Skip to comments.
How an Al Qaeda cell planned a poison gas attack on a NY subway
Time .com ^
| 06-17-06
| Ron Suskind
Posted on 06/17/2006 2:35:12 PM PDT by MamaDearest
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: GSlob
LOL...fiction...great...hoping they believe it then. ;o)
41
posted on
06/17/2006 8:12:23 PM PDT
by
shield
(A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc. 10:2)
To: Cicero
"another example of traitors at the CIA leaking"
Bingo.
Revealing the plot is just cover to justify revealing our covert source which will probably get him killed. Thanks, Time.
42
posted on
06/17/2006 8:33:41 PM PDT
by
garjog
To: Peach
43
posted on
06/17/2006 8:37:44 PM PDT
by
garjog
To: MamaDearest
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta.On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was probably a direct result of the IraqAl Qida agreement. Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the exact formula used by Iraq.110This language about al Qaedas understanding with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.
44
posted on
06/17/2006 9:41:01 PM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: cynwoody
Sounds less than impressive to me. Sodium cyanide plus hydrochloric acid is just the old reliable San Quentin recipe. I agree to a point. I doubt they could manufacture a strong enough toxin and method of dispersion to cause huge numbers of casualties. It would probably be more like the Aum attack in Japan where many got sick, but the actual deaths were low, due to poor quality homemade nerve toxin and crude dispersal methods.
This, on the other hand, would be a different story. I know the chemical shells found in Iraq are after the planned attack, but that really isn't my point. People like to say there were no WMDs, but there were. After that, they say there were no stockpiles to justify the invasion. Well....a single drop of this type nerve toxin can kill. There are a lot of drops in 17 shells. People would rethink 'stockpile' if something like this were ever realeased in a NYC metro station.
Chemical Munitions In Iraq (July 2004)
45
posted on
06/17/2006 9:55:22 PM PDT
by
edpc
To: MamaDearest
I shudder to think what would have happened if the Dems were in control of the White House conducting policy in their typical "head in the sand" mode.
46
posted on
06/17/2006 9:57:48 PM PDT
by
Ciexyz
(Let us always remember, the Lord is in control.)
To: garjog
47
posted on
06/17/2006 9:59:20 PM PDT
by
Peach
(Iraq/AlQaeda relationship http://markeichenlaub.blogspot.com/2006/06/strategic-relationship-between.)
To: jimbo123
Maybe they didn't want Bush to be re-elected. They were hoping for a Dem, and then they would carry out their attack.
48
posted on
06/17/2006 10:32:47 PM PDT
by
Defiant
(The new KKK--the Koo Kleft Klan.)
To: MamaDearest
Two things about this story don't smell right
1. Since when has the CIA provided credible intel?
2. Why would an attack be called off? Doesn't make sense.
To: Minus_The_Bear
I'm guessing that the CIA didn't gather this info...it came from a outside agency (like Germany's BND or the French secret service). This story left numerous holes and unexplained items.
As for the attack being called off...there is an odd circle around Al Qaeda consisting of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan...with various political and religious leaders exerting a bit of influence over Ossama and his boys. An attack like this would have left the US no choice about invading Pakistan...which second level leadership in Pakistan which is heavily in support of Ossama...may have come up to realize the implications and simply hinted to Ossama that they didn't want their gravey train in Pakistan to come to an end. Afghanistan was a relative cake-walk for the American military...Pakistan would have been a summer picnic in comparison...with almost no military willing to stand up against the US Army or a bombing campaign. I suspect this stern talk with Ossama probably took the operation down...but they still have the weapons and the technology...nothing has changed.
Our borders are completely open and the threat is just as bad today as it was on 9-11. Nothing has changed.
To: MamaDearest; All
stepping back in time...
DEFENSElink.mil: "INTEL FROM IRAQ RAIDS LEADS TO NEW YORK CITY SECURITY HIKE" by Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service (October 7, 2005)
Transcripts.CNN.com - The Situation Room: "INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE NEW YORK SUBWAY ATTACK; STARTING CORRESPONDENCE BY AL QAEDA" (October 7, 2005)
ABClocal.go.com (AP): "NYC COMMUTERS COPE WITH SUBWAY TERROR THREAT NYC Police On Alert" (October 7, 2005)
MICHELLE MALKIN.com - blog: "NYC SUBWAY ALERT" (October 6, 2005)
FOX NEWS.com: New York - "NYC UPS SUBWAY SECURITY AFTER BOMB THREATS" (ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Authorities stepped up security on the city's mass transit system Thursday after receiving a credible threat that the New York City subway may be the target of a terrorist attack in the coming days.") (October 6, 2005) (Read More...)
WHITEHOUSE.gov - News Release - Office of the Press Secretary: "PRESIDENT DISCUSSES WAR ON TERROR at National Endowment for Democracy Ronald Reagan Building and Intrnational Trade Center, Washington, D.C." (October 6, 2005)
DEFENSElink.mil: Washington - "PRESIDENT URGES MUSLIMS TO DENOUNCE VIOLENT EXTREMISM" by Donna Miles, American Forces Press Service (October 6, 2005)
WASHINGTON TIMES.com: "BUSH HITS 'ISLAMIC RADICALS'" by Bill Sammon (October 7, 2005)
FrontPageMagazine.com: "BUSH DECLARES WAR ON RADICAL ISLAM" by Daniel Pipes (October 11, 2005)
WHITEHOUSE.gov - News Release: "FACT SHEET: PLOTS, CASINGS, AND INFILTRATIONS REFERENCED IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S REMARKS ON THE WAR ON TERROR" (October 6, 2005)
51
posted on
06/17/2006 11:24:59 PM PDT
by
Cindy
To: pepsionice
Afghanistan was a relative cake-walk for the American military...Pakistan would have been a summer picnic in comparison.Pakistan is a nuclear power, however wimpy it's conventional forces may be.
52
posted on
06/18/2006 12:15:14 AM PDT
by
MrEdd
(I would have gotten away with it too - if it weren't for those meddling kids and their stupid dog.)
To: jimbo123
If memory serves, this would be the same incident that became the butt of so many jokes in this country. Everyone from Jay Leno to Letterman to 'Rat talking heads had a field day with the security precautions--and didn't the NY ACLU actually advise people on how to stymie the security personnel and police?
53
posted on
06/18/2006 8:43:46 AM PDT
by
MizSterious
(Anonymous sources often means "the voices in my head told me.")
To: MamaDearest
I've heard over and over again on Fox News this morning that Zwahiri, Al Queda's second in command ordered that the attack be called off "for unknown reasons."
It's pretty simple, really... These people aren't stupid. They know the history of the leftists in this country during wartime. They know how they won the war for the communists in Viet Nam. If there were to be a huge Al Queda attack in the US, especially now that Al Queda is well known to be in Iraq, that would spell the end of the left's chances of losing the war for us. There's no way they would take a chance of uniting much of the country, and forcing the left out of power at this point in time.
They're perfectly aware of the fact that if they bide their time, the left will continue to try to force America to lose the war in Iraq, and even the WOT.
Mark
54
posted on
06/18/2006 8:48:23 AM PDT
by
MarkL
(When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
To: edpc
There are a lot of drops in 17 shells.
Very true...but drops don't make for very good television so it went largely unreported.
55
posted on
06/18/2006 9:10:41 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: P-40
Unfortunately that's true. I remember how they freaked over the anthrax powder when it showed up at a couple MSM outlets. It would probably take an event like that with a nerve agent to wake them up. It would be a hard lesson I hope they never need to learn.
56
posted on
06/18/2006 9:54:55 AM PDT
by
edpc
To: edpc
I wonder if Richard Clarke willl come out and talk about the this newly revealed threat and will compare it to what he already knows? Like this from the 9/11 Commission Report.
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta.On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was probably a direct result of the IraqAl Qida agreement. Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the exact formula used by Iraq.110This language about al Qaedas understanding with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.
57
posted on
06/18/2006 10:16:48 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: cynwoody
the subways pull the gunk through the tunnels in their wake
58
posted on
06/18/2006 10:25:53 AM PDT
by
patton
(What the heck just happened, here?)
To: MamaDearest
59
posted on
06/18/2006 10:55:58 AM PDT
by
VOA
To: P-40
''Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you.'' This quote from Clarke during his 9/11 Commission testimony sickened me for two reasons. First, it was such a blatant, pandering statement to the MSM. Secondly, he forgot to say "repeatedly" after he said, "I failed you."
Between Khobar Towers, the American embassy bombings in Africa, and the U.S.S. Cole, he should have been fired long before 9/11 occurred. If some legitimate action had been taken, instead of dismissing it during the '90s, it may not have ever happened. That's the Dem way of doing things, however. They expect us to forget that and put them in charge of the WOT in '06 and '08. Keep dreaming, Dean, Pelosi, Reed, et al....
60
posted on
06/18/2006 10:56:56 AM PDT
by
edpc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson