Osama bin Laden ordered the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to organise a massive strike on Heathrow Airport to punish Tony Blair for his support of the US, it has been revealed.
Full article
al-Qaeda had originally planned to hijack 10 planes in the September 11 attacks, sending five against targets on the US west coast and five against the east. Potential targets included the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as nuclear plants, Hollywood studios and bridges.
Massive strike Heathrow Airport ordered by Osama bin Laden
Moderator: Latest news team
-
Flying_Dutchman
- Posts: 639
- Joined: 10 Dec 2003, 00:00
- Location: The Netherlands, Les Pays-Bas
It's comming now very close to our home. I hope they will find him so soon as possible. In Pakistan, they discovered under a village underground ways, what seemed that Bin Laden hided himself and his mens there.
Fortunately it didn't happen, and I hope that it won't happen too! It's beginning to scary now.Potential targets included the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as nuclear plants, Hollywood studios and bridges.
-
Sabena_690
- Posts: 3378
- Joined: 20 Sep 2002, 00:00
Comet and A318, may I ask you both to get a sense of reality please?
Are you both aware about what you are actually talking?
You don't have to know that much about international politics and you don't need that much of common sense to know that what you claim is crap.
This story is nothing but crap. When you dear to make claims like 'nuke them', you also should have to know what you are talking about.
Let's assume that this claim of Osama Bin Laden is true: this means that there is still a big organisation behind Al Qaeda to support this kind of terroristic strikes. Making terroristic attacks like summed up in the article is only possible when a big number of terrorists are currently planning this 'project'.
The reports of the past months are proving that this is impossible.
What we have seen after Bush his attacks in Afghanistan (Tora Bora etc) is a big decentralisation of Al Qaeda. This means that the 'brains behind Al Qaeda' were killed during the very heavy bombings.
The result is that Al Qaeda has no coördination centre anymore, which means that Al Qaeda is almost dead.
Now you will say: "Bull sh*t, because Al Qaeda was behind the attacks in Istanbul/Madrid etc".
Well: all those bombings prove the theory: after the decentralisation of Al Qaeda, a lot of separate groups of extremists were formed, working independent. A recent report of a valuable organization revealed that we have, on this globe, 18000 sleeping terrorists.
All those terrorists are small separate groups, who handle "in the name of Al Qaeda". Not because one central organisation asked them to bomb Madrid/..., but for their own reasons.
This is of course a very dangerous situation: you don't really know your enemy, and there is nothing you can do about it because they work independent from Osama Bin Laden.
By the way: this is also the reason why catching Osama will nothing do about International terrorism: he has nothing to say anymore.
There is only one advice: stop the paranoia, and enjoy your freedom.
Message for Erwin: again a prove that your theory about 'all islamists are bad' is wrong. Have you seen towards who the attacks for example in Istanbul, and certainly in Iraq are directed? The normal Muslims, indeed!
Terrorism and muslims/Islam is NOT the same.
How do you partially solve terrorism (completely solving is impossible): you can for example pay more attention to the people living in the Middle East. You have to take the reason for their hatress towards the West away.
Small progressive groups are currently being formed in the Middle East. It is our task to support those groups, since they are the only ones who can bring a democracy in the Middle East.
The longer we only bomb the Middle East, and the longer we refer to them as 'the axis of evil", the deeper the hatress towards the West will be.
It becomes time that we use our brains (something that Bush isn't doing).
So Erwin and Comet, I hope you realize now that theories like 'nuke them' only CREATE problems, instead of solving them.
I hope that my reply is a bit clear. Not easy to write this down in English...
Frederic
Are you both aware about what you are actually talking?
You don't have to know that much about international politics and you don't need that much of common sense to know that what you claim is crap.
This story is nothing but crap. When you dear to make claims like 'nuke them', you also should have to know what you are talking about.
Let's assume that this claim of Osama Bin Laden is true: this means that there is still a big organisation behind Al Qaeda to support this kind of terroristic strikes. Making terroristic attacks like summed up in the article is only possible when a big number of terrorists are currently planning this 'project'.
The reports of the past months are proving that this is impossible.
What we have seen after Bush his attacks in Afghanistan (Tora Bora etc) is a big decentralisation of Al Qaeda. This means that the 'brains behind Al Qaeda' were killed during the very heavy bombings.
The result is that Al Qaeda has no coördination centre anymore, which means that Al Qaeda is almost dead.
Now you will say: "Bull sh*t, because Al Qaeda was behind the attacks in Istanbul/Madrid etc".
Well: all those bombings prove the theory: after the decentralisation of Al Qaeda, a lot of separate groups of extremists were formed, working independent. A recent report of a valuable organization revealed that we have, on this globe, 18000 sleeping terrorists.
All those terrorists are small separate groups, who handle "in the name of Al Qaeda". Not because one central organisation asked them to bomb Madrid/..., but for their own reasons.
This is of course a very dangerous situation: you don't really know your enemy, and there is nothing you can do about it because they work independent from Osama Bin Laden.
By the way: this is also the reason why catching Osama will nothing do about International terrorism: he has nothing to say anymore.
There is only one advice: stop the paranoia, and enjoy your freedom.
Message for Erwin: again a prove that your theory about 'all islamists are bad' is wrong. Have you seen towards who the attacks for example in Istanbul, and certainly in Iraq are directed? The normal Muslims, indeed!
Terrorism and muslims/Islam is NOT the same.
How do you partially solve terrorism (completely solving is impossible): you can for example pay more attention to the people living in the Middle East. You have to take the reason for their hatress towards the West away.
Small progressive groups are currently being formed in the Middle East. It is our task to support those groups, since they are the only ones who can bring a democracy in the Middle East.
The longer we only bomb the Middle East, and the longer we refer to them as 'the axis of evil", the deeper the hatress towards the West will be.
It becomes time that we use our brains (something that Bush isn't doing).
So Erwin and Comet, I hope you realize now that theories like 'nuke them' only CREATE problems, instead of solving them.
I hope that my reply is a bit clear. Not easy to write this down in English...
Frederic
Brussels Airlines - Flying Your Way
First of all you have your opinion and I have mine, let's keep it that way!Sabena_690 wrote:Comet and A318, may I ask you both to get a sense of reality please?
Are you both aware about what you are actually talking?
You don't have to know that much about international politics and you don't need that much of common sense to know that what you claim is crap.
This story is nothing but crap. When you dear to make claims like 'nuke them', you also should have to know what you are talking about.
Let's assume that this claim of Osama Bin Laden is true: this means that there is still a big organisation behind Al Qaeda to support this kind of terroristic strikes. Making terroristic attacks like summed up in the article is only possible when a big number of terrorists are currently planning this 'project'.
The reports of the past months are proving that this is impossible.
What we have seen after Bush his attacks in Afghanistan (Tora Bora etc) is a big decentralisation of Al Qaeda. This means that the 'brains behind Al Qaeda' were killed during the very heavy bombings.
The result is that Al Qaeda has no coördination centre anymore, which means that Al Qaeda is almost dead.
Now you will say: "Bull sh*t, because Al Qaeda was behind the attacks in Istanbul/Madrid etc".
Well: all those bombings prove the theory: after the decentralisation of Al Qaeda, a lot of separate groups of extremists were formed, working independent. A recent report of a valuable organization revealed that we have, on this globe, 18000 sleeping terrorists.
All those terrorists are small separate groups, who handle "in the name of Al Qaeda". Not because one central organisation asked them to bomb Madrid/..., but for their own reasons.
This is of course a very dangerous situation: you don't really know your enemy, and there is nothing you can do about it because they work independent from Osama Bin Laden.
By the way: this is also the reason why catching Osama will nothing do about International terrorism: he has nothing to say anymore.
There is only one advice: stop the paranoia, and enjoy your freedom.
Message for Erwin: again a prove that your theory about 'all islamists are bad' is wrong. Have you seen towards who the attacks for example in Istanbul, and certainly in Iraq are directed? The normal Muslims, indeed!
Terrorism and muslims/Islam is NOT the same.
How do you partially solve terrorism (completely solving is impossible): you can for example pay more attention to the people living in the Middle East. You have to take the reason for their hatress towards the West away.
Small progressive groups are currently being formed in the Middle East. It is our task to support those groups, since they are the only ones who can bring a democracy in the Middle East.
The longer we only bomb the Middle East, and the longer we refer to them as 'the axis of evil", the deeper the hatress towards the West will be.
It becomes time that we use our brains (something that Bush isn't doing).
So Erwin and Comet, I hope you realize now that theories like 'nuke them' only CREATE problems, instead of solving them.
I hope that my reply is a bit clear. Not easy to write this down in English...
Frederic
Second:
I never said all muslims are bad!Message for Erwin: again a prove that your theory about 'all islamists are bad' is wrong. Have you seen towards who the attacks for example in Istanbul, and certainly in Iraq are directed? The normal Muslims, indeed!
I once said if you want to reduce the chance of attacks during flight keep them out of the cabin.
That is something totally different, I have a very good muslim collegue!
You have you opinion and I have my mine and we both have the right to keep it that way, so never me that my opinion is not correct since it is mine.
I better stop now since after typing one word about politics the topic will be closed, where did I hear that "freedom of speech"?
Erwin
A Whole Different Animal
-
thomascookie
- Posts: 216
- Joined: 22 Sep 2002, 00:00
- Location: wilrijk
-
Sabena_690
- Posts: 3378
- Joined: 20 Sep 2002, 00:00
x thomascookie: as I said earlier, it doesn't make sense anymore since Bin Laden has nothing to say anymore. Catching Bin Laden is only a moral issue, and is something that has to happen for all the victims of 9/11, and for their families. I support all normal tactics to catch him, but just nuke everything where he 'could' be (remember how 'accurate' the 'intelligence' was about the WMD's) is a totally wrong strategy. Just put it in its context.
x A318/Erwin: you know very good that I'm in favour of pluralism: the more opinions the better.
However: 'nuke them' is not an opinion, maybe your heart says this (my heart says the same I have to admit), but our brains say something else. I don't want to look like some kind of 'professor' who knows everything about politics etc etc, but still I have to condemn the strategy of 'nuke them'. You have some pretty extreme thoughts: you hate to fly on French airlines, you hate France in general (why?), you generalize terrrorism and the Islam etc etc. If you nuke Afghanistan, you will only create more and more terrorism. Is this what you want?
And still then: do you see nuclear weapons as a solution?
You fit very well in Bush his neoconservative logic, but luckily this kind of people is very limited...
As my signature on airliners.net says: "The main lesson which we can learn from history is that from history no lessons are actually being taken." And indeed: terrorism is not new.
Frederic
x A318/Erwin: you know very good that I'm in favour of pluralism: the more opinions the better.
However: 'nuke them' is not an opinion, maybe your heart says this (my heart says the same I have to admit), but our brains say something else. I don't want to look like some kind of 'professor' who knows everything about politics etc etc, but still I have to condemn the strategy of 'nuke them'. You have some pretty extreme thoughts: you hate to fly on French airlines, you hate France in general (why?), you generalize terrrorism and the Islam etc etc. If you nuke Afghanistan, you will only create more and more terrorism. Is this what you want?
And still then: do you see nuclear weapons as a solution?
You fit very well in Bush his neoconservative logic, but luckily this kind of people is very limited...
As my signature on airliners.net says: "The main lesson which we can learn from history is that from history no lessons are actually being taken." And indeed: terrorism is not new.
Frederic
Brussels Airlines - Flying Your Way
We agree in that one, good!Sabena_690 wrote:x A318/Erwin: you know very good that I'm in favour of pluralism: the more opinions the better.
Sometimes it's better to listen to your heartHowever: 'nuke them' is not an opinion, maybe your heart says this (my heart says the same I have to admit), but our brains say something else.
Then please don't!I don't want to look like some kind of 'professor' who knows everything about politics etc etc, but still I have to condemn the strategy of 'nuke them'.
Hate is a big word, I just don't like them, chauvinists!You have some pretty extreme thoughts: you hate to fly on French airlines, you hate France in general (why?)
Just look at the statistics, New York, Bali, Israel, Madrid.you generalize terrrorism and the Islam etc etc.
Can we have even more, I thought this was more as enough already!If you nuke Afghanistan, you will only create more and more terrorism. Is this what you want?
Sometimes you have to fight evil by using evil.And still then: do you see nuclear weapons as a solution?
Not sooo limited, how did he became otherwise President of the USA?You fit very well in Bush his neoconservative logic, but luckily this kind of people is very limited...
Don't tell this to your history teacher!!!As my signature on airliners.net says: "The main lesson which we can learn from history is that from history no lessons are actually being taken." And indeed: terrorism is not new.
A silent greeting,Frederic
Erwin
A Whole Different Animal
Apart from the obvious problems of nuking anybody - nukes are not politically acceptable; no country would want to be the first to use them - a nuke would have little effect against somebody in a cave inside a mountain. It would be poor target/weapon matching and the weaponeer would soon be out of a job if he suggested it.
If you could identify precisely where the target is located, then a precision guided deep-penetration weapon might work, but there's not a lot of point in using one against an empty cave.
If you could identify precisely where the target is located, then a precision guided deep-penetration weapon might work, but there's not a lot of point in using one against an empty cave.
a318
As you mentioned you are entitled to your opinion however ill informed and stupid it may be but if you air it on a public forum you must expect it to be critcised (and of course praised). It is also incumbent on you and everyone to have the decency to listen and be prepared to change their minds over any issue.
In my opinion you are completely wrong and I shall await a reasoned debate or more likely a flaming contest
Best Regards
ElNombre
As you mentioned you are entitled to your opinion however ill informed and stupid it may be but if you air it on a public forum you must expect it to be critcised (and of course praised). It is also incumbent on you and everyone to have the decency to listen and be prepared to change their minds over any issue.
In my opinion you are completely wrong and I shall await a reasoned debate or more likely a flaming contest
Best Regards
ElNombre
-
Sabena_690
- Posts: 3378
- Joined: 20 Sep 2002, 00:00
Erwin/A318: I don't agree with your views at all, but as a forum admin, I have to take my responsability now.
I know I'm also partially guilty about this...
The problem is that politics are my second interest. I try to follow International Politics as good as possible, which means I became a bit 'oversensitive' about several things in the past few years...
Frederic
I know I'm also partially guilty about this...
The problem is that politics are my second interest. I try to follow International Politics as good as possible, which means I became a bit 'oversensitive' about several things in the past few years...
Frederic
Brussels Airlines - Flying Your Way
