Posted on 07/26/2005 5:04:00 PM PDT by yankeedame
DEBKAfile: Al Qaeda now threatens Rome. Berlusconi personally addressed
July 26, 2005, 9:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Abu Hafs al Masri Brigades who claimed the two London bombing attacks published a fresh warning Monday, July 25: “After London, it is Rome’s turn.” The Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is warned that by failing to withdraw Italian troops from Iraq, he would by his own hand “turn Rome into a graveyard.”
The statement run on the Internet threatens the Italian capital with harsher and more painful strikes than the London attacks. “As long as a single Italian soldier remains in Iraq, you the prime minister can look forward to nothing but “more and more blood.”
DEBKAfile adds: All the European capitals have placed their security and emergency services of maximum terror alert. London too is bracing for more terrorist attacks. One of al Qaeda’s prime targets is expected to be the Vatican, which the terrorist organization sees as a world center of heresy.
An earlier warning by the same group gave Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy until August 15 to pull their soldiers out of Iraq.
If rome gets hit, will the italians continue to seek to prosecute our cia agents? hmmmmmmm.
Mecca is certainly now fair game.
The way it was put to me is that although the Italian Government is pro Iraq/America, the populace is not.
Italy might just cut and run while blaming Bush.
Mecca is certainly now fair game.
Agree wholeheartedly. Maybe Tancredo will become a hero now.
Maybe they will go for Rome maybe they will choose somewhere else. Just as well if they choose Rome, it doesn't mean that the next hit will be where they say so.
I normally can't stand Tancredo, but he said the one thing that has actually made an impression on our little death-cult friends. And he hasn't backed down (and I hope he doesn't).
In any case, I think they wouldn't dare strike the Vatican, because they know it would then be an open war. They might make an attempt on the civilian population of Rome, however, because the left will then come forward and support them (as it did in Spain) and justify their attack as "political protest." Rome is very left-wing, and Islam and the left are hand in glove.
While we should not sit on our hands waiting for terrorists to strike, like the coward before Mr. Bush, we also should not sink to the terrorists' level.
But I understand the emotional pull.
Problem is, a few bombs would probably improve Rome's subway system.
I hope you are right. I find it odd that this hasn't hit the news, because, if true, it is a major news story.
By threatening the sacrifice of Mecca in retaliation for any further Islamist terror, Islam would hopefully be pressed to identify one leader to speak for the religion and denounce all forms of terror, especially terror inflicted in the name of Allah. Then, the leader could convene a reformation clarifying the Koran's position that terror, and spreading the religion by the sword, are intolerable. If this doesn't happen, we're going to end up picking them all off one by one after a sufficient number of us infidels die.
Yea, that will win friends and influence people. These geniuses are getting dimmer by the minute.
I have regularly remarked that islam is not unlike the manson family, with the primary difference being the number of followers each has engendered. Helter Skelter blossomed on 9/11/01, and the WTC became large scale editions of the Tate and Labianca households. I frequently ask people what the threshold would have been on 9/11....at what number of dead innocents would have osama and his lackies said, "alright, enough killing for one day...no more children...this is getting out of hand." The answer is none. The only reason 3,000 Americans were killed, and not 30,000, 300,000 or all 300 million is simply because al-qaeda's means of inflicting death were exhausted. Given the means, the slaughter would have continued until every last American was dead.
I do not descend then, to the terrorists level when I advocate retaliation which falls well within our means and, in fact would advocate placing the islamic world on notice that Mecca and Medina would be vaporized in a matter of days. Likewise, I do not wish for the wholesale slaughter of all islamists...only those who can not be deprogrammed.
Larry, I don't think that's their goal; it's to KILL us all!
I like Tancredo for his stance on illegal immigratio. Namely, his willingness to skip the PC crap and tell it like it is. I have further warmed to him with his latest statement. Diplomacy is one thing, but our Ilamofacist enemy does not have anything to fear when diplomacy is so PC. If they thought that we might be willing to blow their holy site off the map, they MIGHT actually consider changing their strategy. You can be sure that there is a contingency already planned if XY or Z event were to happen.
Another major attack on the US will galvenize our moderates and change the attitude of many of our lefty friends. This FReeper thinks that AQ has not struck us again for that very reason. There will come a point where they won't care though and will hit with ferocity.
If terrorists go after the Vatican, no question MECCA SHOULD BE BOMBED TO OBLIVION.
and everybody was slamming Rep. Tancredo for saying "Nuke Mecca".
Go Tom, Go!
I say we do it first - just to flush 'em out.
LVM
I said sometime ago, somewhere, that I expect a full-out assault on the Church by Islam.
Very Good Response.....Intelligent and well thought out...thank you
I think you're right. They don't dare - quite yet.
It's also possible they don't have the means to do so - at the moment. But I'm sure they're working on that.
A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and I think you're going to see a lot of people suddenly turning conservative.
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.