BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

[Sceptic-PK]

That's one of the things. How many times have you heard of terrorists or terrorist groups "linked to Al Qaeda" with any link being specified, other than the ideology (extremist sunnis) being similar? Another thing it hinges on is a supply of new (ridiculous) threats, I'm still waiting for that "Al Qaeda" attack on US railways or "Al Qaeda" attacking cruise ships. Unless of course if that Italian dude on the Costa Concordia was an undercover "Al Qaeda" operative. There are other things it hinges on too.

Other than an easy reference point (which politicians and media outlets love) I'm really not seeing the relevance of the AQ label or the importance of where it came from.

 

[jaydeehess]

Attacking a cruise ship is certainly not out of the question given that Islamic terrorists HAVE already done so in the past.

The 9/11 attacks were also preceeded by a coordinated multiple hijacking in the '60s in which several large jets were blown up, albeit after the passengers and crew were taken off.

Railways, well the Spanish know that also has occured in the past.

So you ridicule these threats but given that they HAVE occured in the past, I have to ask why you find it so ludicrous? Do you expect that Islamic fundemantalists with grudges against the west/USA are done with attacking the west?

As far as the labelling of AQ goes, why is it so important? It was not important to Bin Laden, only the Jihad itself was important to him and only the Jihad is important to like minded persons.

 

[Natan]

So you ridicule these threats but given that they HAVE occured in the past, I have to ask why you find it so ludicrous?

So was there a "war on terror" then?

Do you expect that Islamic fundemantalists with grudges against the west/USA are done with attacking the west?

Considering the frequency and amateurishness of any attempts so far, ridicule at the actual "threat" is not unwarranted.

As far as the labelling of AQ goes, why is it so important?

Because I don't like propaganda. Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that. Instead of muslim nutjob who only managed to set his underwear on fire here, muslim nutjob who managed to fizzle some car on Times Square there.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So was there a "war on terror" then?

I don't see the relevance of the label to the question.

Considering the frequency and amateurishness of any attempts so far, ridicule at the actual "threat" is not unwarranted.

Approximately how many deaths per year would you consider cause for concern?

 

[Border Reiver]

Because I don't like propaganda. Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that. Instead of muslim nutjob who only managed to set his underwear on fire here, muslim nutjob who managed to fizzle some car on Times Square there.

So you're essentially saying that if we minimize the threat by labeling perpetrators as "nut jobs", that it's not propaganda?

Will that be only for media use or does law enforcement and intelligence services get to look at whether or not said perpetrators have connections to other people who may or may not have assisted with planning and logistics? That shouldn't lead to underestimating the threat right?

 

[Natan]

Approximately how many deaths per year would you consider cause for concern?

ODDS OF BECOMING A LIGHTNING VICTIM
(based on averages for 2001-2010)

Estimated U.S. population as of 2011 310,000,000

Annual Number of Deaths Reported 39
Number of Injuries Reported 241

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

 

[Border Reiver]

ODDS OF BECOMING A LIGHTNING VICTIM
(based on averages for 2001-2010)

Estimated U.S. population as of 2011 310,000,000

Annual Number of Deaths Reported 39
Number of Injuries Reported 241

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

So 280 casualties per year is your threshold? How was that related to the question

 

[carlitos]

Considering the frequency and amateurishness of any attempts so far, ridicule at the actual "threat" is not unwarranted.

Internet tough guy, eh?

 

[Natan]

So 280 casualties per year is your threshold? How was that related to the question

That's both dead and injured. But since I have not seen any Department of Lightning Security warning people not to go out on rainy days or Office for Beesting Protection with color coded threat levels, I guess it is a start for a measure.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Lightning (and bees so far as we know) are not deliberately seeking spectacular attacks with maximum casualties to further their own agenda.

Seriously though, have you never seen a weather report warning of thunderstorms?

 

[Natan]

Seriously though, have you never seen a weather report warning of thunderstorms?

A proper comparison with the warnings issued for terrorism is to not go out on rainy days, not just thunderstorms.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

OK. How many days this year have you been warned not to go out in case of terrorists?

 

[000063]

So was there a "war on terror" then?


Considering the frequency and amateurishness of any attempts so far, ridicule at the actual "threat" is not unwarranted.

Then why did you quote-mine it out of the bits of JDS's post you quoted?

Because I don't like propaganda. Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that. Instead of muslim nutjob who only managed to set his underwear on fire here, muslim nutjob who managed to fizzle some car on Times Square there.

Oh, I see. You're trying to make it out to be isolated nutjobs instead of an actual organized force, therefore they couldn't have done 9/11.

 

[Border Reiver]

That's both dead and injured. But since I have not seen any Department of Lightning Security warning people not to go out on rainy days or Office for Beesting Protection with color coded threat levels, I guess it is a start for a measure.

Hence my use of the word casualties.

Your comparison of lightning casualties to terrorism has as much relevance as comparing apples to bandsaws.

 

[000063]

It sure is interesting how hard Simon is pursuing this lightning analogy instead of trying to push AQ as isolated nutjobs.

 

[Natan]

OK. How many days this year have you been warned not to go out in case of terrorists?

I am not an American, but:

State Department updates warning to Americans overseas

The State Department is warning Americans that al Qaeda and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks against U.S. interests around the world, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

"These attacks may employ a wide variety of tactics including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings, and bombings," the department said in its latest Worldwide Caution report, issued Tuesday.

There is an "enhanced potential" for more anti-American violence around the world, it says, in the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. special forces in May.

===============================

So basically everywhere is full of danger except in drug dealing Latin America and in Antarctica as long as you don't encounter those psychotic penguins from Madagascar. Just an example of the madness.

 

[jaydeehess]

So was there a "war on terror" then?

When the bombs went off on Spanish train, yes.
9/11 actually precipitated that specific term.
The Acille Lauro(sp?) was quite definitly a terrorist attack and was pursued by The intelligence agencies of several countries. So we have terrorist attacks on a large scale requiring detailed advanced planning, plus active response by western country's intelligence services. Despite the fact that a specific term written by a politician's speech writer had yet to be coined, yes there was indeed such a thing even if less coordinated between agencies at the time.

Considering the frequency and amateurishness of any attempts so far, ridicule at the actual "threat" is not unwarranted.

I take you would not consider this to be an indication that the steps taken since 9/11 have been effective in forcing Jihad to rely on lightly supported individual efforts as opposed to more detailed and complex attacks. ?
Do you presume as well that those radicals have now abandoned forever any thought of attempting more complex and detailed attacks?

Because I don't like propaganda. Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that. Instead of muslim nutjob who only managed to set his underwear on fire here, muslim nutjob who managed to fizzle some car on Times Square there.

In both cases had there been greater logistical support available the probability of mass causualties was great. Such support was not there so I guess the "war" is won and over.?
Perhaps you'd prefer the term be changed to the "war on individual and ineffective nutjobs"

btw, McVeigh was also a nutjob

 

[jaydeehess]

btw in school we were warned in health classes quite often to avoid open areas during thunderstorms, to not take shelter under trees, had football games cancelled due to lighning threat(nowadays scoccer games as well, and this is a sport which only gets called due to rain if the players begin floatng), and golf courses actually have loud horns that call players off the course and into the clubhouse as a result of threatening lightning.
It is true though that no one is actually doing much to fight this scourge, no attendant "war on lightning".
Yep, everyone complains about the weather and no one does a damn thing about it!

 

[000063]

...

So basically everywhere is full of danger except in drug dealing Latin America and in Antarctica as long as you don't encounter those psychotic penguins from Madagascar. Just an example of the madness.

You did see the part where it said "US interests", right? Not everywhere? And the part where it specifically describes the reasoning and likely nature of the threats?

And what does that have to do with Americans being warned not to go out because terrorists? It's saying people who go to certain places may be at risk of being targeted by terrorists.

 

[Nick Terry]

Because I don't like propaganda. Al Qaeda this, Al Qaeda that. Instead of muslim nutjob who only managed to set his underwear on fire here, muslim nutjob who managed to fizzle some car on Times Square there.

Al Qaeda is one of the biggest brand names for an undeniable phenomenon, Islamic terrorism. Look over the list of terrorist incidents worldwide for 2011 and 2012 and tell us with a straight face that there is no Islamic terrorism in the world.

One of the many stories you can find last year was a plot to bomb buildings in New York, which officials said was the 13th foiled plot in NYC since 9/11.