Al-Qaeda Threatens to Nuke New York on February 2

Vesayen · December 31, 2003, 19:44

http://www.debka.com/

Italy’s Il Giornale reports from Washington: Al Qaeda publishes new threat to “annihilate New York” on February 2. Read more in box below Paper cites purported al Qaeda video clip threatening nuclear attack on city, claims FBI removed website carrying video clip. Authenticity of clip and web site has not been officially confirmed

31 December

The banner headline spread across the front page of Il Giornale, the respected Milan daily reads:

“Al Qaeda: We will destroy New York within 35 days. Threat on the Internet. Countdown begins.”

The threat was contained in a video clip featured on a web site associated with the fundamentalist terror group. It announced al Qaeda plans to destroy New York in a nuclear blast on February 2. Il Giornale claims the FBI blocked and removed the web site.

The video clip showed three possible scenarios: 1. A bomb or giant fireball from the skies that will cover the metropolis with a radioactive cloud. 2. A storm of radioactive clouds that will topple skyscrapers one by one, along with the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge. 3. An explosion on board a charter aircraft that will cause a radioactive cloud to spread over the city.

The video clip was accompanied by large, red-lettered Arabic captions saying: “If God wills it, the end of America is near.”

DEBKAfile’s counter-terrorism sources say they cannot verify the authorship or gauge the seriousness of the threat because the Internet site is no longer accessible. But the report appeared in a newspaper widely viewed as the flagship of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Such reports - even if not authenticated - tend to contribute to the mounting sense of alarm generated by “Orange Alert” in America and other Western countries.

It comes against the backdrop of appeals to New Year revelers to stay away from the traditional New Year’s Eve celebrations in Times Square, Rome’s St. Peter’s Square, Moscow’s Red Square and London’s Trafalgar Square – or even Disney World and the Las Vegas Strip. All these sites are surrounded by heavy security.

monkspider · December 31, 2003, 20:06

What a load of BS. The great citadel of New York shall never fall to infidel dogs!

Nubclear · December 31, 2003, 20:09

This is obviously a scare tactic.
"We are going to NUKE a MAJOR CITY on THIS DATE!!!!! But you are stupid AMERICAN INFIDELS and you wont even KNOW THIS! " -- Bin Laden
"The American infidels have no knowledge of our nuclear plan. Their police are so fat they cannot even get up! Nobody can stop us!" - Al Qaeda Information Minister

CerberusIV · December 31, 2003, 20:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
This is obviously a scare tactic.

Air marshals on flight in US airspace. Orange alert. It's working!

Ming · December 31, 2003, 20:11

Yes... total BS...

But, assuming they did... they would raise the battle to the next level... and something tells me the muslem world will end up suffering more in the long run. The world would probably not really care what our response was.

Nubclear · December 31, 2003, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yes... total BS...

But, assuming they did... they would raise the battle to the next level... and something tells me the muslem world will end up suffering more in the long run. The world would probably not really care what our response was.

I'm pretty sure they would

GePap · December 31, 2003, 20:14

Thank God they are stupid enough to post their intentions a month ahead..thus giving immense warning to those whose aim is to stop them.

Could they begin to follow this trend more often, you know, giving warning?

s for Ming's comment- no, the world would care very very much how the US reacted to the nuking of a city by a criminal non-state entity and whom the US would attack- for the most part, there would be no valid retaliatory targets, since just "nuking muslims" would put us in the very same category as the terrorists.

Ming · December 31, 2003, 20:22

The point I'm making is that such an act would remove any possible support they have in the western world...
Sure, a bunch of extremists would dance in the streets, but frankly, that would be it. The rest of the civilized world would be against them... and this would allow action by the United States that would never have been considered before. The war on terror would rise to new levels never seen before, because if they could nuke one city, NO COUNTRY would be safe.

monkspider · December 31, 2003, 20:22

As an American, I comfortably say that, we cannot be stopped. As a nation, we are sharp with both the rapier and the rapier wit, and are perfectly willing to use both. We own over 2,000,000 sets of kid gloves, and have been trained in the gentlemanly martial arts of fencing and Cambridge-style boxing. If any lesser people were to attempt to rise up against us, they would meet a most dreadful end.

Nubclear · December 31, 2003, 20:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
The point I'm making is that such an act would remove any possible support they have in the western world...
Sure, a bunch of extremists would dance in the streets, but frankly, that would be it. The rest of the civilized world would be against them... and this would allow action by the United States that would never have been considered before. The war on terror would rise to new levels never seen before, because if they could nuke one city, NO COUNTRY would be safe.

True, however if we just begin blazing into nations, we would QUICKLY lose support of the international community and if we truely were nuked, that would NOT be a good thing.

GePap · December 31, 2003, 20:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
The point I'm making is that such an act would remove any possible support they have in the western world...

Excuse me, but what support does Al Qaeda ad islamic fundamentalist have in the Western world? And before you say "France and Germany and Russia", you are talking about one state thinking of banning reliious muslims from dressing as they want and another waging s brutal war against mainly muslim individuals in a southern province, so that don;t fly. Don't confuse Iraq with the war on terror.

Quote:

Sure, a bunch of extremists would dance in the streets, but frankly, that would be it. The rest of the civilized world would be against them... and this would allow action by the United States that would never have been considered before. The war on terror would rise to new levels never seen before, because if they could nuke one city, NO COUNTRY would be safe.

Sorry, but the US would still have 0 legitimacy to attack anyone but Al Qaeda, unless it could prove direct collusion between a state entity and Al Qeada in caryring out that attack. You say measures we have never considered before-like? Use of WMD's? (such actions of course being war crimes..) Creation of concentration camps maybe death camps (crimes against humanity, war crimes..) what?

Sorry, but just like after 9/11, the amount of actual possible acts runs a lot shorter than the revenge fantasies people cook up.

Ming · December 31, 2003, 20:37

Who really knows what actions would be taken... but something like a nuke strike on New York would outrage the world a thousand times more than 9/11 did. If people think muslems are targets now, it would only get far worse. Such a strike would only set their cause back a thousand years, and label every muslem and muslem country a potential threat.

Yeah, you look toward "legitmacy"... but you know what, in the real world that would not matter. Sad... but true. Such a strike would change the rules... and God help us all. If they want a holy war... they would get it, and they would be on the receiving end. Fair... no... but probably true. It would be a bad move on their part, because their people would suffer more before it was all over.

Mr. President · December 31, 2003, 20:49

Even Europeans couldn't be so idiotic as to oppose America seeking people who nuked it.

And if they did . . . it would confirm all the dark thoughts running through my little head.

Nubclear · December 31, 2003, 20:50

True, however most people of the world would be opposed to America using this to attack Syria or Iran or North Korea or whatnot.

GePap · December 31, 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Crimson Sunrise
Even Europeans couldn't be so idiotic as to oppose America seeking people who nuked it.

HELLO! Europe already supports the US's campaign against Al Qaeda- which is the people who attacked on 9/11 and in theory would nuke the city I LIVE IN.

Quote:

And if they did . . . it would confirm all the dark thoughts running through my little head.

I will refrain from the harsh comment I was thinking of making/

GePap · December 31, 2003, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Who really knows what actions would be taken... but something like a nuke strike on New York would outrage the world a thousand times more than 9/11 did. If people think muslems are targets now, it would only get far worse. Such a strike would only set their cause back a thousand years, and label every muslem and muslem country a potential threat.

BY ignorant bigots, yes, this might be what happens. Thanksfully, even this admin. is not run by ignorant bigots. And set who's cause back? Islamic extemists? I have no porblem with thier cuase being set back by thousand of years. Islam's? Why? We nuked a city and it did not set us back. The Germans set up Dearth camps and it did not set them back, the Japanese committed huge attrocities and it did not set them back... I really fail to see the "setting back" of islam this would represent.

Quote:

Yeah, you look toward "legitmacy"... but you know what, in the real world that would not matter. Sad... but true. Such a strike would change the rules... and God help us all. If they want a holy war... they would get it, and they would be on the receiving end. Fair... no... but probably true. It would be a bad move on their part, because their people would suffer more before it was all over.

You jeep saying "their people"..who are "their people"/ The very use of the phrase "their people" on your part worries me because there is no such thing as "their people" in the sense you are using it.

NO, such a strike would not "change the rules" anymore than if a criminal setting of an explosive in a police house would all of a sudden "change the rules" of police conduct in a city without serious oversight and outrage if the police went to far in their retaliation.

Agathon · December 31, 2003, 21:11

I don't believe this, but consider that the race war you are all talking about is exactly what such an attack would be designed to provoke.

Space05us · December 31, 2003, 21:20

If a muslim extremist group ever managed to nuke an American city I would go out of my way to create an organisation dedicated to the eradication of all things muslim.

but because that would never happen I'll remain the accepting individual I am.

Agathon · December 31, 2003, 21:22

Hey let them nuke NY. Just evacuate everyone except the members of the NY Giants.

There... everyone's happy.

Imran Siddiqui · December 31, 2003, 21:32

Don't forget the NY Rangers and NY Knicks

.

Oh, and you'd have to import the NY Giants... they actually play in Jersey

.

Edan · December 31, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

"The American infidels have no knowledge of our nuclear plan. Their police are so fat they cannot even get up! Nobody can stop us!" - Al Qaeda Information Minister

No, no, no:

"There is NO New York!" - Al Qaeda Information Minister.

pchang · December 31, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Edan

No, no, no:

"There is NO New York!" - Al Qaeda Information Minister.

Whatever happened to that guy? Did they ever find him?

Combat Ingrid · December 31, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Space05us
If a muslim extremist group ever managed to nuke an American city I would go out of my way to create an organisation dedicated to the eradication of all things muslim.

Replace "muslim" with "American"

Whoha · December 31, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar

I'm pretty sure they would

nope, we have weapons which annihilate population but leave oil fields intact, radiation dissipates quickly as well.

Aside from that, the Muslims have managed to piss off just about every power on the globe, they are beating our record for pissing people off, and damnit, thats just not acceptable.

Whoha · December 31, 2003, 22:53

For the record though, I do not believe this threat, first off debka is somewhat questionable a source, and second, it would be counter productive for them to nuke New York(well any population center really).

ICBM · December 31, 2003, 22:56

It's obviously BS... if Al Qaeda was planning anything, they wouldn't go around and tell everyone.

Sort of off-topic to this thread, but probably the worst threat in terms of nuclear conflict in the near future would be in Pakistan. There have been two assassination attempts in two weeks on Musharraf, and if extremists manage to take over in Pakistan, then a nuclear attack on India would be a significant possibility.

JimmyCracksCorn · December 31, 2003, 23:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid

Replace "muslim" with "American"

Wow, that was funny AND in context.

Solver · December 31, 2003, 23:29

Muslims have pissed half the world off... but if the NYC was nuked, that would stil not mean that the USA can go around and nuke Muslims. Because, if Teheran/Damascus/Abu-Dhabi/whatever was nuked, then out of the million dead people, 98% would be those who are normal people and would never wish to have NYC nuked.

As for the threat message itself... load of BS. If they had the capability to nuke a city, they'd want to do that without warning. Obviously, with such a warning they have no chance.

And I believe that, despite it being BS, there has to be uber-security that date. Security agencies have to work that way.

GePap · December 31, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
Muslims have pissed half the world off... but if the NYC was nuked, that would stil not mean that the USA can go around and nuke Muslims. Because, if Teheran/Damascus/Abu-Dhabi/whatever was nuked, then out of the million dead people, 98% would be those who are normal people and would never wish to have NYC nuked.

Excuse me, but what half the world are you speaking about? Even if you could claim all Americans and all Jews and all Hindus hated Muslims, that gets you 20% of the world. You are missing 30% there.

I am still ballfed. How is the killing of 3000 people by one group of likeminded political terro groups all of a sudden an indictment on 1.2 billion people? Anyone who thinks like that thinks just like the terrorists- and that is not some empty headed gov. crap, but the simple truth- people who are unable to seperate and distinguish the actions of certain poltiical entities from the people they either claim to recognize, or recognize legally is just the sort of person that decides to murder other simply for being what they are.

Edan · December 31, 2003, 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap

Excuse me, but what half the world are you speaking about? Even if you could claim all Americans and all Jews and all Hindus hated Muslims, that gets you 20% of the world. You are missing 30% there.

I am still ballfed. How is the killing of 3000 people by one group of likeminded political terro groups all of a sudden an indictment on 1.2 billion people? Anyone who thinks like that thinks just like the terrorists- and that is not some empty headed gov. crap, but the simple truth- people who are unable to seperate and distinguish the actions of certain poltiical entities from the people they either claim to recognize, or recognize legally is just the sort of person that decides to murder other simply for being what they are.

I don't want to put words into Solver's mouth, but I read the original quote as saying (Some) muslims pissed half the world off, but even if (some) muslims nuked New York, that wouldn't make it ok to nuke cities full of muslims, because 98% of those muslims didn't support nuking New York. I'm not sure I understand what your issue with that is, unless you misunderstood it (or I did).