Since one had already been given in an early posting,
it's really a bit tacky to try for your own, but, oh well, OK, here's yours. ;-)
Posted on 06/09/2002 6:36:20 AM PDT by freeperfromnj
CAIRO (Reuters) - A statement claiming to be from al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman bu Ghaith has warned the United States it would face more attacks, which could involve non-conventional weapons.
The statement was carried Sunday on a Web site, www.alneda.com, which has in the past issued statements that claimed to be from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda and news on Afghanistan, where the group was based.
"We are still at the beginning of the road," Bu Ghaith said in the statement. "The Americans have not yet suffered from us what we have suffered from them."
He said the United States had killed, directly or indirectly, thousands in Iraq, Palestinian territories, Afghanistan, Sudan, Philippines, Bosnia and Kashmir.
"So we have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, displace double that figure and injure and cripple hundreds of thousands," he said.
"We have the right to fight them by chemical and biological weapons so that they catch the fatal and unusual diseases that Muslims have caught due to their (U.S.) chemical and biological weapons," he said.
It was not clear when the statement in Arabic was posted on the Web site, to which access is often difficult.
The comments were made in the third of a series of articles headlined "Under the Shadow of Spears."
Bu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti-born cleric, emerged as an al-Qaeda spokesman after the September 11 attacks on the United States. Kuwait has withdrawn his nationality.
The United Sates accuses bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network of masterminding the attacks that killed about 3,000 people.
In the second article earlier this month, Bu Ghaith warned the United States to get ready for another attack.
U.S.-led coalition forces are still hunting for the remnants of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan, after launching an offensive in October that ousted Taliban from power.
bu Gaith went on to say, "We hate you. We hate you. We hate you. We are going to spit on you. So there."
Since one had already been given in an early posting,
it's really a bit tacky to try for your own, but, oh well, OK, here's yours. ;-)
I do not think a regime change stands a chance. What is happening in Afghanistan, for example, is not going to bring them 21st century. A country infested with Islamists seems to top out some where pre-industrial revolution. Unfortunately we are pumping 100's of billions of dollars of oil money into Islamist Theocracies.
You have Saudi Arabia financing schools all over the area that take children who have not attained the age of reason and teaching them that not only is it OK to kill jews, americans and infidels in general, but it is a DESIRED activity to be highly praised. That is the problem. No regime change to people who have been brain washed this way is going to change that.
The mind has been stunted before it reaches the age of reason. Would you enter into a negotiation with Saddam Hussien or Yaser Arafat? Islam and the Koran make hero's out of making deals with infadels when the islamic faction is weak and then going back on you word once you become stronger.
Populations ruled by Islamists are taught to react, and not to think or question. They are trained to be so xenophobic that their duty is to kill anyone that thinks or reacts differently. You do not reason with a mind that has been debilitated in that fashion. You use enough force that they feel their own and their families survival threatened. Hopefully they start thinking before you have to use so much force that they end up dead. If not, then oh well.
Using cookie cutters or nukes on a few select cities would start some people thinking. Some of them would think they better attack the USA harder. Those would have to be given more force. It would only be counter productive if you stopped doing before the job was done.
An Islamist Theocracy is mutually exclusive with civilization. We either have to remove them or build a very big wall around them. If we attempt to tolerate their thought process by treating them as though they are civilized, it will be the end of civilization as we know. Might as well start studying the Koran right now.
Is it better to die from a usual disease than an unusual one?
--Boris
Can we drop a few million gallons of pig's blood on Mecca when the next hajj rolls around?
Seriously--if they, say, nuke Chicago--what is the downside of nuking Mecca and Medina?
--Boris
Even when doing our immoral meddling, we don't target civilians.
And the other side DOES believe in killing us all.
If they had several thousand nukes, like we do, do your doubt for a minute that they'd use them?
There is only one rational response to a society/philosophy that calls for your destruction. You must exterminate it.
It is not their M.O. to give warnings.
Right, and why would we change that tactic now and become just like the terrorists? Do they think we've developed some special kind of nuke that will only kill the terrorists and leave the innocents unscathed?
There is definitely a place for nuclear weapons, and if we are ever attacked with weapons of mass destruction I would have no objections to using them. However, I think we're doing just fine right now. It's risky, and it's hard, but it's the honorable way to wage this war. I want them dead too, but only the bad guys if possible.
Yes, some innocents will die in the crossfire, but it will be by accident and not intent.
One of the main reasons I have backed Bush's plan for a missile defense system is because I am aware that people who are NOT responsible have obtained these weapons.
You don't think the Muslims are gonna suddenly decide to play nice with others do you?
They will obtain (and probably already have - I'd say most of the reports on FR are true..) nukes. And when they have their tactics set, they'll use them.
In essence you're saying that we have to wait to lose a city, before we can retaliate.
Maybe in the past it was not their MO but now that we are at war with al Qaeda I think it would be unwise to dismiss these chilling threats. We also have Arafat talking about a large explosion, we have our government issuing several alerts over the last couple of weeks, we have pills being distributed to citizens living near nuclear plants.
I do not think they are bluffing. I don't doubt for a minute that they are planning something bigger than 9/11. They pulled off a devastating sneak attack once and I pray we can stop them before the next one.
Have you ever seen an Irish Wolfhound? Big, HUGE, really powerful dogs. Other dogs rush out to challange them, barking and snarling and most IW's will just look at them with a vaguely amused look. Someone trys to threaten you, they merely stand between you and that person, quietly watching with no raised hackels or curled lip. Yet I saw one of those quiet dogs reach up, without warning, grab a man at the shoulder and strip most of the meat off the bone. It happened so fast and was so effective, and utterly without warning. The dog knew who was a threat and who wasn't. You have to respect a dog like that. They handle their power well. That's what I'm talking about.
How much control do you really think Sadam really has over radical Islam? I believe this Islamic jihad is a completely separate fight from Iraq's. As you stated, he probably does see al qaeda as a useful tool and probably did supply them with the anthrax but I see this fight as Islam versus western civilization. They may not have their hands on WMD yet but they do have cells throught the US and they've had nine months to plan. As we have seen, they do not need WMD to carry out an attack.
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.