What's the point of declaring war on terrorism

Al-Qaeda warns of more attacks against U.S. & Jews
Publisher: Middle East News Online
By: Middle East News Online Reporter
Posted: 2002-06-03


Beirut, Lebanon (MENO) - The pan-Arab daily al-Hayat published on Sunday a statement from an al-Qa’eeda spokesman warning the United States and all Jews to get ready for another attack much larger then the September 11 attacks against the World Trade center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

“What is coming to the Americans will not, by the will of God, be less than what has come,” the paper quoted al-Qa’eeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith as saying in a statement. “So beware, America. Get ready. Get prepared. Put on the safety belt,” he said in a statement al-Hayat said was published on the www.alneda.com Web site.

“We confirm our continuation in working to attack Americans and Jews, and targeting them, both people and buildings,” The Website, which has in the past regularly carried news on Afghanistan and statements it said came from Taliban leaders. However, officials have no confirmation.

Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the White House Office of Homeland Security, stated, “We have said for some time that al-Qa’eeda is still interested in attacking the United States. We have been working since Sept. 11 to try to prevent and disrupt their organization from attacking the United States and also to strengthen our critical infrastructure and response capabilities against future attacks.”

Last month, FBI Director Robert Mueller warned of a possibility of a new terrorist attack against the United States.

“There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it,” Mueller told a meeting of the National Association of District Attorneys on May 20. “It’s something we all live with.”

ABu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti-born cleric who emerged as an al-Qa’eeda spokesman after the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, said al-Qa’eeda would continue to hit Americans, Jews and their targets, either “individuals or institutions”.

Abu-Ghaith was stripped of his Kuwaiti citizenship in October after the former teacher and mosque preacher appeared in television broadcasts on behalf of Osama bin Laden, threatening more attacks against Westerners.

He said all that Israel was doing in Palestinian territories for more than 50 years was with “American blessings.”

“After all of this, doesn’t the prey have the right, while it is being slaughtered, to kick back?” he was quoted as saying.


© 2002 [Middle East News Online]. This news item is distributed via Middle East News Online (MiddleEastWire.com). For information about the content or for permission to redistribute, publish or use for broadcast, contact our syndication department.


------------------
http://www.brns.com/hkactors/picts6/philipko.jpg

your sig makes me want to declare war on YOU!

Okay. So should we sign something or what?

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

War on terrorism to be pre-emptive, says Bush
Publisher: Jang.com
By:
Posted: 2002-06-02

WEST POINT, New York: Amid speculation that the United States may attack on Iraq, US President George W Bush warned on Saturday that his "war on terrorism" might often require "pre-emptive" military action.

"Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for pre-emptive action, when necessary, to defend our liberty and to defend our lives," he said in a speech at this storied military school.

Bush did not name Iraq, where official US policy calls for "regime change", but reprised his warning that he would not sit idly while "unbalanced dictators" worked to develop chemical, biological or nuclear arms or provided them to terrorists like those who carried out the September 11 strikes.

"We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best," said the US leader. "In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act."

In remarks to cadets graduating from the US Military Academy -- now in its bicentennial year -- Bush warned that the newly minted officers face a "shadowy" enemy immune to Cold War strategies like containment or deterrence. Deterrence "means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend," while containment "is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies," he said. "The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt its plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge," he said.

Bush also defended his designation of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil," vowing to continue to "call evil by its name" because a key weapon in the campaign against terrorism is "firm moral purpose". "Some worry that it is somehow non-diplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong; I disagree," the US president said.


© 2002 [Jang.com]. This news item is distributed via Middle East News Online (MiddleEastWire.com). For information about the content or for permission to redistribute, publish or use for broadcast, contact our syndication department.


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

i want to color my hair like that girl in your sig.

p.s. HI!

------------------
Make your body a blanket
Let me rest my head
The world can wait
for just a few minutes more

Originally posted by 13:
What's the point of declaring war on terrorism?

You're right - what's the point of living, either? I mean, we're all gonna die.



------------------
http://raversaregay.homestead.com/files/USA.gif
I'm a schoolboy why don't you teach me
Bend over and we'll hush the squealing
Put on the mask and dance for Daddy
Wait for the word and say you're sorry
You show me yours, I'll show you mine
Flashback

Originally posted by Souvlaki Space Station:
i want to color my hair like that girl in your sig.

p.s. HI!

HEY YOU!!! By the way, I still have the same aim account, and it's working properly... you know...

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG


[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by FearFactory:
You're right - what's the point of living, either? I mean, we're all gonna die.

It just seems as if this so called war on terrorism is only a vehicle for the Adminstrations agenda. I mean, why Iraq when more immediate threats come from anywhere but there?

Yes, we are all going to die, but that's going to happen only when the tenth planet enters our solar system.

------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

Originally posted by 13:

It just seems as if this so called war on terrorism is only a vehicle for the Adminstrations agenda. I mean, why Iraq when more immediate threats come from anywhere but there?

Obviously Iraq is first - we knew it from the second that Bush won that shady election. He's gonna finish what his daddy started.

You know, all this shit wouldn't even be necessary if some fucking whacked-out individuals didn't decide that killing people who didn't agree with them was okay. I mean, really - it's like me saying that britney spears should die because I don't like her music. As long as people aren't harming other people and interfering with their right to live a normal, peaceful life, I see no reason for violence.

Originally posted by FearFactory:
Obviously Iraq is first - we knew it from the second that Bush won that shady election. He's gonna finish what his daddy started.

What does that have to do with 9/11?


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

Originally posted by 13:
What does that have to do with 9/11?

Iraq is known to harbor terror groups. saddam hussein publicly congratuled those responsible for the WTC attack. Come on, put two and two together.

Originally posted by FearFactory:
Iraq is known to harbor terror groups. saddam hussein publicly congratuled those responsible for the WTC attack. Come on, put two and two together.

Where did you get those facts? TV? If anything Saudi Arabia has a bigger reputation as a terrorist haven than Iraq.


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by 13:

Where did you get those facts? TV?

This is laughable.

Think before you type.
Think before you type.

Originally posted by FearFactory:
This is laughable.

Think before you type.
Think before you type.

you missed the point I was trying to make that the American media is the best way in which the government is able to sway public sentiment- and in that respect, you sway like blades of grass.

again: Saudi Arabia has a bigger reputation as a terrorist haven than Iraq. In fact, most of the hijackers were in varrying ways affiliated with Saudi Arabia, and not a single one with Iraq. Which again leads me to the question: Why Iraq? Even Powell questioned the effectiveness of an Iraqi campaign in the so called "war on terrorism"


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by 13:

It just seems as if this so called war on terrorism is only a vehicle for the Adminstrations agenda. I mean, why Iraq when more immediate threats come from anywhere but there?

I completely agree. It really is just a way for Bush to get his policies pushed pass Congress before they realize what's going on. I think America's starting to wise up a bit now though.

But as with any war, you must have a specific goal in mind. What is the goal concerning the war on terror? At first, it was to get Osama Bin Laden. What the hell ever happened to that? It's like they just decided to stop mentioning him altogether. So now it's on to Iraq, in order to rid the world of terror. To run a successful war, you must have set goals and you must stick with them.

The terrorists are way too smart for us, though. You just know they'll disappear for a few years, just long enough so we start to forget about them. Then they'll slam us again. Not with planes, obviously, but something that we hadn't yet thought of. Sad, but probably true.

Originally posted by 13:
you missed the point I was trying to make that the American media is the best way in which the government is able to sway public sentiment- and in that respect, you sway like blades of grass.

again: Saudi Arabia has a bigger reputation as a terrorist haven than Iraq. In fact, most of the hijackers were in varrying ways affiliated with Saudi Arabia, and not a single one with Iraq. Which again leads me to the question: Why Iraq? Even Powell questioned the effectiveness of an Iraqi campaign in the so called "war on terrorism"

Any media form has the ability to sway opinion. You are not free from this.

I feel the main reason that Saudi Arabia was not discussed as a possible target was due to the fact that it is a major exporter of oil - and while they do harbor terrorists, they DID condemn the attacks - something that Iraq did not do.

Originally posted by FearFactory:
I feel the main reason that Saudi Arabia was not discussed as a possible target was due to the fact that it is a major exporter of oil - and while they do harbor terrorists, they DID condemn the attacks - something that Iraq did not do.

Didn't Iran condemn the attacks too ? Iran that is now #1 on America's "terrorist state" list ?

It's all bullshit. Iraq most likely deserves US military attention but not on grounds of anything related to Sep 11. It morally supports Al-Qaeda but anything other than that can't be proven (hence the fabrications post Sep 11).

Saudi Arabia is off the agenda for several reasons. One, they offered the peace initiative for the cease fire months back, and any attack on them would completely obliterate any sense of balance we may be giving the whole Middle East conflict in regards to Arafat and his PLO. Obviously, we side with Israel more, but Bush and Co. are walking a thin political line between who is worth an attack and who is not. Attacking Saudi Arabia would be the last straw in the eyes of all those European countries bitching about our ties with Israel.

Oh, and Iraq is at the top of the list of probable bio and nuclear weapon havens, and when Sadam doesn't allow the UN inspectors to even come near them, it's more than enough reason to fear them as a big threat.




[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by Souvlaki Space Station:
i want to color my hair like that girl in your sig.

p.s. HI!

my hair is that color right noooooow

plum rules

i read none of that.

Originally posted by tweedyburd:
Saudi Arabia is off the agenda for several reasons. One, they offered the peace initiative for the cease fire months back, and any attack on them would completely obliterate any sense of balance we may be giving the whole Middle East conflict in regards to Arafat and his PLO. Obviously, we side with Israel more, but Bush and Co. are walking a thin political line between who is worth an attack and who is not. Attacking Saudi Arabia would be the last straw in the eyes of all those European countries bitching about our ties with Israel.

Oh, and Iraq is at the top of the list of probable bio and nuclear weapon havens, and when Sadam doesn't allow the UN inspectors to even come near them, it's more than enough reason to fear them as a big threat.

Thanks for the straight explanation. I always have the worst time figuring out wtf is going on in these matters.

Originally posted by tweedyburd:
Oh, and Iraq is at the top of the list of probable bio and nuclear weapon havens, and when Sadam doesn't allow the UN inspectors to even come near them, it's more than enough reason to fear them as a big threat.

Inspections have been going on there for years, in that time their efforts *have* been hampered, but their presence in Iraq (and the weapons which they did in fact destroy) have reduced Iraq's weapons programme considerably. Western support for Saddam sways constantly - currently he (not his regime) does not represent our best interests, so he has to go. Once again, it's all about resources (mainly oil), and the population gets to suffer even more for it. Meanwhile the 'terrorism' rhetoric gets appropriated left right and center as justification for keeping opressed people down

the commercials said that saudi arabia was our freind.

so, saudi arabia is our freind.

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Inspections have been going on there for years, in that time their efforts *have* been hampered, but their presence in Iraq (and the weapons which they did in fact destroy) have reduced Iraq's weapons programme considerably. Western support for Saddam sways constantly - currently he (not his regime) does not represent our best interests, so he has to go. Once again, it's all about resources (mainly oil), and the population gets to suffer even more for it. Meanwhile the 'terrorism' rhetoric gets appropriated left right and center as justification for keeping opressed people down

i mean wow, damn you're fucking stupid!

I find it laughable that Iraq and Iran are now at the center of our "national security" bullseye. They've beasically been in that same bullseye for years, while we didn't pay enough attention to threats such as Al Quaeda (we paid attention to them, but obviously not enough).

David

Originally posted by nevermind:
i mean wow, damn you're fucking stupid!

You continue to not surprise me, you semi-literate school-of-life dropout

Originally posted by DeviousJ:
Once again, it's all about resources (mainly oil)

In fact, oil is the primary concern of this war, thus making the tragedy of 9/11 seem like only an after thought rather than a cause. When the Taliban took over Afghanistan, Washington didn't do anything since it was hoping that the new controlling government would be receptive to the idea of becoming an American oil colony, much like Saudi Arabia

some quotes:

1991-1997 – Major U.S. oil companies including ExxonMobil, Texaco, Unocal, BP Amoco, Shell and Enron directly invest billions in cash bribing heads of state in Kazakhstan to secure equity rights in the huge oil reserves in these regions. The oil companies further commit to future direct investments in Kazakhstan of $35 billion. Not being willing to pay exorbitant prices to Russia to use Russian pipelines the major oil companies have no way to recoup their investments. [“The Price of Oil,” by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, July 9, 2001 – The Asia Times, “The Roving Eye Part I Jan. 26, 2002.]

December 4, 1997 – Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Subsequent reports will indicate that the negotiations failed, allegedly because the Taliban wanted too much money. [Source: The BBC, Dec. 4, 1997]

February 12, 1998 – Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca – later to become a Special Ambassador to Afghanistan – testifies before the House that until a single, unified, friendly government is in place in Afghanistan the trans-Afghani pipeline needed to monetize the oil will not be built. [Source: Testimony before the House International Relations Committee.]

April, 1999 – Enron with a $3 billion investment to build an electrical generating plant at Dabhol India loses access to plentiful LNG supplies from Qatar to fuel the plant. Its only remaining option to make the investment profitable is a trans-Afghani gas pipeline to be built by Unocal from Turkmenistan that would terminate near the Indian border at the city of Multan. [Source: The Albion Monitor, Feb. 28, 2002.]


and since the deal didn't work out with the Taliban:

July, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. [Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001]


------------------
http://digilander.iol.it/breakingthe...Isa/iblack.JPG

[This message has been edited by 13 (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by 13:
[BJuly, 2001 – Three American officials: Tom Simmons (former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian affairs) and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia), meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in Berlin and tell them that the U.S. is planning military strikes against Afghanistan in October. [Source: The Guardian, September 22, 2001]
[/b]

There's a paper by a French author which discusses this in detail. I forget his name but it was being thrown about in the months after Sep 11.

Oil, Oil, Oil.

Declaring War on Terrorism is like declaring war on drugs.

[This message has been edited by Fattening Ass (edited 06-04-2002).]

Originally posted by slunky_munky:
There's a paper by a French author which discusses this in detail. I forget his name but it was being thrown about in the months after Sep 11.

Oil, Oil, Oil.

Everything's oil - it sounds so cliched, which is a problem since it's a very real issue. When do we start to run out of oil? Isn't it in the next 20 years? There's going to be a major shift in power, and the only way for the west to maintain the status quo is to make subservient states of any country with valuable resources. Adios to freedom and democracy