New Terorrist Threat -Misdirection?

[Melvyn]

The new terrorist threat indicating five specific buildings comes from information recently learned but created in 2000-2001. Al Qaeda has a reputation for going after what I think would be called soft-targets. Targets which, while they have value in the minds of the terorrists, are relatively undefended. Certainly these five buildings are now well defended. Presumably, under the soft target doctrine, they are off the Al Qaeda truck bomb target list which is the kind of attack most expected.(At least publicly) I think we are watching misdirection by somebody, either the attackers or defenders.

The attackers: They have enough trained volunteers willing to mount operations that they can leak plans and even launch decoy operations which focus on these buildings all the while launching real operations against other targets.

The defenders: They may actually have indications of other targets, but are hardening the five mentioned in the alert publicly and hardening others more covertly.

Both: In a deadly chess game, both sides may be manuevering, the attackers against what they hope is a relatively undefended target and the defenders trying to lure an attack, into a heavily if covertly defended target.

What I'm sure we are not going to see is a truck bomb driven into one of the five buildings mentioned in the new orange alert. If anything happens to one of those buildings it will be from another kind of attack, one against which we had not defended, such as a chemical or biological attack from an insider.

Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[Young]

Mel - What if Bush was planning an attack, but now he's worried that an attack might cost him the election and he can't stop it so he has some friends in the ISI stumble across the plans so we can secure those targets.

[Comrade]

Young - What if you happen to be full of crap, and that this is legitimate?

[Young]

Comrade - Your a home break in specialist, and your casing two homes on different streets....if you find out that house 1's family has returned early from vacation....i bet you try to rob house 2.

The world trading bank of the U.S., where foreign countries send money so they can trade on our market, would be ingenious to strike...as an inside job. Rob the world that won't support our war on terror.

First you give fake threat info, then you move in to the real target and kill all inside the building, then you bomb it or fly a plane into it to cover your tracks & destroy the evidence/money in the attack scenario covers up that you stole it.

The world reacts in anger at Terror because they have been targeted.

Which of Mel's 3 options are you calling legit?

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Melvyn, What I'm sure we are not going to see is a truck bomb driven into one of the five buildings mentioned in the new orange alert.

So niether side was successful.

[Melvyn]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Melvyn, What I'm sure we are not going to see is a truck bomb driven into one of the five buildings mentioned in the new orange alert.

So niether side was successful.[/b][/quote]
The terrorists were successful even if they don't explode something or kill somebody. They are succesful because they are still, with much impunity, collecting information, scouting targets, making plans and funding operations. Further, with 3 year old plans they got our goverment to spend some of its finite resources on targets that probably won't be attacked. They probably got a few people to quit their jobs and many people have been frightened. I'd say that was success from their point of view. They rocked our boat. We did not rock theirs.


Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[bishop]

here's another related article... the one posted on the drudge report:

article


i understand that they spent years planning the wtc bombing.. however, how long have we known that they were also looking at these new targets?


it is quite interesting that this terror alert came immediately after the dnc and immediately before the rnc. also, if they have known this information for a while, which i believe they did, the timing is highly suspect.

i don't doubt that terrorists were planning for prospective attacks at those locations, but i do question the timing.. after all, this is an administration that uses information/disinformation better than any i've ever seen before. the power of the pen...