Skip to comments.
Al Qaeda planning new U.S. attacks (Canadian Flights?)
CNN ^
| 9/4/03
| Jeanne Meserve and Kelli Arena
Posted on 09/04/2003 4:24:03 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Department of Homeland Security advisory issued Thursday warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States.
A Department of Homeland Security official said most of the flights fitting this description originate in Canada, and that U.S. officials have been working with Canada over the past month to ensure it is improving screening and other security measures.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Canada; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2ndanniversary; alqaeda; dhs; homelandsecurity; jihadnextdoor; targets
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-96 next last
NO mention in this story whatsoever of the recent arrests in Canada!
To: Lunatic Fringe
2
posted on
09/04/2003 4:26:22 PM PDT
by
Lunatic Fringe
(This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Everyone a target except the U.N., France, and Germany!
/sarcasm
3
posted on
09/04/2003 4:27:03 PM PDT
by
maestro
To: Lunatic Fringe
Here are a couple of them disguised as average Canadians:
4
posted on
09/04/2003 4:28:28 PM PDT
by
ElkGroveDan
(It's time for Arnold to stop splitting the Republican vote and step aside for the good of the party)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Ya last I heard they arrested 21 and realeased 2. I wouldn't be surprised. A week after 9/11 i went to LAX from YVR (Vancouver International Airport), I walked through the metal detectors and beeped, then told the guy that I had money in my pocket and that's all I had. He said OK and let me go without searching me. Compare this to when I flew from SEA to Reagan in Aug 02. I beeped so they pulled me aside and frisked me, emptied my pockets, removed my shoes questioned me then did it again at the gate and searched my bag. 100 miles apart and 2 totally different worlds.
5
posted on
09/04/2003 4:38:29 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: Lunatic Fringe
U.S. officials have been working with Canada over the past month to ensure it is improving screening and other security measures. The "R" word guaran-damn-tees any and all rabble and/or assorted motley crewmembers entry into Canada. Once here, they disappear. Real good security from north of the border, eh? The senile fool known as Jean Cretin doesn't give a rat's ass as long as they vote Liberal. 02/04 can't come soon enough.
To: Lunatic Fringe
One government official noted, however, the United States has no authority to require security measures of non-U.S. carriers whose flights originate outside the United States. Ummmm .. we can deny air space for Canada to fly
7
posted on
09/04/2003 4:40:14 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: Lunatic Fringe
"The advisory includes a laundry list of possible attack scenarios, and says al Qaeda may be researching how to disseminate diseases and toxins by contaminating water and food, or aerosolizing an agent in an enclosed space." If they succeed in any of these attacks, I predict a military draft and than we'll march WW2 style through all the countries in the Middle East.
9
posted on
09/04/2003 4:41:44 PM PDT
by
blam
To: bitcon
Right!
Al Qaeda planning new U.S. attacks (Canadian Power Grids?)
/sarcasm
10
posted on
09/04/2003 4:42:21 PM PDT
by
maestro
To: rickmichaels
Hopefully after Paul Martin gets in Chretien will realize that no one likes him or even listens to him and hell leave early. But hes a stuborn bastard so I doubt it. Luckily hes forcing the gay marriage crap in the the courts so it should be around when the next election is called and we can all wave good bye the the Liberals.
11
posted on
09/04/2003 4:42:27 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: maestro
Forget the grids. All they have to do it hit one of the main dams in BC and their will be massive destruction and a huge loss of power to all of the west coast.
12
posted on
09/04/2003 4:44:32 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: Badabing Badaboom
aerosolizing an agent in an enclosed space. The lesson learned by Aum Shinrikyo. Before the subway sarin attack, they had several attacks, outdoors, with agents, all unsuccessful.
BTW, did I ping you to the new Potato threat? ;)
13
posted on
09/04/2003 4:45:30 PM PDT
by
Shermy
(Threat Level: Norwegian Blue)
To: blam
I doubt it. Nukes all the way. We lose no one and they lose everyone. Mind you well lose the oil too but Alberta has lots of it something like 2.5 trillion barrels. Plus Alberts is pro US so it shouldn't be much of a problem to get them to join up with you. Just let me know so i can get there before it's annexed.
14
posted on
09/04/2003 4:46:55 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: Badabing Badaboom
I've been posting stuff about the Canadian risk-and getting soundly flamed - online, and at home !!
My wife thinks I should be worrying about the IMPORTANT things: Do I think our 40 something daughter is HAPPY ??
As my late friend Marty would say: " OY !"
By the way, the Feebies are also promising us poisoned crops,hijacked planes, and assorted other 9/11 celebrations...
15
posted on
09/04/2003 4:49:29 PM PDT
by
genefromjersey
(So little time - so many FLAMES to light !!)
To: bitcon
It would take one helluva blast to bust a modern dam. In WWII they needed to detonate 10,000lb bombs behind the dams, underwater, to have any effect; the bombs that went off on the dry side barely scuffed the concrete.
16
posted on
09/04/2003 4:54:42 PM PDT
by
Squawk 8888
(Everyone knows you can't have a successful conspiracy without a Rockefeller)
To: bitcon
It would be so easy to support that decsion without a moment's hesitation.
The US is the basis of the free world. No one else. Every country that supports us, depends on us.
Something that would cause the very fiber of the free world to falter would be answered with a nuclear yield. I'm sure most Americans would demand it. I would rather see the whole world end, than see the United States ruined.
17
posted on
09/04/2003 4:58:55 PM PDT
by
baltodog
(The thing about it is, we're just not sure WHAT they're capable of!)
To: bitcon
re: "Nukes all the way. We lose no one and they lose everyone. Mind you will lose the oil too."
NO!
The oil is SAFE underground, and can be pumped out after the radioacivity subsides!
To: Squawk 8888
I bet it would take one hell of a blast. I bet a 747 at 500 miles an hour could do it though.
19
posted on
09/04/2003 5:00:21 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: RonHolzwarth
Ya it could but it's not like the radio activity will subside over night. Plus I'm not sure about if the oil would or could burn off.
20
posted on
09/04/2003 5:03:01 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: bitcon
What you say may be true, but I think biologicals will be used. A muslim fanatic will volunteer to be infected with smallpox, ebola, Botulinum, Antrax, or Aflatoxin, sneak in across the Canadian border in to NYC and now you have a major problem. Outbreak!
21
posted on
09/04/2003 5:07:09 PM PDT
by
Pro-Bush
(Awareness is what you know before you know anything else.)
To: Pro-Bush
I didn't even think about that but that's a total possibility.
22
posted on
09/04/2003 5:08:21 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: blam
If they succeed in any of these attacks, I predict a military draft and than we'll march WW2 style through all the countries in the Middle East. Yep, I agree . . . But not for about 50,000 years when the land cools down enough to walk on.
To: bitcon
Plus Alberta is pro US so it shouldn't be much of a problem to get them to join up with you. Em, is it alright to ask them to shed their liberals first?
24
posted on
09/04/2003 5:21:17 PM PDT
by
Eala
(Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan)
To: Eala
They have. Same with BC. Most of the MPs are Canadian Alliance which supported the War in Iraq.
25
posted on
09/04/2003 5:23:01 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: Lunatic Fringe
"The advisory includes a laundry list of possible attack scenarios,..."
Another mass CYA advisory...............
26
posted on
09/04/2003 5:31:33 PM PDT
by
Milwaukee_Guy
(The Law of Unintended Consequences - No Good Deed Shall Go Unpunished.)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Racial profile all Arabs. It's cheap and effective.
Oh, I forgot, that would be politically incorrect. How silly of me to suggest something that is PC.
27
posted on
09/04/2003 5:35:49 PM PDT
by
joyful1
To: Lunatic Fringe
And what about Mexico? I would think security there is probably a hundredfold worse than it is up here in Canukistan.
28
posted on
09/04/2003 5:40:48 PM PDT
by
battousai
(Hello... Hello... is this thing on?)
To: bitcon
... and the rest of you paranoics....
You think nuking Canada is going to get rid of your terrorist problems?? LMAO
So...after that... why don't you just run a fence down the west and east coast of the United States...
Oh wait... you already tried that with Mexico... and they still keep getting through...
Gee... I guess you better flatten the rest of the planet to be entirely safe, and hope no terrorists are already on US soil... aye? ; )
To: bitcon
Interesting. I've known some refugee Albertans here in The Peoples' Soviet of Washington, aka The Evergreed State and they've been delightfully conservative. OTOH, most people I've known from BC are, em, rather left-wing. More conservative than Ithacans, but left-wing.
30
posted on
09/04/2003 5:45:19 PM PDT
by
Eala
(Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan)
To: Mo1
***Ummmm .. we can deny air space for Canada to fly***
We're on the same page, Mo. I wonder if we used this as an inducement to Canadian officials.
31
posted on
09/04/2003 5:48:00 PM PDT
by
kitkat
To: bikewench
"just run a fence down the west and east coast of the United States..." If we make the fence out of bacon it just might work.
32
posted on
09/04/2003 6:09:12 PM PDT
by
TBall
To: bikewench
I never said nuking Canada was a solution. I don't want that to happen, atleast until after I get out.
33
posted on
09/04/2003 6:20:57 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: Squawk 8888
I think they will go after the target that the 4th plane didn't hit the last time.
To: Eala
There alot of left wingers in BC especially in Vancouver. Outside Vancouver (like 20 minutes away from vancouver) the people are alot more right wing. The people in Alberta are alot better as is the government which is why my family who can't get out of Canada are heading there.
35
posted on
09/04/2003 6:24:21 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: bitcon
Ya it could but it's not like the radio activity will subside over night. Plus I'm not sure about if the oil would or could burn off.
Are you kidding, or do you not know what radiation is, or how it works in reality?
I need to check before I am forced to go into "Radiation 101"!
36
posted on
09/04/2003 6:25:11 PM PDT
by
Itzlzha
(The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
To: bikewench
Gee... I guess you better flatten the rest of the planet to be entirely safe, and hope no terrorists are already on US soil... aye? ; )
It's a start..and we can get rid of a lot of LIEberals while we are at it!
37
posted on
09/04/2003 6:27:31 PM PDT
by
Itzlzha
(The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
To: Itzlzha
Are you saying that the next day there wont be any radiation?
38
posted on
09/04/2003 6:27:48 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: Mo1
You're solution would get attention, the threat alone might work... .
Ummmm .. we can deny air space for Canada to fly
39
posted on
09/04/2003 6:37:30 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
To: bitcon
Heck ....their forefathers never got the message either.
It is time to upgrade the travel restrictions with Canada and Mexico.
40
posted on
09/04/2003 6:38:10 PM PDT
by
pointsal
To: bitcon
No, not unless we NUKE the Oil Fields!
And then, we'd have a sea of glass to deal with.
41
posted on
09/04/2003 6:39:35 PM PDT
by
Itzlzha
(The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
To: Badabing Badaboom
By far my biggest fear. 100 shopping malls over ten cities on one week-end would cause a fallout by about the Thursday or Friday that would make 9/11 look like a traffic accident. Yup .... and I'm sure little ill Kim in NK would be happy to hand them the tools (smallpox) to do it.
42
posted on
09/04/2003 6:41:31 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(Islam : totalitarian political ideology / meme cloaked under the cover of religion)
To: Itzlzha
A nuke isn't a precision weapon. If a nuke could be dropped within a dozen miles of an oil field and destroy the oil field, this depends on the size of the nuke but assuming it comes from an ICBM it's not going to be a tactical warhead.
43
posted on
09/04/2003 6:43:14 PM PDT
by
bitcon
To: GOPJ
You're solution would get attention, the threat alone might work... It sure would get their attention
44
posted on
09/04/2003 6:44:01 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/cartoons/spdemocrats.wav)
To: bikewench
Gee... I guess you better flatten the rest of the planet to be entirely safe, If they kill 10 million Americans with a bio-weapon we just might start with any non-Western country and go from there.
45
posted on
09/04/2003 6:44:38 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(Islam : totalitarian political ideology / meme cloaked under the cover of religion)
To: Lunatic Fringe
46
posted on
09/04/2003 6:52:42 PM PDT
by
JamminJAY
(This space for rent)
To: Lunatic Fringe
47
posted on
09/04/2003 6:54:23 PM PDT
by
JamminJAY
(This space for rent)
To: genefromjersey
What is a Feebie?
48
posted on
09/04/2003 7:50:45 PM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
To: bitcon
OK, you assume they would use a Mega-ton yield near an oil field...nice to see that you think the Military so dumb...
Second, they are using air-burst at about 1500'. Overpressure and thermal will wipe the surface clean and create a glass plain. Now, the Oil is deep. I'm not discounting some surface contamination, but the general field should be safe.
Any "Radioactive" oil can be used in reactors where it would get exposure to Gammma anyway...so long as the contamination was below (X), and not of a corrosive/damaging particulate nature. ( I know, I've got contacts that confirm this usage.)
Third, we tend to use Fusion, so the dirty stuff is mostly consumed.
49
posted on
09/04/2003 8:00:17 PM PDT
by
Itzlzha
(The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
To: Lunatic Fringe
One government official noted, however, the United States has no authority to require security measures of non-U.S. carriers whose flights originate outside the United States.,,, I'm in New Zealand. We're having to comply with new maritime security requirements for container and freight dispatches or else we don't get to trade with the US. We're already meeting stringent security requirements for outbound flights, this should be standard for any carrier from any origin.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-96 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