liberals to make the exact same arguement, just because it allows them to say that Bush didn't do enough!

3. By creating a state of siege here at home, they reduce the impact of new attacks, while also distracting from losses abroad, such as in Iraq. Perception is everything.

4. Americans are horrified of an attack during the convention or election, and they government can't afford to not have an alert up if there is an attack, becuase then everyones saying "even i knew that was coming, but there was no alert!"

5. If Donald Rumsfeld has somehow obtained permission to do whatever he wants, this is probably providing a prelude for terrorist attacks that will kill every prominent democrat on the east coast, which will be avenged by the invasion of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and possibly backing of a UN effort in Sudan. (let's face it, if Rummy and his boys are in their long enough, we're gonna get the whole continent... i think it's gonna be hillarious when America invades Kuwait.)

Anyway, my seriousness is gone, and now so am I...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:56 AM
link   
LOL, hey check out my earlier post in this thread. I think the why is the establishment of a National Intelligence Center. Thats a BIG position and it seems to be swept under the rug.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 04:42 AM
link   
BBC are running the story too:



There are claims that new warnings of al-Qaeda attacks on US cities are based on old intelligence.

news.bbc.co.uk...


The hegelian dialectic is working well.

On a side note, whatever happened to American Intelligence?
I thought they were amongst the best in the world, recent events would suggest otherwise. . .
Unless it's all by design.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by shanti23]




top topics



 
0

log in

join