The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just got this in on CNN News Alert;
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A top al Qaeda leader sought in the war against terrorism has been captured and is in American custody, U.S. government sources told CNN on Friday.
Authorities refused to name the al Qaeda leader but said he was captured during the past week and that the man is one of the top 20 al Qaeda members sought by the U.S. government. They did say he was not Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or the terrorist group's operational leader, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Further details were not immediately available.
Another one bites the dust....must've been out of hellfire missiles this time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - because it soooooo winds some of you up - the terrorists will be hunted down by the USA and her allies, and we will stop them, dead or alive.
Good guys 1, Al Queda 0
~~Belldandy~~
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A top al Qaeda leader sought in the war against terrorism has been captured and is in American custody, U.S. government sources told CNN on Friday.
Authorities refused to name the al Qaeda leader but said he was captured during the past week and that the man is one of the top 20 al Qaeda members sought by the U.S. government. They did say he was not Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahiri, or the terrorist group's operational leader, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Further details were not immediately available.
Another one bites the dust....must've been out of hellfire missiles this time. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - because it soooooo winds some of you up - the terrorists will be hunted down by the USA and her allies, and we will stop them, dead or alive.
Good guys 1, Al Queda 0
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Just out on CNN News Alert;
-- Al Qaeda leader believed to be key planner of USS Cole bombing and operations chief for Persian Gulf in custody, U.S. sources say. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.
Another one down :) You can run, but you can't hide... and it looks like hellfire missiles are still out of stock too :P
~~Belldandy~~
-- Al Qaeda leader believed to be key planner of USS Cole bombing and operations chief for Persian Gulf in custody, U.S. sources say. Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com /AOL Keyword: CNN for the latest news.
Another one down :) You can run, but you can't hide... and it looks like hellfire missiles are still out of stock too :P
~~Belldandy~~
Goatboy wrote:
> Now a cynical person might suggest that this "foiled terror
> plan" was timed pretty nicely to coincide with the weapons
> inspectors heading to Iraq.
A cynical person would be ignoring the fact that they were captured a week ago, and that, if the government would have wanted to use them to highlight the necessity of attacking Iraq for WMDS, then they could have easily left these men in play until they were closer to acting. Mi5 has them under surveillance, they weren't going anywhere, and could have been left, but they weren't.
Does that tell you something ? It does me... by the way, if we'd grabbed them and found the chemicals on them then that's leaving it awfully close don't you think ?
~~Belldandy~~
> Now a cynical person might suggest that this "foiled terror
> plan" was timed pretty nicely to coincide with the weapons
> inspectors heading to Iraq.
A cynical person would be ignoring the fact that they were captured a week ago, and that, if the government would have wanted to use them to highlight the necessity of attacking Iraq for WMDS, then they could have easily left these men in play until they were closer to acting. Mi5 has them under surveillance, they weren't going anywhere, and could have been left, but they weren't.
Does that tell you something ? It does me... by the way, if we'd grabbed them and found the chemicals on them then that's leaving it awfully close don't you think ?
~~Belldandy~~
Beards are out, moustaches are in. You're not Al-Queda, you're Saddam.
Now a cynical person might suggest that this "foiled terror plan" was timed pretty nicely to coincide with the weapons inspectors heading to Iraq.
"We found no weapons of mass destruction"
"Yeah but they were thinking about attacking the tube"
"Well hell let's get them"
See, I've previously thought about blowing up Parliment. But only on Nov 5th.
Am I Al-Queda? It's hard to keep track these days.
"We found no weapons of mass destruction"
"Yeah but they were thinking about attacking the tube"
"Well hell let's get them"
See, I've previously thought about blowing up Parliment. But only on Nov 5th.
Am I Al-Queda? It's hard to keep track these days.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I'm not sure what the
> emergency services could do in a situation like that, but I'd
> definitely prefer it if they were there.
Suited up in biohazard suits they'd be reduced to evacuating casualties and removing bodies. Bear in mind that initial responding units of the emergency services would probably not know what had happened and would themselves be affected to some degree. In short you'd be looking at something to make 9/11 look like a minor accident... plus chemical weapons used on that scale are classed as a WMD, with all that implies in terms of retaliation.
This is why the war on terror is so important, and why it is important to get - capture or kill - terrorists wherever possible. Once they've attacked its too late.
~~Belldandy~~
> I'm not sure what the
> emergency services could do in a situation like that, but I'd
> definitely prefer it if they were there.
Suited up in biohazard suits they'd be reduced to evacuating casualties and removing bodies. Bear in mind that initial responding units of the emergency services would probably not know what had happened and would themselves be affected to some degree. In short you'd be looking at something to make 9/11 look like a minor accident... plus chemical weapons used on that scale are classed as a WMD, with all that implies in terms of retaliation.
This is why the war on terror is so important, and why it is important to get - capture or kill - terrorists wherever possible. Once they've attacked its too late.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> Yep, the government is downplaying this but I beleive the media on
> this one. Why ? No government is going to, on the Christmas retail
> period, admit an attack was going to be made on a service that carries
> 3 million every day. If it was planned with Cyanide, as reported in
> various sources, then you're looking at an attack by a colourless gas
> with little noticeable smell, that is absorbed by inhalation with
> rapid effect. Its by no means the worst agent that could be used, but
> pretty damn nasty.
This makes me think that those tube workers who don't want to work during the firefighter's strike might be right. I'm not sure what the emergency services could do in a situation like that, but I'd definitely prefer it if they were there.
To help, not get poisoned.
> Yep, the government is downplaying this but I beleive the media on
> this one. Why ? No government is going to, on the Christmas retail
> period, admit an attack was going to be made on a service that carries
> 3 million every day. If it was planned with Cyanide, as reported in
> various sources, then you're looking at an attack by a colourless gas
> with little noticeable smell, that is absorbed by inhalation with
> rapid effect. Its by no means the worst agent that could be used, but
> pretty damn nasty.
This makes me think that those tube workers who don't want to work during the firefighter's strike might be right. I'm not sure what the emergency services could do in a situation like that, but I'd definitely prefer it if they were there.
To help, not get poisoned.
Yay, a terrorist is captured.
Lucky there is no-one out there to take his place eh?
Hmmmm
Lucky there is no-one out there to take his place eh?
Hmmmm
Rosalind wrote:
> I don't know much about the way that terrorists are delt with so I'll
> have to take your word for this, but your right it seems logical that
> if a massive operation was undertaken in order to capture this man,
> then it must be for more reason than to send him to death row.
I'm not 100% sure on procedure - but there are various ways of avoiding trials for a long time under the terrorism laws in the US, and in the UK as of September 2001.
> Are you referring to the guys suspected of trying to launch a poison
> gas attack on the London Underground?
Yep, the government is downplaying this but I beleive the media on this one. Why ? No government is going to, on the Christmas retail period, admit an attack was going to be made on a service that carries 3 million every day. If it was planned with Cyanide, as reported in various sources, then you're looking at an attack by a colourless gas with little noticeable smell, that is absorbed by inhalation with rapid effect. Its by no means the worst agent that could be used, but pretty damn nasty.
> On one hand you seem to be supporting the killing of terrorists (with
> no trial), yet on the other hand you denounce the death penalty. I
> have to agree with you about the death pentanty. I am also against
> it, but if you are against it then I can't understand you being for
> firing missiles at cars full of people in order to kill them.
The death penalty is called for against those people who have committed, at the very least, one murder/killing and that same person is already in the custody of the authorities. In other words he/she cannot do anything further, and can be interviewed, treated, detained indefinitely. Killing them simply means their physical existence is removed, People like those guys in the car have killed, but are not in custody, and getting them into that custody often calls for men and women to risk their lives to get them. If not stopped those people may commit more atrocities, yet if there is no way of extracting them, then - if it is proven as it ws in this case - that they have committed such actions in the past, then I say take them out.
Extracting them from Yemen would have been a nightmare, you've got to get, in the timeframe from finding the car, a minimum of two Pavelows (large helicopters) or four-six blackhawk helicopters airborne with special forces, and get search and rescue on standby, and get air support into the air - probably MC130's - Hercules aircraft with fire platforms - and notify the Yemeni authorities you're about ot kick up a firefight on their turf, and then catch the six guys alive, baring in mind that rules of engagement for US special forces is to kill anything that presents a clear threat, so if the guys in the car shot at the helicopters then, if the snipers cannot get the tires of the car, the car would be shot to pieces anyway.
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it removes the threats from play. I reckon that, when it happens - and it will happen - Bin Laden will be caught alive, I'd bet money on that.
~~Belldandy~~
> I don't know much about the way that terrorists are delt with so I'll
> have to take your word for this, but your right it seems logical that
> if a massive operation was undertaken in order to capture this man,
> then it must be for more reason than to send him to death row.
I'm not 100% sure on procedure - but there are various ways of avoiding trials for a long time under the terrorism laws in the US, and in the UK as of September 2001.
> Are you referring to the guys suspected of trying to launch a poison
> gas attack on the London Underground?
Yep, the government is downplaying this but I beleive the media on this one. Why ? No government is going to, on the Christmas retail period, admit an attack was going to be made on a service that carries 3 million every day. If it was planned with Cyanide, as reported in various sources, then you're looking at an attack by a colourless gas with little noticeable smell, that is absorbed by inhalation with rapid effect. Its by no means the worst agent that could be used, but pretty damn nasty.
> On one hand you seem to be supporting the killing of terrorists (with
> no trial), yet on the other hand you denounce the death penalty. I
> have to agree with you about the death pentanty. I am also against
> it, but if you are against it then I can't understand you being for
> firing missiles at cars full of people in order to kill them.
The death penalty is called for against those people who have committed, at the very least, one murder/killing and that same person is already in the custody of the authorities. In other words he/she cannot do anything further, and can be interviewed, treated, detained indefinitely. Killing them simply means their physical existence is removed, People like those guys in the car have killed, but are not in custody, and getting them into that custody often calls for men and women to risk their lives to get them. If not stopped those people may commit more atrocities, yet if there is no way of extracting them, then - if it is proven as it ws in this case - that they have committed such actions in the past, then I say take them out.
Extracting them from Yemen would have been a nightmare, you've got to get, in the timeframe from finding the car, a minimum of two Pavelows (large helicopters) or four-six blackhawk helicopters airborne with special forces, and get search and rescue on standby, and get air support into the air - probably MC130's - Hercules aircraft with fire platforms - and notify the Yemeni authorities you're about ot kick up a firefight on their turf, and then catch the six guys alive, baring in mind that rules of engagement for US special forces is to kill anything that presents a clear threat, so if the guys in the car shot at the helicopters then, if the snipers cannot get the tires of the car, the car would be shot to pieces anyway.
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it removes the threats from play. I reckon that, when it happens - and it will happen - Bin Laden will be caught alive, I'd bet money on that.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
> I can't see him coming to trial for a long long time as he undoubtedly
> has a lot of knowledge that will be valuable to America, and everyone
> else. At the end of the day it's going to take more than a guess for
> America to have expended resources extracting this guy. You don't send
> out special forces snatch teams for just anyone.
I don't know much about the way that terrorists are delt with so I'll have to take your word for this, but your right it seems logical that if a massive operation was undertaken in order to capture this man, then it must be for more reason than to send him to death row.
> The MI5 capture of those guys at the a week ago was well done as well,
> they've had a week to get intelligence from them, and stopped them
> before they even got past planning.
>
Are you referring to the guys suspected of trying to launch a poison gas attack on the London Underground?
> The difference in these two cases, from those in my original Justice
> post, is that it was possible to get them, where as those guys in the
> car would have required a massive operation, and would probably have
> killed them anyway. Would it have been better to let them go, with the
> chance they might not be found again and could commit more attacks ?
[snip]
>
> And even if he was captured, and many other Al Queda commanders as
> well, they face probable death penalties eventually anyway - so is
> that any better other than it giving the illusion of legal killing ?
> I'm against the death penalty by the way...
On one hand you seem to be supporting the killing of terrorists (with no trial), yet on the other hand you denounce the death penalty. I have to agree with you about the death pentanty. I am also against it, but if you are against it then I can't understand you being for firing missiles at cars full of people in order to kill them.
> ~~Belldandy~~
> I can't see him coming to trial for a long long time as he undoubtedly
> has a lot of knowledge that will be valuable to America, and everyone
> else. At the end of the day it's going to take more than a guess for
> America to have expended resources extracting this guy. You don't send
> out special forces snatch teams for just anyone.
I don't know much about the way that terrorists are delt with so I'll have to take your word for this, but your right it seems logical that if a massive operation was undertaken in order to capture this man, then it must be for more reason than to send him to death row.
> The MI5 capture of those guys at the a week ago was well done as well,
> they've had a week to get intelligence from them, and stopped them
> before they even got past planning.
>
Are you referring to the guys suspected of trying to launch a poison gas attack on the London Underground?
> The difference in these two cases, from those in my original Justice
> post, is that it was possible to get them, where as those guys in the
> car would have required a massive operation, and would probably have
> killed them anyway. Would it have been better to let them go, with the
> chance they might not be found again and could commit more attacks ?
[snip]
>
> And even if he was captured, and many other Al Queda commanders as
> well, they face probable death penalties eventually anyway - so is
> that any better other than it giving the illusion of legal killing ?
> I'm against the death penalty by the way...
On one hand you seem to be supporting the killing of terrorists (with no trial), yet on the other hand you denounce the death penalty. I have to agree with you about the death pentanty. I am also against it, but if you are against it then I can't understand you being for firing missiles at cars full of people in order to kill them.
> ~~Belldandy~~
Quite a few good results in the terrorists v. good guys fixtures this weekend. First this guy, then the people planning to gas the tube, and then a hijacker earlier today. It's the kind of war on terror that I think there should be more of: justice and punishment for guilty individuals, rather than war against a whole country.
Page: