Large al Qaeda gathering revealed in video

[devthedev]

Thoughts?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/world/al-qaeda-meeting-video/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[Vod]

Thoughts?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/world/al-qaeda-meeting-video/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I wouldn't run in the Boston Marathon this year.   

[bryant.coleman]

I wouldn't run in the Boston Marathon this year.   

Somewhere I heard that Al Qaeda never targets a place which is targeted by them before. BTW... the Boston tragedy was entirely avoidable. What was the need for the US to give refuge to all the Chechen terrorists who were fleeing Russia? The enemy's enemy is not always friend. Americans thought that they could use the Chechens against the Russians, but they should have done that while keeping them in the Asia or the Middle East.

[Vod]

I wouldn't run in the Boston Marathon this year.    

Somewhere I heard that Al Qaeda never targets a place which is targeted by them before. BTW... the Boston tragedy was entirely avoidable. What was the need for the US to give refuge to all the Chechen terrorists who were fleeing Russia? The enemy's enemy is not always friend. Americans thought that they could use the Chechens against the Russians, but they should have done that while keeping them in the Asia or the Middle East.

IMO, not targeting the same place twice would make Al Qaeda inefficient and less relevant.   If they were to explode a second bomb, the next year you would see a drop in race participation (they win) and Boston would bankrupt itself putting a police officer every meter (they win again).  They want to disrupt normal life - how can you do that if people can't predict (and avoid) your potential targets?  You don't need to attack - just make people believe you might.

[devthedev]

Thoughts?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/world/al-qaeda-meeting-video/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I wouldn't run in the Boston Marathon this year.   

I wouldn't either :/
I'm sure there's going to be heightened security this year though.

[bryant.coleman]

I never understand why terrorists target airports, marathons, stations etc.

That is why they are known as terrorists.

And talking about terrorism, the NATO even bombed the Serbian orphanages in 1999, killing a large number of children. If recognized military powers can do such a thing, then why not the terrorists?

[Vod]

I never understand why terrorists target airports, marathons, stations etc. Sure a huge number of people congregate there, but the money and planning involved in breaking the security, executing a mission quickly, and killing enough people to make it all worth it must be significant, and it often involves the suicide or capture of a perpetrator. In addition, it makes people think "welp, best not go to the airport for a while" and they feel safe.

Terrorists don't know what they are doing.

You can find a large crowd in an airport queing up for the security scans.  Just walk right up and blow your bomb and you can kill hundreds without breaking any security.

[practicaldreamer]

Surely it would be more efficient to detonate (relatively) small explosives in residential areas completely at random, killing 0-5 people at a time.

That would barely make the news - no point in that. It would/could be ignored. Blowing up a hotel in Brighton hosting the Government is a different kettle of fish.

The strength of the attack lay in the perceived threat it poses to the smooth and frictionless motion of normal everyday life.


[ps. I am in no way condoning acts of this nature, just in case anyone out there might interpret my post as such. I am merely responding to a point raised - and trying to understand terrorism myself]

[bryant.coleman]

I don't think you read my post . I said they could be better terrorists (i.e. spread more terror) by randomly targeting civilians in their homes for a fraction of the cost of targeting a large public building.

OK... got it. But I don't think that they care much about the number of casualties. Bombing an important event such as the Boston marathon can get them massive publicity. If they bomb some isolated farmhouse, then they will not get that much publicity. Also, it is easier and risk-free to attack a crowded event when compared to gated residential areas.

[counter]

looks like a bunch of degenerates that should have been dismantled long ago.  Makes me wonder what the feds and other alphabet agencies are doing?

[d-trix]

Where are the droned worth hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into the NSA and all they can do is collect information on everyone else. If the NSA was really about terrorism this would have had drone target written all over it. Disband the NSA its not working.

[MichaelBliss]

That report is just more media disinfo.  Al-Queda is supported by the U.S. in Syria, you guys have paid for so many weopons for Al-Queda it isn't funny.  I suggest everyone stop watching CNN and the rest of that mainstream crap, the way they report on bitcoin should clue you into how untrustworthy MSM is.

[bryant.coleman]

That report is just more media disinfo.  Al-Queda is supported by the U.S. in Syria, you guys have paid for so many weopons for Al-Queda it isn't funny.  I suggest everyone stop watching CNN and the rest of that mainstream crap, the way they report on bitcoin should clue you into how untrustworthy MSM is.

The US has always supported Al Qaeda against secular governments. Here are the examples:

1. In 1979, the US supported Afghan Mujahideen (predecessor to the Al Qaeda) against the atheist USSR.
2. In 1990-91, the US supported Islamist Kuwait in its war against secular Iraq.
3. In 1994, the US supported the Chechen Islamists against secular Russia.
4. In 2003, the USA toppled the secular government in Iraq, so that Islamist parties could come to power.
5. In 2011, the USA toppled the secular Hosni Mubarak govt. in Egypt, so that the Islamic Brotherhood could seize power.
6. In 2011-14, the USA gave support to Al Qaeda, to topple the secular Syrian govt.

[MichaelBliss]

That report is just more media disinfo.  Al-Queda is supported by the U.S. in Syria, you guys have paid for so many weopons for Al-Queda it isn't funny.  I suggest everyone stop watching CNN and the rest of that mainstream crap, the way they report on bitcoin should clue you into how untrustworthy MSM is.

The US has always supported Al Qaeda against secular governments. Here are the examples:

1. In 1979, the US supported Afghan Mujahideen (predecessor to the Al Qaeda) against the atheist USSR.
2. In 1990-91, the US supported Islamist Kuwait in its war against secular Iraq.
3. In 1994, the US supported the Chechen Islamists against secular Russia.
4. In 2003, the USA toppled the secular government in Iraq, so that Islamist parties could come to power.
5. In 2011, the USA toppled the secular Hosni Mubarak govt. in Egypt, so that the Islamic Brotherhood could seize power.
6. In 2011-14, the USA gave support to Al Qaeda, to topple the secular Syrian govt.

Exactly.  Except "supported" is really too kind to be accurate in some of those.  "Invented" is more accurate.  (& you missed the Taliban, indirectly created and supported via #1 on your list).   It's these kind of things that give reason for the majority of the world to perceive America is the true terrorist threat! (We could care less about U.S.'s internal politics - none of our business - although we feel sorry that poor people can't get good health care in such a supposedly rich country).  Putting the Boston marathon into context; the USA has been blowing up innocent people world wide as a matter of routine for decades!   Why don't more Americans care about that? I hope the drone happy Americans do realize that soon the drones will be used on your own people next!  That same MSM that lies to you about the nature and history of U.S and Al-Qeda may very well be used to truly demonize bitcoin supporters, and equate them with terrorists to be fought in a war, as was done with marijuana.   You'll see chipper bimbos on the news happily discussing your planned assassination, supported by most of the population, 'cause it's on tv.  Then, when you're labeled a "terrorist threat" for mining alt-coins in your basement, see how cool you think drones and "fighting terrorism" is.

[bryant.coleman]

Except "supported" is really too kind to be accurate in some of those.  "Invented" is more accurate. 

I think Taliban was formed by the unification of several warring Pashto speaking Mujaheddin factions. I am not sure... as I am not an expert in Afghan history. Anyway, I'll agree that the US played a significant role in the formation of the Taliban.

[MichaelBliss]

Except "supported" is really too kind to be accurate in some of those.  "Invented" is more accurate. 

I think Taliban was formed by the unification of several warring Pashto speaking Mujaheddin factions. I am not sure... as I am not an expert in Afghan history. Anyway, I'll agree that the US played a significant role in the formation of the Taliban.

That is my understanding as well.

[NationOwnedCCNow]

http://rt.com/usa/drone-yemen-dozens-dead-880/



I smell a big false-flag coming up.


1, "Al-Qaida" show a video threatening USA


2, USA kill them


3, "Al-Qaida" retaliation, perhaps a smuggled a-bomb or something very big.


4, WW3, NWO

[bryant.coleman]

4, WW3, NWO

WW3 won't be caused by a conflict between the US and the Al Qaeda. Because none of the world powers would side with the Al Qaeda. WW3 can happen only if a war beaks out between the US and either Russia or China.

[NationOwnedCCNow]

4, WW3, NWO

WW3 won't be caused by a conflict between the US and the Al Qaeda. Because none of the world powers would side with the Al Qaeda. WW3 can happen only if a war beaks out between the US and either Russia or China.

You're wrong on this mate, it is bound to  happen. A New War on Terror will only bring US to a more authoritarian police-1984-state but that is not enough atm. That would nost last economically. Perhaps though, they will start with this to be able to shut Down/censor internet more and more + silence dissidents(Patriot Act 2 or just more widely used).
Then it will be alot easier to proceed With the war on Russia and China, which has been the main goal for some years already. Perhaps i'm getting Ahead of myself yet the next War on Terror will not last long due to the weak economy, which means WW3 will be innitiated just a few months/years after.

[MichaelBliss]

WW3 won't be caused by a conflict between the US and the Al Qaeda. Because none of the world powers would side with the Al Qaeda. WW3 can happen only if a war beaks out between the US and either Russia or China.

The U.S. has already sided with Al Qaeda; they have been funding and arming them for a while.   
Cognitive dissonance anyone?