PDA

View Full Version : Christmas chaos: Al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks across Europe and the U.S



Gingersnap
12-16-2010, 11:24 AM
Christmas chaos: Al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks across Europe and the U.S., warn insurgents

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:19 PM on 15th December 2010

Terrorists are plotting deadly Christmas attacks in what could make for holiday travel chaos.

Iraqi authorities have obtained confessions from captured insurgents who claim Al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks in the United States and Europe during the holiday season.

Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani said that the botched bombing in central Stockholm last weekend was among the alleged plots the insurgents revealed. The new terror warnings are based on information gathered from recent detainees. Earlier this month security forces arrested 39 al Qaeda militants, including the group's leadership in Anbar province.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in a telephone interview from New York, called the claims 'a critical threat.'

Both al-Bolani and Zebari said Iraq has informed Interpol of the alleged plots, and alerted authorities in the U.S. and European countries of the possible danger.

Neither official specified which country or countries in Europe are alleged targets.

Western counter-terrorism officials are on high alert during the holiday season.

Last year saw the failed attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called underwear bomber, who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by lighting explosives in his pants.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338881/Al-Qaeda-plans-Christmas-suicide-attacks-Europe-U-S-warns-insurgents.html#ixzz18IBz2JeM

noonwitch
12-16-2010, 12:57 PM
Al Qaeda seems to be recruiting people who can't figure out how to set off their bombs (thankfully). Of course, this should be taken seriously, but we can't hide in our homes every time one of those whack jobs says they are going to attack us on Christmas (or Easter, or July 4).

I really wonder sometimes if their best and brightest were the guys who pulled off 9-11.

hampshirebrit
12-16-2010, 01:48 PM
I really wonder sometimes if their best and brightest were the guys who pulled off 9-11.

I wouldn't count on AQ always sending dimwits like this one.

The printer bomb attempts were a success from AQAP's point of view. The goal was to get the bombs past at least one high security perimeter, which was achieved. It showed sophistication in bomb making and a good knowledge of aviation cargo inspection systems. If the bombs had exploded, that would have been a plus (for the terrorists) but the main aim was to disrupt global economies and increase the general fear level.

PoliCon
12-16-2010, 02:37 PM
If blowing yourself up is so desirable - hows come the leaders never do it? Hows come Arafat never blew himself up?

hampshirebrit
12-16-2010, 04:03 PM
If blowing yourself up is so desirable - hows come the leaders never do it? Hows come Arafat never blew himself up?

Jeepers, you are such an ignorant ass-clown at times.

Arafat founded Fatah, which was a left wing nationalist and secularist movement.

I know this may come as a big shock to you, but secularists don't tend to blow themselves up for any religion.

Bleda
12-16-2010, 05:34 PM
Make no mistake, the leaders are as fanatic as the rank-and-file troops, if not more so. They know that blowing themselves up will do little to no damage, and that their role in jihad is much more important than that.

And I'd hardly call Fatah secular (http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=1510&TTL=Brothers_in_Arms:_Fatah_and_Palestinian_Islami c_Jihad). I don't know why news outlets always refer to them as 'moderate' or 'secular.' I guess compared to most of the terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories, they're saints. But not really.

Odysseus
12-16-2010, 09:52 PM
I wouldn't count on AQ always sending dimwits like this one.

The printer bomb attempts were a success from AQAP's point of view. The goal was to get the bombs past at least one high security perimeter, which was achieved. It showed sophistication in bomb making and a good knowledge of aviation cargo inspection systems. If the bombs had exploded, that would have been a plus (for the terrorists) but the main aim was to disrupt global economies and increase the general fear level.
They were certainly an effective probe of our weaknesses, but the failure to achieve a terror effect was a letdown for al Qaeda, which would have much rather had a body count to point to, rather than just a successful drill.

If blowing yourself up is so desirable - hows come the leaders never do it? Hows come Arafat never blew himself up?
More importantly, why is it that Osama Bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri haven't blown themselves up? And the answer is, at least to their followers, that they are too vital to the jihad to take martyrdom, but one of these days, when the time is right, boy will they show the infidels something. Just you wait. :rolleyes:

Jeepers, you are such an ignorant ass-clown at times.

Arafat founded Fatah, which was a left wing nationalist and secularist movement.

I know this may come as a big shock to you, but secularists don't tend to blow themselves up for any religion.
Secularists tend to blow themselves up for anarchic or leftist movements. Remember the Russian anarchists who used to throw bombs at various public figures?

Make no mistake, the leaders are as fanatic as the rank-and-file troops, if not more so. They know that blowing themselves up will do little to no damage, and that their role in jihad is much more important than that.

And I'd hardly call Fatah secular (http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=1510&TTL=Brothers_in_Arms:_Fatah_and_Palestinian_Islami c_Jihad). I don't know why news outlets always refer to them as 'moderate' or 'secular.' I guess compared to most of the terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories, they're saints. But not really.

Fatah is only secular compared to Hamas, which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Arafat was nominally a Muslim, but he was really just a corrupt opportunist. His personal net worth was estimated to be anywhere between $900 million and $1.3 billion, and all of that was skimmed from aid that was supposed to alleviate the alleged suffering of his people. I'm always amazed that anyone considered him anything but a thug and scam artist.

PoliCon
12-17-2010, 12:22 AM
Jeepers, you are such an ignorant ass-clown at times.

Arafat founded Fatah, which was a left wing nationalist and secularist movement.

I know this may come as a big shock to you, but secularists don't tend to blow themselves up for any religion.

http://www.danielpipes.org/89/arafats-suicide-factory

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=114

Arafat was a con - a manipulator - a thief - and most likely a homosexual. He didn't care about religion - true enough - but he did care about power and used terrorism and suicide bombers to his best advantage.

hampshirebrit
12-17-2010, 03:35 AM
Secularists tend to blow themselves up for anarchic or leftist movements. Remember the Russian anarchists who used to throw bombs at various public figures?

Agreed. They blew themselves up for Karl Marx rather than Allah.



Fatah is only secular compared to Hamas, which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Arafat was nominally a Muslim, but he was really just a corrupt opportunist. His personal net worth was estimated to be anywhere between $900 million and $1.3 billion, and all of that was skimmed from aid that was supposed to alleviate the alleged suffering of his people. I'm always amazed that anyone considered him anything but a thug and scam artist.
Again agreed.

Odysseus
12-17-2010, 11:43 AM
Agreed. They blew themselves up for Karl Marx rather than Allah.

It's interesting how much the Cold War and the Sharia War have in common. In both cases, we are fighting a global doctrine which is advanced by subscriber states, often through deniable intermediaries, and which its adherents believe will result in a Utopian fantasy. The Marxist believes that this fantasy will occur in this world, while the jihadi believes that it will occur in the next. Both doctrines assume that non-believers must be defeated for simply not believing, and that those who have heard the message are in a state of false consciousness or denial of prophesy.

Again agreed.
And yet, we are negotiating with his heirs for a peace that will never happen.

Bleda
12-17-2010, 04:00 PM
And yet, we are negotiating with his heirs for a peace that will never happen.

Actually, I think it will happen, although not soon. The peace between Israel and its neighbors will be achieved through war, probably during a larger war involving more than Israel and the Palestinians. But since the war against Israel is a religious war, the war will continue until the people of the Middle East grow sick of Islam and become die-hard secularists, which could take a couple of centuries.

Wishful thinking? :(

hampshirebrit
12-17-2010, 05:24 PM
It's interesting how much the Cold War and the Sharia War have in common. In both cases, we are fighting a global doctrine which is advanced by subscriber states, often through deniable intermediaries, and which its adherents believe will result in a Utopian fantasy. The Marxist believes that this fantasy will occur in this world, while the jihadi believes that it will occur in the next. Both doctrines assume that non-believers must be defeated for simply not believing, and that those who have heard the message are in a state of false consciousness or denial of prophesy.


They have some things in common, but strapping a suicide belt around oneself in order to kill innocents is an invention born of religion, not of atheism.

By definition, when you're done blowing your own shit up, in 99.99 times /100, (four nines or better) you have got to have been convinced beforehand that you are doing it for your version of god, and that there is going to be some reward waiting for you on the other side.

There are some noble exceptions, and I have come across records of two of them on my travels in Prague this week ... two young men who self-imolated rather than yield to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1969. But they were not out to take anyone else out. Awful as they were, their acts were noble in a way that a suicide bomber's act never will be.

Eastern Bloc Marxism is pretty much dead as a philosophy these days.

Extreme religiosity, mostly, but not entirely limited to one particular religion (and I don't think I need to name it here) is the replacement threat for Marxism.

Marxism was based on reason, flawed, but reason. Unlike our current threat.

Bleda
12-17-2010, 05:37 PM
Suicide bombing isn't the only way of killing yourself and taking people with you, you know. You could argue that a man that walks into a police station with an AK and starts shooting is no different than a suicide bomber, and many 'sane', irreligious people have done such things, perhaps even more than religious people.

hampshirebrit
12-17-2010, 06:16 PM
Suicide bombing isn't the only way of killing yourself and taking people with you, you know. You could argue that a man that walks into a police station with an AK and starts shooting is no different than a suicide bomber, and many 'sane', irreligious people have done such things, perhaps even more than religious people.

You're right, in nearly everything you say.

My point, however, still remains valid and intact.

Specifically, my point is that the use of the suicide belt has been specifically developed by, and may as well have been almost patented by, the religious, and certainly not the non-relgious.

You have to admit, surely, that regardless of who invented it, the more religiously inclined segment of humanity have taken to this kind of murder with an almost indecent enthusiasm, far in excess of any other group.

It has been some time since we heard of a committed atheist carrying out a suicide bombing.

PoliCon
12-17-2010, 06:38 PM
Specifically, my point is that the use of the suicide belt has been specifically developed by, and may as well have been almost patented by, the religious, and certainly not the non-relgious. So the goals of the Tamil Tigers were religious? They actually invented the suicide vest. You are correct that suicide attacks are mostly religiously motivated.

hampshirebrit
12-17-2010, 06:44 PM
You are correct that suicide attacks are mostly religiously motivated.

Glad you agree with me.

You're still an ass-clown though, just slightly less so for conceding my point.

Bravo, there is hope for you yet. :p:D

PoliCon
12-17-2010, 06:46 PM
Glad you agree with me.

You're still an ass-clown though, just slightly less so for conceding my point.

Bravo, there is hope for you yet. :p:D

It's no secret that you brits adored Arafat - that doesn't make him any less the terrorist leader that he was.

hampshirebrit
12-17-2010, 06:54 PM
It's no secret that you brits adored Arafat - that doesn't make him any less the terrorist leader that he was.

Me? I think they're all turds, always have.

I had some doubts, so I travelled to Israel in 05/06.

Conclusion?

They're all turds, all of them. Get rid of all the overly religious turds, all of them, lock all the rational, normal people in a room, give them some maps and crayons and a good supply of coffee and pastries and the entire region's problems would be sorted out in less than a day, permanently.

It takes religion, only religion, to fuck up the Middle East.

Normal people want to trade with each other. Religious people prefer to kill each other.

Bleda
12-17-2010, 07:25 PM
You're right, in nearly everything you say.

My point, however, still remains valid and intact.

Specifically, my point is that the use of the suicide belt has been specifically developed by, and may as well have been almost patented by, the religious, and certainly not the non-relgious.

You have to admit, surely, that regardless of who invented it, the more religiously inclined segment of humanity have taken to this kind of murder with an almost indecent enthusiasm, far in excess of any other group.

It has been some time since we heard of a committed atheist carrying out a suicide bombing.

I think we can agree that, as far as we know, most suicide murderers (doesn't have to be suicide bombers) nowadays are motivated by religion/Islam. But they don't have a monopoly on that. I'm just saying I'm sure there are and have been many, many 'sane', irreligious suicide murderers.

hampshirebrit
12-17-2010, 09:03 PM
I think we can agree that, as far as we know, most suicide murderers (doesn't have to be suicide bombers) nowadays are motivated by religion/Islam. But they don't have a monopoly on that. I'm just saying I'm sure there are and have been many, many 'sane', irreligious suicide murderers.

Again, nearly agreed. The religious have a near-total monopoly on what is to some, the engaging yet self-limiting hobby of suicide murder.

You state that you are "sure there are and have been many, many 'sane', irreligious suicide murderers", and you may be right.

I am not well versed in the subject. Can you name some?

Regardless of if you can, or cannot, can we not reach agreement that the number of these can be multiplied a thousandfold and you will still not get anywhere near to the number of the religiously inclined who have committed this crime.

Suicide-murder, at least these days, seems to be the near-sole preserve of the ultra-religious.

NJCardFan
12-18-2010, 10:16 AM
Again, nearly agreed. The religious have a near-total monopoly on what is to some, the engaging yet self-limiting hobby of suicide murder.

You state that you are "sure there are and have been many, many 'sane', irreligious suicide murderers", and you may be right.

I am not well versed in the subject. Can you name some?

Regardless of if you can, or cannot, can we not reach agreement that the number of these can be multiplied a thousandfold and you will still not get anywhere near to the number of the religiously inclined who have committed this crime.

Suicide-murder, at least these days, seems to be the near-sole preserve of the ultra-religious.
I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush. You keep saying "the religious" when everyone knows it's just one religious theology that's doing these things. It isn't Christians. It isn't Jews. It isn't Hindus. It isn't Buddhists. It's Islam and Islam alone that are doing these things. Funny how you refuse to mention Islam specifically by name. Are you so brainwashed now with British PC that you refuse to name the 57st. gorilla in the room? Also, there has probably been more harm done in the name of political ideology than religion, or at least it's equal. The point is, extremes in one area or another always lead to disaster. If we all woke up tomorrow and found out that Islam decided to live and let live, there would be another spider in the woodpile to come out and start some bullshit. It's happened all throughout history. And it will never end.

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 12:30 PM
Are you so brainwashed now with British PC that you refuse to name the 57st. gorilla in the room?

Not at all. I've stated often enough on CU that Islam is the least domesticated of the three Abrahamic religions, and thus currently presents the most danger to humanity.

The other two have had their turn. Islam is the upstart, and it's the upstart's turn at bat. The major problem is that they have access to weaponry that the other two could only dream about when they were dominant.

PoliCon
12-18-2010, 12:33 PM
Not at all. I've stated often enough on CU that Islam is the least domesticated of the three Abrahamic religions, and thus currently presents the most danger to humanity.

The other two have had their turn. Islam is the upstart, and it's the upstart's turn at bat. The major problem is that they have access to weaponry that the other two could only dream about when they were dominant.

When were the Jews dominant? :confused:

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 01:14 PM
When were the Jews dominant? :confused:

Duh. When do you think? Before the other two turned up. Obviously. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-18-2010, 01:53 PM
Duh. When do you think? Before the other two turned up. Obviously. :rolleyes:
Wow. I never knew the Jews dominated the world.

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 02:01 PM
Wow. I never knew the Jews dominated the world.

Who was talking about world domination?

You are the first and only person on this thread so far to raise the subject.

PoliCon
12-18-2010, 02:08 PM
Not at all. I've stated often enough on CU that Islam is the least domesticated of the three Abrahamic religions, and thus currently presents the most danger to humanity.

The other two have had their turn. Islam is the upstart, and it's the upstart's turn at bat. The major problem is that they have access to weaponry that the other two could only dream about when they were dominant.


Who was talking about world domination?

You are the first and only person on this thread so far to raise the subject.

They pray tell how do you understand them to have been 'dominant?' 'Prior' does not equate to 'dominant' in my lexicon.

m00
12-18-2010, 02:29 PM
Wow. I never knew the Jews dominated the world.

Haven't you heard? They do right now! :D

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 03:12 PM
They pray tell how do you understand them to have been 'dominant?' 'Prior' does not equate to 'dominant' in my lexicon.

Jeepers. Dominant in its region, you dope. Why does everything need to be spelt out to you?

m00
12-18-2010, 03:29 PM
Jeepers. Dominant in its region, you dope. Why does everything need to be spelt out to you?

Between what years?

Odysseus
12-18-2010, 04:07 PM
Wow. I never knew the Jews dominated the world.
Haven't you been reading Gator's posts? We dominate the world right now through our diabolically clever PACs!

Specifically, my point is that the use of the suicide belt has been specifically developed by, and may as well have been almost patented by, the religious, and certainly not the non-relgious.
Sort of. Suicide bombing actually started during the 19th century among anarchists. But since then, it has been primarily a religious tool of religious tools.


You have to admit, surely, that regardless of who invented it, the more religiously inclined segment of humanity have taken to this kind of murder with an almost indecent enthusiasm, far in excess of any other group.
Agreed. And don't call him "Shirley"


Eastern Bloc Marxism is pretty much dead as a philosophy these days.
Except on US and UK college campuses.

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 04:40 PM
Except on US and UK college campuses.

LOL :D How true that is. And probably in more than a few European ones as well.

The young seem to have a perennial enthusiasm for Marxism.

I suspect in most cases it's more related to icons and symbols rather than any real intellectual understanding of it.

Rockntractor
12-18-2010, 06:49 PM
LOL :D How true that is. And probably in more than a few European ones as well.

The young seem to have a perennial enthusiasm for Marxism.

I suspect in most cases it's more related to icons and symbols rather than any real intellectual understanding of it.

They think they would be able to sit around and party while living off the money confiscated from the rich, they have no understanding of the need to produce.

Bleda
12-18-2010, 09:36 PM
You state that you are "sure there are and have been many, many 'sane', irreligious suicide murderers", and you may be right.

I am not well versed in the subject. Can you name some?

I can't think of any names right now, but doesn't it make sense that there have been irreligious people who committed murder while knowing for sure that they'll be killed? By suicide, I don't mean literally killing yourself. There are other ways of committing suicide. For instance, how many irreligious soldiers in history went on 'missions', committing murder and other atrocities, and knew they wouldn't survive? I'm sure there have been many.


Regardless of if you can, or cannot, can we not reach agreement that the number of these can be multiplied a thousandfold and you will still not get anywhere near to the number of the religiously inclined who have committed this crime.

Suicide-murder, at least these days, seems to be the near-sole preserve of the ultra-religious.

I'll say that, as far as I know, that's true. But, as some here have pointed out, perhaps "Muslim" would be more accurate than "religious." To me, religion is personal. If you impose your will on someone else, that's political. Islam is not a religion per so; more like a political ideology disguised as a religion. It's easy to think Islam is a religion, since it has all the features of a religion, but it's also a political ideology, which cancels it out as a religion.

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 11:17 PM
I'll say that, as far as I know, that's true. But, as some here have pointed out, perhaps "Muslim" would be more accurate than "religious." To me, religion is personal. If you impose your will on someone else, that's political.


Hah, finally someone gets to the point.

To me, Islam and religion are at one. Whatever you have to say in your next statement, does not nullify it as a religion. To me, Islam is a religion. To me, any cult that decides to self-identify as a religion IS a religion, and a new threat I need to worry about.

Every real Muslim thinks that their religion is the true one, just as every real Christian thinks that their religion is the true one.

That's the exact problem with all religions, all of them. Each of them claim exclusivity.

Every religion ever invented has its ass so far up the prevailing polity's ass that it's almost redundant quoting your next pearl of wisdom, but I will anyway.



Islam is not a religion per so; more like a political ideology disguised as a religion. It's easy to think Islam is a religion, since it has all the features of a religion, but it's also a political ideology, which cancels it out as a religion.

Who died and made you god? Who appointed you to decide what cancels out what?

Bleda
12-18-2010, 11:24 PM
Hah, finally someone gets to the point.

To me, Islam and religion are at one. Whatever you have to say in your next statement, does not nullify it as a religion. To me, Islam is a religion. To me, any cult that decides to self-identify as a religion IS a religion, and a new threat I need to worry about.

Every real Muslim thinks that their religion is the true one, just as every real Christian thinks that their religion is the true one.

Every religion ever invented has its ass so far up the prevailing polity's ass that it's almost redundant quoting your next pearl of wisdom, but I will anyway.



Who died and made you god? Who appointed you to decide what cancels out what?

By that logic, anything can mean anything. Christianity is a sitcom, and Tom Cruise is a female leopard. Who are you to say they're not?

Either Islam is personal (religion) or it's not and is meant to be imposed on everyone else (political). It can't be both. There are countless people who follow Islam as a religion and don't impose it on anyone else, but that's their religion, not Islam. It's not what Muhammad had in mind.

PoliCon
12-18-2010, 11:27 PM
Haven't you heard? They do right now! :D

Silly me. Forgot. :D

PoliCon
12-18-2010, 11:28 PM
Jeepers. Dominant in its region, you dope. Why does everything need to be spelt out to you?

Israel was never dominant in their region either. :rolleyes:

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 11:39 PM
Israel was never dominant in their region either. :rolleyes:

Israel is a nation. We are talking of religions, not nations.

As slow witted as you evidently are, surely even you would not disagree that Judaism was the dominant regional religion in the Eastern Mediterranean for significant periods of time around two thousand years ago?

m00
12-18-2010, 11:41 PM
Israel is a nation. We are talking of religions., not nations.

As slow witted as you evidently are, surely even you would not disagree that Judaism was the dominant regional religion in the Eastern Mediterranean?

During what dates do you make this claim?

PoliCon
12-18-2010, 11:41 PM
Israel is a nation. We are talking of religions., not nations.

As slow witted as you evidently are, surely even you would not disagree that Judaism was the dominant regional religion in the Eastern Mediterranean?

No sir I do not agree. The Jews kept falling into Baal worship so if the Jews themselves could not keep to their own religion how do you figure it ever dominated?

hampshirebrit
12-18-2010, 11:50 PM
No sir I do not agree. The Jews kept falling into Baal worship so if the Jews themselves could not keep to their own religion how do you figure it ever dominated?

OK. :rolleyes: Whatever.