• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways

Enoch

New Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_on_go_ot/terror_warning;_ylt=Ap12846HYkrmkeCUzo9kc66s0NUE

WASHINGTON – Federal authorities are warning police of a possible terror plot against the New York City subway and train systems during the holiday season, prompting local officials to beef up security at stations. An internal memo obtained by The Associated Press says the FBI has received a "plausible but unsubstantiated" report that al-Qaida terrorists in late September may have discussed attacking the subway system.


A person briefed on the matter, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence-gathering work, said the threat may also be directed at the passenger rail lines running through New York, such as Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road, which are particularly busy with Thanksgiving holiday travelers.


A U.S. counterterror official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to do so publicly, said senior government officials have been briefed because the FBI very recently received credible information about possible attacks over the holiday season, and authorities are particularly concerned about this long holiday weekend.


FBI spokesman Richard Kolko confirmed only that his agency and the Homeland Security Department issued a bulletin Tuesday night to state and local authorities, and the information is being reviewed.


Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said the warning was issued as a routine matter, but added that there may be an increased police presence in New York and other large cities.


The internal bulletin says al-Qaida terrorists "in late September may have discussed targeting transit systems in and around New York City. These discussions reportedly involved the use of suicide bombers or explosives placed on subway/passenger rail systems," according to the document.


"We have no specific details to confirm that this plot has developed beyond aspirational planning, but we are issuing this warning out of concern that such an attack could possibly be conducted during the forthcoming holiday season," according to the warning dated Tuesday.


The Big Apple's tightly packed passenger trains and subway cars have long been a source of concern for cops — and a tempting target for would-be terrorists — but there is often disagreement as to how seriously authorities should take specific intelligence reports.


A Pakistani immigrant was arrested and convicted for a scheme to blow up the subway station at Herald Square in 2004. There was also a planned cyanide attack on the subways by al-Qaida operatives that authorities say was called off in 2002; another aborted al-Qaida plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge in 2003; and a plot to bomb underwater train tunnels to flood lower Manhattan, which was broken up in 2006 by several arrests overseas.


Three years ago, authorities weighed reports that bombers might try to use baby strollers to bring explosives into city trains. Many security officials later concluded that was a false alarm.


NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said they have received an unsubstantiated report and as a result have "deployed additional resources in the mass transit system."
While federal agencies regularly issue all sorts of advisory warnings, the language of this one is particularly blunt.


Intelligence and homeland security officials are working with local authorities to try to corroborate the information "and will continue to investigate every possible lead," the memo says.


Rep. Peter King, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said authorities "have very real specifics as to who it is and where the conversation took place and who conducted it."


"It certainly involves suicide bombing attacks on the mass transit system in and around New York and it's plausible, but there's no evidence yet that it's in the process of being carried out," King said.


Knocke, the DHS spokesman, said the warning was issued "out of an abundance of caution going into this holiday season."


No changes are being made to the nation's threat level, or for transit systems at this time, he said.


"However, transit passengers in larger metropolitan areas like New York may see an increased security presence in the coming days," Knocke said.



The increased personnel could include uniformed and plainclothes "behavior detection" officers, federal air marshals, canine teams, and security inspectors, Knocke said.
 

LeBuick

New Member
No need to worry, we're still on Bush' watch for another two months and since we're winning the war on terror something like this could never happen.

Kidding aside, this goes to show how Terror is not something you can invade a country like Afghanistan or over throw a government like Iraq and stop. The American people were totally naive to think we could stop terrorism by starting war's in the middle east. No man knows but the terrorist and God the day, hour or place of the next attack and there is no army big enough or weapon's sophisticated enough to stop it. I really doubt NY is the place for the next attack so I think the entire nation needs to be on guard.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
this goes to show how Terror is not something you can invade a country like Afghanistan or over throw a government like Iraq and stop.


uh.....no it doesn't.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Revmitchell said:
uh.....no it doesn't.


We've done those things and don't seem to be stopping it.

Perhaps we need to understand there will always be evil in this world and there will always be those who have extreme views in making their cause known or to impose their will on others. But I believe it's like crooks and murderers, unfortunately there is not much we can do until they commit the crime.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
We've done those things and don't seem to be stopping it.

Perhaps we need to understand there will always be evil in this world and there will always be those who have extreme views in making their cause known or to impose their will on others. But I believe it's like crooks and murderers, unfortunately there is not much we can do until they commit the crime.

Back to your original statement. If those governments are supporting Terrorists before and after their acts of terror then they must be dealt with.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Revmitchell said:
Back to your original statement. If those governments are supporting Terrorists before and after their acts of terror then they must be dealt with.

How naive, while we're in Afghanistan and Iraq the terrorist are having a field day in India who is not supporting terrorist. They are victims like the rest of us. The terrorst are doing coordinated attacks looking for Brit's and American's. Who knows who, where or when is next?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dia-terror-attacks-that-kill-at-least-80.html

A traditional Army can't fight a concept like evil or terrorism anymore than we were able to defeat Nazism. Sure Hitler is dead but there are swat sticker wearing skin heads walking the streets of this country still today. So did we defeat nazism? The only thing that can defeat evil is good.

Finding and killing Ben Laden won't stop terrorism anymore than killing Jesus didn't stopped Christianity or killing the martyrs stopped the spread of the Gospel.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Revmitchell said:
Back to your original statement. If those governments are supporting Terrorists before and after their acts of terror then they must be dealt with.

Oh, and we have terrorist living i this country. Do we turn on ourselves? It is not the government supporting terrorist but terrorist live in every country. We can't take on the world and we are not the only good that exist.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
How naive, while we're in Afghanistan and Iraq the terrorist are having a field day in India who is not supporting terrorist. They are victims like the rest of us. The terrorst are doing coordinated attacks looking for Brit's and American's. Who knows who, where or when is next?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...dia-terror-attacks-that-kill-at-least-80.html

A traditional Army can't fight a concept like evil or terrorism anymore than we were able to defeat Nazism. Sure Hitler is dead but there are swat sticker wearing skin heads walking the streets of this country still today. So did we defeat nazism? The only thing that can defeat evil is good.

Finding and killing Ben Laden won't stop terrorism anymore than killing Jesus didn't stopped Christianity or killing the martyrs stopped the spread of the Gospel.

None of this addresses what I said.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
Oh, and we have terrorist living i this country. Do we turn on ourselves? It is not the government supporting terrorist but terrorist live in every country. We can't take on the world and we are not the only good that exist.


Really, you need to think before you post.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Revmitchell said:
None of this addresses what I said.


Sure it does, you conclude those government support terrorist because there are terrorist in their country. I said one doesn't have to do with the other.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
Sure it does, you conclude those government support terrorist because there are terrorist in their country. I said one doesn't have to do with the other.

No I didn't. You read into what I said what was not there.
 

Enoch

New Member
LeBuick...there are people who have been working around the clock to protect you and your family since 9/11. They are there quietly in the background sacrificing... And praise God they have been successful!
 

LeBuick

New Member
Enoch said:
LeBuick...there are people who have been working around the clock to protect you and your family since 9/11. They are there quietly in the background sacrificing... And praise God they have been successful!

This is my point, the Military and defense of this country didn't begin on 9/11 and won't end when Bush leaves office. I served 12 years in uniform and there have been many going back to the revolution who served before me. Some served in times of war and others served to prevent war but all service is admirable.

Terrorism is a concept or ideology which can't or won't be defeated by a conventional army. Those are the facts and reason's we shouldn't stay in Iraq until "victory" because there is no real "victory" against terrorism. We had a military posture in place on 9/11 and it didn't stop the WTC attacks. We have a military posture in place today along with wars on two fronts and it didn't stop the attacks in India. The Bible has taught me that evil will always be among us but will be ultimately defeated in the end.
 

Enoch

New Member
LeBuick said:
This is my point, the Military and defense of this country didn't begin on 9/11 and won't end when Bush leaves office. I served 12 years in uniform and there have been many going back to the revolution who served before me. Some served in times of war and others served to prevent war but all service is admirable.
Of course and who is stating otherwise???

Terrorism is a concept or ideology which can't or won't be defeated by a conventional army. Those are the facts and reason's we shouldn't stay in Iraq until "victory" because there is no real "victory" against terrorism. We had a military posture in place on 9/11 and it didn't stop the WTC attacks. We have a military posture in place today along with wars on two fronts and it didn't stop the attacks in India. The Bible has taught me that evil will always be among us but will be ultimately defeated in the end.
Your comparison of India with your own country is completely off. So you feel we are the protectors of the world? Do you think we are to blame for what happened in India? You can thank Billy Bob for breaking down our defense that led up to 9/11. For someone who served you sure are ungrateful for the sacrifice others have made for you. Did your Bible teach you to stand against evil or appease it?
 

LeBuick

New Member
Enoch said:
Your comparison of India with your own country is completely off. So you feel we are the protectors of the world? Do you think we are to blame for what happened in India?

You missed it, my sarcasm is that we are fighting "Al Qaeda" in Afghanistan and Iraq yet evil still took place in India. We could kill every living soul in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan and not stop terrorism because the truth is sleeper cells exist in this country.

Enoch said:
You can thank Billy Bob for breaking down our defense that led up to 9/11.

Not sure why you say Clinton broke down the defenses, Bush administration received the warnings but ignored them. No matter what Clinton did, Bush had a chance to react but I don't fault him any because you can't react to ever threat made in the world and no one expected the type of attack that happened on 9/11.

Enoch said:
For someone who served you sure are ungrateful for the sacrifice others have made for you.

Not sure where this came from or what your're implying.

Enoch said:
Did your Bible teach you to stand against evil or appease it?

I had no problem going after Ben Laden. He admitted to master minding the 9/11 attacks. I think had we of invested the forces used in Iraq toward Ben Laden we'd of had him by now. That's just speculation and no fact.

Bush admitted today in an interview with Charlie Gibson that had his intelligence of not been faulty Iraq may have been dealt with differently.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
Not sure why you say Clinton broke down the defenses,

Clinton dismantled our military to very low levels to include our intelligence capabilities. That was how he kept his promise to make government smaller.
 

LeBuick

New Member
Revmitchell said:
Clinton dismantled our military to very low levels to include our intelligence capabilities. That was how he kept his promise to make government smaller.

No pleasing this crowd...


You advocate smaller government. President achieves your goal so you say, "but don't cut that, only cut what I want".

Facts are our intelligence was warned about 9/11. Remember the Rice report. We haven't had a draft and been sustaining wars on two fronts so I don't think it cut our forces too far.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html

But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses.

Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts, and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."

Don't blame Clinton for lack of intelligence...
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
You advocate smaller government. President achieves your goal so you say, "but don't cut that, only cut what I want".

Stay ontask here. You said "Not sure why you say Clinton broke down the defenses," I simply gave you the reason why.

Facts are our intelligence was warned about 9/11. Remember the Rice report. We haven't had a draft and been sustaining wars on two fronts so I don't think it cut our forces too far.

Thursday Nov. 29, 2001; 7:18 p.m. EST

Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said Thursday that ex-President Bill Clinton cut back the U.S. military so severely that it's now just a fraction of the size of the fighting force that won the Gulf War ten years ago.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/weinberg.htm




Don't blame Clinton for lack of intelligence...


I welcome the opportunity to appear before the Commission and the American people to address the performance of the Intelligence Community in the period leading up to September 11, 2001. First, some context.



By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

* We lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment.
* The pace of technological change and a $3 trillion telecommunications revolution challenged the National Security Agency’s ability to keep up with the increasing volume and velocity of modern communications.
* The infrastructure to recruit, train, and sustain officers for our clandestine services—the nation’s human intelligence capability—was in disarray.
* We were not hiring new analysts, emphasizing the importance of expertise, or giving analysts the tools they needed.

I also found that the threats to the nation had not declined or even stabilized, but had grown more complex and dangerous.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_testimony_04142004.html
 

LeBuick

New Member
Revmitchell said:
Thursday Nov. 29, 2001; 7:18 p.m. EST

Former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said Thursday that ex-President Bill Clinton cut back the U.S. military so severely that it's now just a fraction of the size of the fighting force that won the Gulf War ten years ago.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/weinberg.htm

Not sure what this has to do with the defenses you're claiming Clinton broke down. The Army didn't have responsibility to guard the WTC or the Airports. Saying Clinton's defense cuts caused 9/11 is like saying reducing guards in KS caused CA banks to get robbed.

Also, I still say he left sufficient forces. We immediately went to Afghanistan and still had enough troops to find Saddam and free Iraq in a short period of time. We have also had sufficient forces to maintain wars on two fronts for all these years without a draft. I don't think the Clinton blame carries much weight when the Armed forces have functioned as expected.

Revmitchell said:
the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

* We lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment.
* The pace of technological change and a $3 trillion telecommunications revolution challenged the National Security Agency’s ability to keep up with the increasing volume and velocity of modern communications.
* The infrastructure to recruit, train, and sustain officers for our clandestine services—the nation’s human intelligence capability—was in disarray.
* We were not hiring new analysts, emphasizing the importance of expertise, or giving analysts the tools they needed.

I also found that the threats to the nation had not declined or even stabilized, but had grown more complex and dangerous.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_testimony_04142004.html

It is like you didn't see the information I presented, the CIA had the intelligence it needed but it was ignored. It doesn't matter how many agents are staring at the monitor or how much money you have in the CIA budget, you are ineffective as an intelligence agency if you ignore the information. More people or money wouldn't have solved that problem.

So again, why blame Clinton when there was enough agency to intercept and present the information regarding the attacks. They were then asked to verify the validity of the information and they did. That was the CIA's job and they did it.

I still say you're being hypocritical, you advocate less government then blame Clinton when he reduces it.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LeBuick said:
So again, why blame Clinton when there was enough agency to intercept and present the information regarding the attacks. They were then asked to verify the validity of the information and they did. That was the CIA's job and they did it.

As I presented no there was not. The ignoring of info can also be a result of being understaffed and funded.

I still say you're being hypocritical, you advocate less government then blame Clinton when he reduces it.

Being for less government does not have to include military cuts at all. The military is not unconstitutional at any level. Relying on the Federal government to provide what people should do for themselves is. But it doesn't surprise me you struggle to understand the difference.
 
Top