Replies

I believe I am the source of the information that the sniper asked to have the money transferred to a specified domestic account -- I think I said that on at least one of the threads this morning. My source was a radio report I heard this morning, probably on WMAL.

the sniper asked to have the money transferred to a specified domestic account

And just how do you get the money out? (someone on another thread suggested that it would be automatically forwarded to an offshore account, but that would ring every bell in the treasury department -- not to mention it wouldn't be effective immediately)

Don't get me wrong but we need to start calling a spade a spade- this is a domestic terrorist- by virtue of the ramifications of his actions throughout the areas surronding the nations Capital, indeed the I95 corridor. I think it is time to be more technical despite its ugly implications- a McVeigh (oops, did I say that- Arlen Spector where are you) type or a ME type.

Very interesting to read the opposing schools of thought with regard to the type of threat this sniper is. From my reading of things, and I've probably read most of the articles and seen most of the quotes being referred to in posts here at FR, I've seen nothing definitive one way or the other that precludes either domestic or international terrorism.

Much has been made of the type of phrases being used by the killer in various phone calls, letters, etc. If the phrases being referred to are ones like "just shut up and listen," "hear me out," "I am God" and "I'm in charge", none of those point one way or another to a domestic vs ME terrorist.

The phrase most used to discount ME terror is the use of "I am God", with the reason being that no Muslim extremist would ever utter such blasphemy. A huge assumption is being made in this case. Muslim extremists would seem to not be the type to go out an booze up and indulge in strip clubs, yet we know the 911 terrorists did exactly that. Not exactly the actions of a devout Muslim. In so doing, what this says to me is that these terrorists see Islam as nothing more than a tool to move the masses and recruit followers. Calling themselves Muslims, using "Allah be praised" in every other sentence, is simply a means to an end. Posts here have stated that Muslims only use the word Allah when referring to God, yet I have known many Muslims who use God interchangeably with Allah and seem not trouble with doing that. Assuming that Muslim extremists are actually devout makes an assumption seemingly not supported by the evidence at hand.

As for the other phrases we have seen, what about them makes them likely to have been stated by a domestic terrorist v an international terrorist? Its only been a few weeks since an accused Al Qaeda cell was arrested in Buffalo, primarily made up of Americans. Also, we have been told time and time again that these sleeper cells, such as the ones who attacked the WTC would have been here for a while, melding into society. The phrasing pointed out above would not be out of line for someone who has been here for months or years.

Finally, the ransom. We've seen it posted here numerous times that the use of ransom is out of character with ME terror. That flies in the face of facts as well. Abu Sayeef is notorious for kidnappings and ransom to raise funds for other terror activities. No question the angle of a domestic account is strange, but I've not yet seen that in print. Not discounting the folks who have posted that info, but I've not seen it.

Bottom line. Nothing reported leads me to believe either domestic or international terror can be discounted.