U.S. warns of continued al Qaeda threat (in US and abroad, possibly with WMD)

CNN ^ | March 19, 2004 | CNN

[FairOpinion]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The State Department said Friday that it remains "deeply concerned" al Qaeda is planning more deadly attacks against Americans overseas and at home.

The department urged U.S. citizens to "increase their security awareness," especially when traveling abroad.

[FairOpinion]

"The worldwide caution, set to expire September 19".

It's a long time until Sept. 19!

[FairOpinion]

Also, considering that we have an election coming up in November, I bet it will be renewed on Sept. 19th until after the November election. Then there is Christmas, etc.

These terrorists need to be eradicated to the last man!

[kevao]

Maybe if we vote Kerry in, Al Qaeda will grant us a truce? It worked for Spain.

[FairOpinion]

"Maybe if we vote Kerry in, Al Qaeda will grant us a truce? It worked for Spain."

==

I am sure Kerry would install a red phone for Osama and ask him, before making any decisions, to see if Bin Laden approves.

Voting for Kerry = voting for the terrorists.

[Salamander]

"Maybe if we vote Kerry in, Al Qaeda will grant us a truce? It worked for Spain."

If they're really, *really* nice to AQ, maybe they'll be eaten last.

[El Gato]

I think for the "emergency" created by the likes of AlQaida and various wanna be copycats, the President should issue an executive order nullifying all gun control laws, except perhaps those which apply to convicted felons, who have not served their full time, including any probation, and to those adjudicated by a court as mentally incompetent. Then they shoudl start handing out all the surplus M-14s and early model M-16s, along with the few remaining M-1s, which are sitting around in warehouses (mostly in Alabama I think). Congress could help out under their power to provide for the arming of the militia.

[Jill St Claire]

It amazes me how much the State Department is downplaying the threats that are out there. This time around, there can be no denying....or excuses for a catastrophic loss of life. The State Departments continued downplaying of the threat assessment to the American public not only saddens me, but sickens me as well. The threats are real, and the question of the form of attack is not a matter of does Al Qaeda possess WMD's, but which one are they going to use and where.

I wonder how long the American public is going to be considered a close-minded lot before the State Dept. fesses up and tells us all what is really going on. Seems to me like they have something quite serious that they are trying to hide.

[bushfamfan]

If we do get a WMD attack, we know we can go after Syria and Iran next, as they are in on this. Syria having aided Iraq. War and killing those ba****ds is the only answer and Kerry is no where near suited for this job.

[Savage Beast]

"We also cannot rule out that al Qaeda will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S."

Are you kidding?

We know that al Qaeda will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S.

They have been trying since Sept. 11, 2001. The only reason they have not succeeded is the vigilance, resolve, and brilliant leadership of President Bush. Their lack of success is proof of his effectiveness.

This is what you should be saying:

"We can be certain that al Qaeda will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S. We cannot rule out the possibility that they could succeed."

[FairOpinion]

"I think for the "emergency" created by the likes of AlQaida and various wanna be copycats, the President should issue an executive order nullifying all gun control laws, except perhaps those which apply to convicted felons"

===

This is an excellent idea! But it will never happen.

Just imagine, someone would shoot someone, thinking he is a terrorist and the guy would turn out to be an innocent owner of a 7-11 and the Dems would blame it all on the changed law and would really take all our guns away.

But I agree, that people should be armed to the teeth. If there is a terrorist attack -- besides the immediate damage and people killed, there will be anarchy, chaos, and you will most likely need to defend yourself to survive.

[FairOpinion]

The Administration is walking a fine line, they don't want to panic people into sitting at home and not going anywhere, not shopping, because that will destroy the economy, or seriously hurt it -- which is one of the goals of the terrorists.

On the other hand, they do need to let people know that the threat is still out there -- otherwise the complacent voters, who think there is no threat, and it's safe to elect Kerry, may just do so, and then we will really see some destruction.

How do you tell the public the seriousness and reality of the threat, without causing mass panic. I think, if most people knew the reality and the seriousness of the threat, people may stop buying real estate, the prices would plummet, they would stop buying stocks, stop flying, etc.

Bush really has a very difficult job -- keeping us safe, but still prepared, keeping the economy going, but letting people know we are not back in a pre-9-11 world.

[Jill St Claire]

President Bush has a difficult job indeed! However, we are in difficult times right now. Let me ask you something...how many lives do you think would have been saved on September 11, 2001 had the American public been informed of the threat assessment particularly the World Trade Center had the American public been informed?

Don't get me wrong, intelligence received in the past six months has averted several attacks here in the US and against US interests abroad, (many not released to the media) but, the warning system has lost momentum, and I am afraid that the general population will not take anymore threat level changes by the Department of Homeland Security seriously, unless they are given more specific details of the threat assessment. Make sense?

[FairOpinion]

I think you are doing a great job at your site:

http://www.homelandsecurity.net

and with the NEIN at

http://www.homelandsecurity.com


But what you have to take into account is that while some people would indeed react to a threat with more vigilance, many more would react with panic, which would disrupt things.

I think vigilant, dedicated citizens can help a lot, as you are doing and I have no doubt that you were intrumental in preventing attacks.

But the other side of the coin is that if they officialy announce things, that would alert AQ for one, also, if they are successful in foiling the attacks, people complain about why was the alert raised.

I am sure that behind the scenes, much more is going in, as doubltless you know more than I do.

Keep up the great work!

[joesnuffy]

Gee how could have Al Qaeda ever gotten passed our vigilant border patrol and Homieland Security details guarding our borders against such terrorist infiltration?.....

[jimbo123]

Washington Post reports the following terror suspects are subjects of this warning:

Aafia Siddiqui

http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/siddiqui.htm

Adnan G. El Shukrijumah

http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/adnan.htm

ttp://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Primetime/iraq_terrorthreats030320.html

The FBI issued a "be on the lookout" alert for Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, asking all law enforcement personnel to notify the bureau immediately if he is located.

Sources described El Shukrijumah as an al Qaeda field commander who trained under alleged terror financier Ramzi Binalshibh. They told ABCNEWS that the 27-year-old lived for years in Florida, and was identified by captured al Qaeda attack planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Binalshibh and Mohammed are both in U.S. custody in undisclosed locations.

Mohammed also said that El Shukrijumah had been sent to the United States to carry out an operation, probably via Canada, sources said. He also may be linked to a so-called dirty bomb plot in which American Jose Padilla has been accused, they said.