is my thread title an understatement?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2244146.stm Sunday, 8 September, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK Al-Qaeda 'plotted nuclear attacks' Mohammed and Binalshibh are on the FBI's wanted list In an article published in several European newspapers, documentary-maker Yosri Fouda said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh told him they had decided against the attack on nuclear power plants "for the moment" because of fears it could "get out of control". Both men are on the FBI's most wanted list and have a $25m bounty on their heads. The FBI says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of Bin Laden's key lieutenants, while Ramzi Binalshibh is said to have shared an apartment in Hamburg with Mohammed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the hijackers. Department of Martyrs Yosri Fouda said he was taken to a hideout in Pakistan. He was told by a man there that Bin Laden was alive and well, but was not shown any proof of this. Bin Laden - reportedly told of date for the attacks on 6 September Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told him he was head of the al-Qaeda military committee and Ramzi Binalshibh the co-ordinator of what they refer to as "Holy Tuesday". Over the course of two days, Mr Fouda says, the men gave him an insight into how the terror group operates and how the 11 September attacks were planned. Mohammed and Binalshibh alleged that: The decision to launch a "martyrdom operation inside America" was made by network's military committee in early 1999 Atta was summoned to a meeting with key hijackers in Afghanistan that same year Hijackers were recruited from al-Qaeda's Department of Martyrs, which is still active Mr Binalshibh wanted to be one of the hijackers, but was refused a US visa A number of reconnaissance teams travelled to the US ahead of the hijackers Ramzi Binalshibh posed in e-mails as Atta's girlfriend in Germany when the two communicated through the internet The fourth hijacked plane was heading for Congress, not the White House, when passengers overpowered the attackers The codenames for the targets were university faculties: "town planning" for the WTC, "law" for Congress, "fine arts" for the Pentagon On 29 August, Atta gave the date for the attacks to Mr Binalshibh, who ordered active cells in Europe and the US to evacuate Bin Laden was told on 6 September At the end of his two-day interview, Mr Fouda writes, he was instructed to leave the videotapes behind so the faces of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh could be blanked out. Despite promises that they would be returned, the videos never turned up. But, the journalist says, he did eventually receive voice tapes of the interviews.
Go ahead and count me in on the "I don't like al Qaeda". I'm not a big fan of cancer, scurvy, Adolf Hitler, or the Coboys either.
{insert major sarcasm} really, you don't like them... they sound like nice guys, I mean check this statement out, "they had decided against the attack on nuclear power plants "for the moment" because of fears it could "get out of control" that's sweet of them, no?
While the sarcasm was noted, your post brings up a couple of points: 1. Damn we are lucky that they did not strike nuclear first and with the same 75% success rate. 2. This proves that they are not "just a bunch of crazies" or that they are irrational, etc. It shows that they are calculating and smart about their "business." I hope the "leaders" of our country understand this instead of the crap they feed to the public.
I was under the impression that our leaders were taking this threat (i.e. al-Qaida) seriously. No where have I heard anyone in the government say that this was an isolated incident committed by a few fringe lunitics. It's very clear that the government feels that we are at war with a very organized and well-funded group of individuals.
"they had decided against the attack on nuclear power plants "for the moment" because of fears it could "get out of control" ??? Get out of control?
honestly..what would happen if a plane crashed into a nuclear plant...i realize it would be bad..but does anyone have any education on just how bad?? chance -- you're right...scurvy does suck.
Is this really the way you think that our government has portrayed these guys? These were obviously not impulsive acts. The derogatory remarks, to my recollection, has been limited to criticisms of their "willingness and eagerness" to rack up civilian casualties. Take that one back, rimbaud.... please.
Don't attempt to tell me what to do...please. Both you and chase misunderstood my point a bit. There has been no attempt on the part of the gov to downplay the threat...indeed the exact opposite is true. Further, they have not tried to say that this was isolated. My point is that the statement gave a more caluculatingly human side to the terrorists, as opposed to just bloodthirsty lunatics who only want to kill, kill, kill (even if that instills fear, I don't think it does much in regards to really considering the eradication of terrorism - not reactionary, but preventing). The point is that they saw attacking nuclear as "going too far" (perhaps not morally, but in regards to consequences). It just means that the response and policies towards them must be equally as calculating and thought out. Did I at all make myself clearer? Probably not. Does it matter, anyway, Rich? I thought you were an expert at what I am really thinking and saying.
Actually, Rimaud, the 9/11 attacks made me realize how cunning these guys are. At first, I didn't think Houston would be a very "sexy" target. After all, who cares about Houston (except us, of course!). However, the World Trade Center attack (and their persistance at hitting it - it was the second time) made me realize that their target was actually the U.S. economy as it would do far more damage then just create an emotional blow. Having realized this, I also came to the conclusion that if they wanted to really cause economic damage in the U.S., the Houston Ship Channel or the petrolieum refineries in the area would make a great target for a nuke. I'm not sure of what the solution is and I don't envy the guys in charge as they have a very difficult time ahead. They really can't win because if they don't stop the next attacks they will be accused of not doing enough and if they do too much they get accused of going "too far". Politics really sucks....
Okay, smarty-pants... your clarification said exactly what I thought you had said. Thanks for the elucidation. I've not seen a hint of the characterization of the terrorists that you assign to the government that you say exists. We ALWAYS heard how deliberate and planned-out this act of terrorism was. Their fervor had to do with the price they were willing to pay and the value they placed on civilian targets. That's different. I promise to tell you what you are thinking only when you fail to realize it yourself....
I want to know what they meant by saying that it could have gotten out of control if they had decided to attack the nuclear plants. You know they didn't mean that it would have caused too much damage to the US. I'm guessing that they were talking about the backlash that would result from it or something like that. That raises a question in my mind: Do these guys consider what took place, from the initial retalition of the US to the time when they were interviewed (several months ago), no big deal? "Yeah, we lost a few people. Some died, some are being detained. No big deal. It hasn't really hurt us. We've still got this pretty much under control." In their thinking, was the response of the US (and others) just a weak, expected, and acceptable response--just part of the "game"?
Thanks, you've really made me feel better, as I sit in the middle of an oil refinery on the Ship Channel
I read that Israel wiped out Iraq's nuclear reactor back in the 1980's - I wonder what happened when they bombed the crap out of it? There had to be some sort of fallout/meltdown?
Was it online at the time or was it dormant? I'm no nuclear physicist, but I'd think it would make a difference.
