http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1417958.htm

Al Qaeda sets deadline for Iraq pull-out
The Al Qaeda terrorist network has warned European nations to pull their troops out of Iraq within a month or face more attacks like the deadly London bombings.

The warning is contained in an Internet statement signed by Al Qaeda group the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades.

"This message is the final warning to European states. We want to give you a one-month deadline to bring your soldiers out from the land of Mesopotamia [Iraq]," the statement said.

The statement says that after August 15, "there will be no more messages, just actions that will be engraved on the heart of Europe".

"It will be a bloody war in the service of God," said the statement, the authenticity of which could not be verified.

"It's a message we are addressing to the crusaders who are still present in Iraq - Denmark, the Netherlands, Britain, Italy and those other countries whose troops continue to criss-cross Iraqi territory.

"These are our last words. The mujahedeen, who are on the lookout, will have other words to say in your capitals."

Previous attacks

A statement issued in the name of the "Europe Division" of the same Al Qaeda group claimed responsibility for the July 7 bombings on London's public transport system.

That attack killed at least 56 people and wounded 700.

The same group has also claimed the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and the 2003 attacks in Istanbul.

"After the laudable strikes that have shaken London and the cities of other crusaders still present in Iraq, we have renewed the ultimatum that we had given," the statement said.

"We give you all one month to reflect carefully on your policy towards Islam and Muslims.

"We're giving you this deadline so that you stop running behind the United States and the Zionists, without paying attention to the blood that has been shed and continues to be shed in the land of Islam - in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine."

The statement comes amid intense debate in Britain over the role the 2003 invasion of Iraq played in spurring the four British suicide bombers to carry out the deadly attacks.

In a Guardian/ICM poll published today, two-thirds of respondents said they saw a link, while three-quarters said they considered further attacks likely.

But the Government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has continued to deny that the war left Britain more vulnerable to terror attacks, despite a damning report from the respected think-tank, the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades take their name from an Al Qaeda commander killed during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

One month ?

Why only European nations?
What about the U.S.? Scary.

The European nations could move their troops out in a month. It would take the US at least 6 months. Since it wouldn't effect security in Iraq, they should do it to
see if the Muslim leadership had enough control over their people to stop the
sucide attacks.

This was first reported yesterday in Al Jazeera. Today, only ABC News has picked it up and expanded on it. It is not in any of the major mainstream press publications as of right now including Voice of America. Interesting.

Interesting thought, ria. It would be very interesting to see if the Muslim religious leadership has the power to stop terrorist attacks. Of course they won't pull out, so we'll never know. Think an ultimatum will be set for U.S. withdrawal?

Divide and conquer. Drive a further wedge between the US and the 'coalition of the willing' and we're further isolated from the world. The US has always been the #1 target for al Qaeda. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia and relocated them to Iraq - that would address the top 'grievance' OBL has to rationalize his attacks on US targets.

It wouldn't surprise me that if this really is one of the reasons we are building bases in Iraq now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/stor...5154145,00.html

Blair Proposes Islam Extremism Conference

If Blair's proposal becomes a reality, this is a very positive step in the right direction. I'm assuming the U.S. would be involved in this conference?

I'm not sure that that move would appease OBL. My take is that he wants U.S. presence out of the Arab world, period. I could be wrong. I don't know.
But, if we maintain bases in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time, I seriously question whether pulling bases out of Saudi Arabia and repositioning them in Iraq to appease OBL would even be on the long list of Bush's reasons for such a move. And, does Saudi Arabia want the U.S. out of their nation? Interesting thoughts, Noonan, worthy of further discussion!

last year they gave Europe 3 months....nothing happened....the terrorists will do whatever they can...and a pullout doesn't change their bloodlust one bit.

Threats of one year, one month, one week, one day, one hour, one minute, one second...

From cowards, liars, murderers, fanatics, extremists, terrorists, sociopaths...

Democracy's resolve - There is no time frame for Americans in the pursuit of freedom; the lamp light of liberty will turn you to back to dust. Justice will prevail.

Probably not. It wouldn't be good stratrgy on their part. I doubt whether OBL would want to put himself in the position of having to deliver an attack in the
US on any sort of time table. It would be a lot more difficult for him to do than
in Europe.

IP: 64.12.116.11 | Post #1|


Advanced Member


Group: Moderator
Posts: 26,104
Joined: 5-November 04
From: Washington D.C.
Member No.: 9



http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GG22Aa01.html

THE ROVING EYE
Fighting the uncivil fight
By Pepe Escobar

"This message is the final warning to European states. We want to give you a one-month deadline to bring your soldiers out from the land of Mesopotamia."
- Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, July 16

BRUSSELS - The European Union will be waiting, breathlessly, for this deadline set by the al-Qaeda-connected Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades - which has claimed responsibility for the Istanbul, Madrid and London bombings. After August 15, "It will be a bloody war in the service of God", or the dreaded possibility of more attacks against "the crusaders who are still present in Iraq - Denmark, the Netherlands, Britain, Italy and ... other countries". The Brigades seem bent on avenging "blood that has been shed in the land of Islam - in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine".

EU counterterrorism analysts are not taking the threat lightly - even if its authenticity is not yet proven. This "message" means that Salafi-jihadis are officially proclaiming that the attacks on London on July 7 were blowback caused by Iraq - a connection also established by two-thirds of Britons answering a Guardian/ICM poll and by a report conducted by the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Prime Minister Tony Blair's government - toeing the Bush administration line - denies everything.

EU officials and European parliamentarians, not to mention Europe-wide public opinion, are starting to confront a very serious question: how to fight jihad inside the EU without infringing on civil liberties. A curtailment of civil liberties is exactly what Salafi-jihadis would want. One measure is to toughen anti-terrorist laws, something that Britain is about to do. Another, immensely more complicated task, is to coordinate policy among the 25 EU member states.

As EU diplomats have assured this correspondent, Europe by no means is going to vote the adoption of a US-style Patriot Act. Nor is anybody contemplating an EU Guantanamo. Germany's Constitutional Court, for instance, has just nullified the law transposing to Germany the European-wide arrest warrant - a decision, the court says, taken to protect German citizens. The European Commission was quick to point out that this decision does not affect the European-wide arrest warrant itself. But the affair left a scent of malaise - especially because Germany is one of the key Salafi-jihadi bases in Europe. Human-rights watchers, on the other hand, salute the fact that German judges preferred to pay more attention to civil rights than to mere repression.

Everyone for himself
After an extraordinary meeting last week in Brussels of all interior and justice ministers in the EU, the fact is that each member-state is still fighting terrorism a la carte - apart from some common measures like stricter control of cellphone calls.

France, for instance, via its populist Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, is now back to rigid control of its borders - scrapping at least temporarily the EU's Schengen accords which allow free circulation of people. The Danish populists love the idea too, as well as the semi-fascist Northern League in Italy, which is in favor of totally closing Italy's borders.

Another Sarkozy initiative - extreme vigilance over radical imams - has also delighted the interior minister in Bavaria, Gunther Beckstein, who is now calling for video cameras inside and outside mosques. Debate is raging in Germany over the installation of video cameras in the metro - something quite common in London and Paris. Just as in Britain, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will create an anti-terrorist file. Angela Merkel - the East German-born Christian Democrat who may grab Schroeder's job in the next elections - wants to go one step further and use the army to prevent terrorist attacks.

The next two targets supposedly on al-Qaeda's list are Italy and Denmark. Nothing has been decided in Italy yet - although the Northern League is making a lot of noise calling for a Patriot Act. Spain, already stricken in Madrid, has announced more police and military surveillance of "strategic" targets.

Much more than in the US, in the EU the balance to be struck between anti-terrorism policies and respect for individual rights is an extremely touchy affair. Germany, Austria and Finland, for instance, refuse that phone logs be kept for more than three months: most in the EU want the period extended to one year.

Great Britain holds the EU presidency until the end of 2005. For all the acrimony caused by Blair during the recent budget discussions - where Britain stuck to getting its rebate when even the poorest eastern Europeans were settling for a deal - one thing is certain: the British are keen on recommending to the EU a much tougher approach to fighting terrorism inside Europe.

As for the Salafi-jihadis, the only thing that matters is who remains inside Iraq.

(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.)

Al Qaeda Leaders Seen in Control

By Craig Whitlock

The nature of the deadly attacks in Egypt and London suggests that the al Qaeda leadership may have given the orders for both operations.

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...er=emailarticle

--------------------
The Saudis' terror within
--------------------


July 24 2005

THE U.S. EMBASSY'S WARNING to Americans in Saudi Arabia last week of planned terrorist attacks was a stark reminder that the nation that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 remains a target as well. Although the embassy in Riyadh said it had no specific information about possible timing or targets of attacks, it broadcast its warning on the same day that Saudi security forces reported uncovering a cache of bomb-making materials, including chemicals and tons of fertilizer, 50 miles southeast of the capital.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-...ll=la-home-oped

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBKAfile: Al Qaeda now threatens Rome. Berlusconi personally addressed

July 25, 2005, 12:14 PM (GMT+02:00)

The Abu Hafs al Masri Brigades who claimed the two London bombing attacks published a fresh warning Monday, July 25: “After London, it is Rome’s turn.” The Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is warned that by failing to withdraw Italian troops from Iraq, he would by his own hand “turn Rome into a graveyard.”

The statement run on the Internet threatens the Italian capital with harsher and more painful strikes than the London attacks. “As long as a single Italian soldier remains in Italy, you the prime minister can look forward to nothing but “more and more blood.”

DEBKAfile adds: All the European capitals have placed their security and emergency services of maximum terror alert. London too is bracing for more terrorist attacks. One of al Qaeda’s prime targets is expected to be the Vatican, which the terrorist organization sees as a world center of heresy.

An earlier warning by the same group gave Denmark, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy until August 15 to pull their soldiers out of Iraq.

Copyright 2000-2005 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved.

Why Rome, the Vatican doesn't have troops in Iraq!! I say its any excuse to go anywhere for them.

Westerners warned of terror attacks in Saudi Arabia
By Times Online and agencies
August 08, 2005



Britain and Australia have issued warnings for travel to Saudi Arabia, highlighting "credible" reports that terrorists are planning attacks on Westerners, as America closed its embassies in the country.



A notice on the British Embassy’s website warned of a continuing "high threat" of terrorism in the kingdom. The advice, posted late yesterday, said non-essential staff and dependants at UK missions in the country are being allowed to leave if they wished.

The revised travel advice cautions: "There are credible reports that terrorists are planning further attacks in the near future. There is a continuing high threat of terrorism in Saudi Arabia. We continue to believe that terrorists are planning further attacks, including against Westerners and places associated with Westerners in Saudi Arabia."

Thos who choose to travel to, or remain in Saudi Arabia are cautioned to take "all necessary steps" to protect their safety and maintain a "high level" of vigilance. A more detailed note on the website warns that aviation interests remain a possible terrorist target.

The Foreign Office in London said the reference to credible reports about terrorists planning new attacks was a response to the move by the American Embassy to shut all three of its missions to Saudi Arabia today and tomorrow because of threats against American government buildings in the kingdom.

The American Embassy warning was the second in two weeks. It warned Americans on July 25 that militants were probably plotting new attacks in the kingdom.

Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has warned Australians not to travel to Saudi Arabia, while nationals in the kingdom were urged to depart or exercise extreme caution. Australia believes that terrorists may be planning to attack residential compounds in Saudi Arabia, according to a Reuters report.

Since May 2003, Islamic militants have carried out numerous suicide bombings, including on Western housing compounds, and kidnappings and have regularly battled security forces. The attacks have been blamed on al-Qaeda and its allies.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1726618,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/internat...059&partner=AOL

State Department Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents.

Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department, said the documents should be viewed in the context of what was happening globally in 1996, rather than in the hindsight of events after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In 1996, Mr. Ereli said, "the question was getting him out of Sudan."

"The priority was to deny him safe haven, period, and to disrupt his activities any way you could," he continued. "There was a lot we didn't know, and the priority was to keep him on the run, keep him on guard, and try to maximize the opportunities to nail him."

Before the East Africa bombings in 1998, however, Mr. bin Laden "wasn't recognized then as the threat he is now," Mr. Ereli said. "Yes, he was a bad guy, he was a threat, but he was one of many, and by no means of the prominence that he later came to be."

The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an "ideal haven" for Mr. bin Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked," and his public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the assessment said.

While a strategy of keeping Mr. bin Laden on the run could "inconvenience" him, the assessment said, "even a bin Laden on the move can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost world-wide."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks.

Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin Laden's relocation.

"The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right - that's genius analysis," he said in an interview when told of the declassified documents. But Mr. Scheuer, who wrote a book in 2004 titled "Imperial Hubris," under the pseudonym "Anonymous," that was highly critical of American counterterrorism strategies, said many officials in the C.I.A.'s operational side thought they would have a better chance to kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan than they did in Sudan because the Sudan government protected him.

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."

Did the State Department also list the counter terrorism issues put into place in 1996 by the Clinton Administration in response to this? There were many as I read over them recently.