Al Queda promised nuclear reprisal

[clc]

So, do we feel the world today is safer than it was 72 hours ago? I don't really.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20059416-281.html#ixzz1LKa2sug4

May 3, 2011 1:01 PM PDT
WikiLeaks docs: Nuclear reprisals if bin Laden killed

Recently-released WikiLeaks documents show that detained al Qaeda members have predicted nuclear reprisals if Osama bin Laden were captured or killed.

The classified Defense Department files, obtained from detainee interviews at the Guantanamo Bay prison, were released by the document-sharing Web site a week before the raid in Pakistan that resulted in bin Laden's demise. (See list of related CNET stories.)

Maybe it's just another instance of their particular brand of Islam Bravado.

[Howey]

Your last sentence makes far more sense than everything before it.

Over the years how many tapes and videos have we heard and seen of bin Laden threatening this or that?

Other than a few minor league attempts at terrorism what has been accomplished?

Each one failed thanks to intelligence?

I'm not going to live in fear and neither should you.

[lil mike]

I think the world is a little safer.  Bin Ladin's death should be a demoralizer and throw the organization in disarray, at least for awhile.

Threats like using nukes if Bin Ladin is killed or captured don't seem to mean much to me me, because although I've no doubt they've made the threats, if Al Qaeda had a nuclear weapon, they would have used it as soon as it was operationally feasable, whether Bin Ladin was hidden away in Rancho Terrorismo, or dead and dumped in the ocean.

So I'm thinking they don't have one yet.  Give them time though...

[ekg]

So, do we feel the world today is safer than it was 72 hours ago? I don't really.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20059416-281.html#ixzz1LKa2sug4

May 3, 2011 1:01 PM PDT
WikiLeaks docs: Nuclear reprisals if bin Laden killed

Recently-released WikiLeaks documents show that detained al Qaeda members have predicted nuclear reprisals if Osama bin Laden were captured or killed.

The classified Defense Department files, obtained from detainee interviews at the Guantanamo Bay prison, were released by the document-sharing Web site a week before the raid in Pakistan that resulted in bin Laden's demise. (See list of related CNET stories.)

Maybe it's just another instance of their particular brand of Islam Bravado.

No, I don't feel any safer.. but I don't feel any more at risk either..

I figure they are going to hit us again regardless of what we do,how nice we are, how much we help their religion,how bad we are to them.....so the only thing we can do is hope to prevent it, and slaughter the people who fuck with us.. *shrug*

but no, I don't think it's bravdo this time.. I fully expect retaliation.. I just hope we catch it before it comes..

Thinking  that we shouldn't have killed OBL because we fear their retribution just isn't in me..

[FooFa]

The taliban always announces their spring offensive and we advertise what we're doing before we do it much of the time so maybe the al qaedas will get on board. Also I shared the headline somewhere in the Libya thread that the US allied with al qaeda in Libya so maybe we can ax them not to nuke us.

[blindboytwitch]

This is a moderately irrelavent revenge killing that will do nothing much to change the face of global terrorism.  It is a political victory and statement more than anything else-- it's certainly not a point of national pride to me.   

Al Queda isn't necessarily demoralized by this at all, just growingly pase'.  I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the real conspiracy theory was that Zwahiri (sp?) gave up Bin Laden to try and inspire some sort of martrydom in what's left of that shit hole of an organization. 

Bin Laden hadn't lead the thing for years and was living like a goddamn animal in a windowless compound with 30 people. 

I'm going to a BBQ this weekend and put my feet up and not think anymore about this than if they announced a sale on Mazda's.... 

[FooFa]

Al Queda: It would be helpful if they let us know which one they're talking about since there's at least 3 versions. This is not theory.
First it was the name of a CIA database:

Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.
Wayne Madsen Report
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1291

In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan:

"With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad." (Ahmed Rashid, "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism", Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999).

This project of the US intelligence apparatus was conducted with the active support of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), which was entrusted in channelling covert military aid to the Islamic brigades and financing, in liason with the CIA, the madrassahs and Mujahideen training camps.

U.S. government support to the Mujahideen was presented to world public opinion as a "necessary response" to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal.

The CIA’s military-intelligence operation in Afghanistan, which consisted in creating the "Islamic brigades", was launched prior rather than in response to the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. In fact, Washington’s intent was to deliberately trigger a civil war, which has lasted for more than 25 years.

"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166 … [which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies — a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987 … as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who travelled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan’s ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There, the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels."(Steve Coll, The Washington Post, July 19, 1992.)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718
US Allies With Al Qaeda In Libya

Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".
His revelations came even as Idriss Deby Itno, Chad's president, said al-Qaeda had managed to pillage military arsenals in the Libyan rebel zone and acquired arms, "including surface-to-air missiles, which were then smuggled into their sanctuaries".
Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.
US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

This is supposed to make any kind of sense?

[Howey]

This is supposed to make any kind of sense?

No. Because it's not true*.

*In the manner that the writer took a fact (that the CIA funded and armed Afghan rebels in the late 70's) and created a made up conspiracy.

[FooFa]

No. Because it's not true*.

*In the manner that the writer took a fact (that the CIA funded and armed Afghan rebels in the late 70's) and created a made up conspiracy.

Seriously, I think that the truth is in the middle like many things where dualistic explanations make everything all nice and tidy. Power corrupts. We hear some version of the same thing over and over with the CIA, that the informants/whathaveyou, betrayed them. I'm sure that's true and I'm sure some people take that to the extreme where they believe the entire operation is machavelian from start to finish. I've heard more than one ex cia person speak about their involvement with drugs and fighting smaller unpopular wars off the books so to deny that would be ignorance on purpose. I'm saying I agree with you or don't discount what you're saying entirely but there's still much meat all around Iran Contra that hasn't come to light.

[Howey]

Seriously, I think that the truth is in the middle like many things where dualistic explanations make everything all nice and tidy. Power corrupts. We hear some version of the same thing over and over with the CIA, that the informants/whathaveyou, betrayed them. I'm sure that's true and I'm sure some people take that to the extreme where they believe the entire operation is machavelian from start to finish. I've heard more than one ex cia person speak about their involvement with drugs and fighting smaller unpopular wars off the books so to deny that would be ignorance on purpose. I'm saying I agree with you or don't discount what you're saying entirely but there's still much meat all around Iran Contra that hasn't come to light.

Please feel free to post that in your thread. I look forward to it!

[FooFa]

I mentioned Iran Contra as being synonymous in error, actually but it's the same thing as far as allegations. I don't have anything more to say in 'my thread' abut it. If people don't educate themselves about these institutions that somehow became off bounds to offer critical analysis of, it's their choice.

I suppose the friction on this thing in the past is that when I've learned as much as I have about the Bush family for instance, I can't pretend like I don't know it and therefor don't consider whatever it is as an erroneous statement a lot of times when I aroused  a reaction that I wasn't expecting.