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: Al-Qaeda Linked Terrorists Threaten "Unbearable Hell"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 04:39 AM
link   
A group calling itself 'Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades' has directly threatened the U.S. following the re-election of George W. Bush. The group has stated that the 'unbearable hell' will occur in the 'coming days'. At the moment it is impossible toverify the statement. This threat comes only days after Osama bin Ladens statement prior to the U.S. election.
 



www.news.com.au
"The coming days will show you that the one you preferred will lead you to an unbearable hell," said the group calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades after the Al-Qaeda military chief killed in Afghanistan in October 2001.

"Although the criminal Bush has spilt blood of Muslims during the last four years and despite the butcheries that he committed and continues to perpetrate in Afghanistan, in Palestine and in Iraq, we see that... the applause of his people is increasing," it said.

"This shows the nature of the American people who approved the war against Islam led by criminal America," it added.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The wording of the statement appears to blame the American people for
re-electing Bush. The same group claimed responsibility for the Madrid train attack in March this year, Spains worst terrorist attack.
edit:title/layout

[edit on 5-11-2004 by sanctum]

[edit on 5-11-2004 by sanctum]




posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   
yeah yeah, we know. We should have voted for Kerry and all the world would have hugged and kissed as it welcomed us back into the world community. Don't make the mistake of comparing the U.S. reaction to threats to those of Spain. In case you haven't noticed, we're not Spain. While we may have some loonies on the left trying to tear down our country, we don't take kindly to outsiders telling us what to do and we will reac t MUCH differently than Spain or France.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:12 AM
link   
And so it begins....congratulations....


Us "loonies on the left" do not advocate cowing to terrorists...but we don't advocate going after little fish when it's the big fish that bit us either...

Well, we (or Diebold) "voted" for WWIII, so we better stop pussy-footing around with it, and # or get off the pot now... Since we basically just gave the world the finger, we shouldn't be so worried about "precision" warfare anymore, as our international rep is all but irretreivable at this point....



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:25 AM
link   
How do you consider the people of the United States selecting OUR president as "giving the finger to the world"? Are we supposed to ask Europe who we should elect? The same countries that were selling their U.N. votes by taking money from Saddam and supplying him with weapons? You bet your a$$ I'm giving the finger to those people. As far as my vote for Bush though, that was simply my right as an American and it was a vote for an American president, not some U.N. member leader. You care too much about what people who dislike you think about you. Get over it.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   
It has nothing to do with like or dislike or just wanting the approval of the world. It has to do with doing the rught thing and in this case over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq, mainly due to coalition led airstrikes. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with ousting a tyrannical dictator (which there are plenty of in the world) or WMDs (which there are plenty of in the world, just not in Iraq). It had to do with a plan to increase American presence in the Middle East and securing energy resources (oil) to prevent a further shift of power in the world.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

The people that you refer to as "leftists" that are apparently trying to tear down this country are the same people opposed to trading their civil rights for "protection against terrorism". This is what Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin warned us against, they both said that we deserve neither if we trade freedom for protection. Look at the Patriot Act and look at the illegal arrests of peaceful protestors all over the country. The "leftists" are the ones fighting for the constitution and, on the same hand, fighting for inncoent people all over the world. I hate to see innocent people die, but to know that they died for no purpose at our military's hands tells me there is a problem in the U.S.. Just b/c the rest of the world thinks that we're wrong doesn't make us right and it should tell you that the position should be rethought not strengthen your belief in this war.

And by the way, here's some simple logic. You piss alot of peopl off, some of them are going to try and hurt you. We have pissed alot of people off. Why? B/c we've killed their family members, uprooted them from their home, blown babies legs and arms off, you name it.

I have a friend whose brother just got back from Iraq. He was standing next to a friend/soldier whose head exploded from a sniper shot. This guy had to get pieces of his buddy's skull removed from his face. So, when he comes home, he begs everyone he sees to vote for Kerry for one simple reason. B/c Bush has proven that he will put soldiers in harms way, based on a lie. This soldier knows that we are over there destroying a country that was not aggressive towards us and his friends are dying.

If Bush is such a strong and patriotic leader, why would he not discuss things with Saddam like he asked in an interview before the invasion? If Bush was right, why not tell the world publicly why he was right to invade.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   
No one is saying war isn't ugly. I have a brother who is a pilot in the AF Reserves and flies into Iraq on a monthly basis if not more regularly. If you think Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, you are insane. Let me ask you something, a while back the Jordanian government caught truckloads of VX and other chemical weapons being transported from Syria. The people caught driving these trucks were interrogated and said they were planning on attacking the American embassy in Jordan. They estimated that upwards of 80,000 people would have died from this attack. Before the war, convoys of trucks were photographed from our satellites going into Syria. Gee, I wonder what they were moving??? I'm not some mean, war mongering conservative here. I spent 10 years in the AF working in different surveillance units and I understand the dangers of letting Saddam do his thing over there. By the way, the guys driving those trucks also said they planned and trained for this atttack starting in 1999 and that they did this while in Iraq. Of course you'll probably just say that this was manufactured by Bush or Rumsfeld or since CBS didn't report it it must be fack so I won't expect you to give it any credence.

You can't negotiate and hope to appease people who want to destroy you. Yeah, soldiers and airmen die in war. What do you think would happen?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by trogdor
The same countries that were selling their U.N. votes by taking money from Saddam and supplying him with weapons?


Other countries took money from Saddam and supplied him with weapons. I've even seen pictures of their current secretary of defence shaking hands with him. They also gave him military intelligence to assist him in a war when he was using WMD (also supplied from this country) against his enemy. I assume you're not from one of these countries, otherwise it would be hypocritical of you to accuse others in this way.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
sure, we gave him weapons when he was fighting Iran. At that time Iraq was not a threat, Iran was. You know the world changes guys, your friend one day can be your enemy later and vice-versa. You know we nuked Japan and now they are one of our better allies in Iraq.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I'm not sure what pictures you're talking about, but a convoy of trucks doesn't necessarily means that they were exporting WMDs. There have been inspectors in there for that last 12 years and they've been destroying the old weapons cache and making sure there hasn't been new WMDS manufactured. And it's not me that doesn't think Saddam didn't have WMDs it's the CIA, it's Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush, so if anything, they are insane, I'm just listening. In fact, I just saw this video the other day of Powell and Rice speaking in Feb. and July (or June) of 2001 saying that Saddam was absolutely not a threat and that he has been stripped of any ability to manufacture WMD's. Then Sep. 11th happens and now he has the capability?

www.muchosucko.com...



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Well, many argue (and I believe they are right) that Saddam wasn't a threat this time. He was a horrible guy, to be sure, but not a threat to France or Russia, so it must have been OK for them to sell him weapons, right?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Sure, if they want to take the side of Saddam over the US they have every right to. Just don't tell me that we need to do things to make the French and Russians happy or ask their permission for anything. Apparently they've chosen their side so let them live with it.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by trogdor
You know we nuked Japan and now they are one of our better allies in Iraq.


Actually twice trogdor.
But, that was over 50 years ago. I think we all need to consider the world situation in present time.

Sanc'.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:49 AM
link   
So the cutoff for how far back we should look in history is somewhere between 25 and 50 right?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Either way in the elections terrorits would find an excuse for conducting strikes. Just as we have justified our overseas exploits and operations.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by trogdor
So the cutoff for how far back we should look in history is somewhere between 25 and 50 right?


I think we need to deal with what the world is today. No, there is no cut-off point when referring to
history. When dealing with a dire present world situation, well history is as they say... 'history'

Sanc'.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I agree we should deal with the threats of the day. My point is though, that is exactly what we were doing back in the 70's and 80's when we supported Saddam against Iran and when we gave weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight the Russians. That was my point about where Saddam got the WMD that we know he had. It's an ever-changing situation and you don't know who your friends will be in the futrue.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Right, this thread has drifted off topic, if you wanna discuss the past dealings of the US and other countries with iraq, make another thread.


[edit on 5-11-2004 by picard_is_actually_a_grey]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Iran was a threat? LOL Is that we were backing them at the same time as we supplying Iraq with chemical weapons? No, we were backing Iran at the same time fund another terrorists in group in south america called the Sandinistas.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Point taken trogdor.

Sanc'.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Whoa lets keep american "afraid" again, elections came and go and we still should be afraid very afraid.

Please peopel bush told us we "are a safer world" and we "are safer in american" because he took sadam out of power.

Its not going to be any terror attack anytime soon.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join