Do you think Al qaeda is planning a new attack on U.S.A?

Answer #1

Yes, i honestly do think exactly that

Answer #2

probly so :(

Answer #3

According to CNN, America should anticipate some sort of threat of retaliation by Al Qaeda members. Apparently, the State Department advised that we don’t travel outside of the country or partake in any mass gatherings. From what I’ve been reading in different news outlets, it’s not even a matter of if they will attack, but how son they will. Don’t take my word for it because I’m just guessing, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they threatened an attack not just out of anger, but to show that they can still operate without bin Laden.

Answer #4

They might try to attack for Osama I believe it will happen sooner or later.

Answer #5

Yeah I do.

Answer #6

The CIA contractor… Raymond Allen Davis… was caught giving nuclear fissile and explosive material to Al-Qaeda groups in Waziristan, Pakistan a few months ago, before he killed two ISI agents and was jailed. Odds are that we will see a retaliation in the form of dirty bombs with connections to Al Qaeda in Pakistan and the chorus to invade Pakistan already being heard will intensify… sans any mention of Mr. Davis.

Our government knows that we don’t really care about details.

Answer #7


Answer #8

It is the Pakistanis who are claiming he did this. I am not saying he did or didn’t, but I don’t think you can say this is absolutely true based on the word of the Pakistanis alone. Do you know of any other real evidence?

Answer #9

It is the Pakistanis who are claiming he did this. I am not saying he did or didn’t, but I don’t think you can say this is absolutely true based on the word of the Pakistanis alone. Do you know of any other real evidence?

Answer #10

What can one ever claim as absolutely true? Are you asking if I was an eyewitness?… then No. Was Raymond Davis a CIA contractor?… Yes… though this information was initially concealed. Was Raymond Davis arrested in Pakistan on the charges of murdering two Pakistani men?… Yes. Were the two men ISI agents?… Yes… according to Pakistani ISI. Was Raymond Davis being followed by the men he murdered?… yes… according to both accounts. Why were the men following him? According to Mr. Davis… he thought the two men were thieves. According to the ISI… they were surveiling him after the incident in Waziristan. The question I link to above, lists my sources. The links there provide the accounts from both the ISI and ABC news. I also list other examples of the governments handling of so called ter*rorist attacks complete with source links. The Davis case is relatively new… I am not certain that the Pakistani government has come forward with all of their evidence against Mr. Davis. Of course I am not saying this is “Absolutely” true… Jimahl… I don’t deal in absolutes… unlike some. I believe enough in solipsism that I think the process of knowing is very subjective. Taken as a whole… In my somewhat informed opinion… I am inclined to believe that Mr. Davis would think better than to shoot down would be thieves and blow his CIA cover. My opinion is based in a broader aspect according to information I am satisfied is true. I don’t think we are well served with one perspective being offered us. I know that this case has had very little airplay… but if we suffer another attack that is blamed on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan… especially if that attack comes in the form of a dirty bomb… then we should be aware of this side of the story. Does this line of reasoning make sense to you?

Answer #11

Understood, my only point was that there are very little facts known in this story, and a lot of speculation. I just like to know which are the facts, and which are the speculation. A lot of conspiracy theorists (not you necessarily) talk of speculation as if they are fact.

Answer #12

yup..ofcouse they will attack!

Answer #13

I’m not sure what you mean. How am I speculating here? In one sense… everyone who answers here is offering speculation. You’re asking which a posteriori fact is true as if it is a universal truth. I’ve given you the facts as I understand them. When the question regarding the legitimacy of the facts is contested… we are left to make a subjective determination based on the circumstances. You’re using a buzz word that has made the rounds in an attempt to marginalize dissidents. It is an unfair charge. One major reason that dissidents are left to speculate on the reality of events is that the ability to investigate the evidence is denied them. A couple of examples: Bin Laden’s body is thrown into the sea precluding any other analysis to determine whether the facts presented by the government are accurate… along with the ability to interrogate him and determine whether or not the government’s account concerning Al-Qaeda and 9/11 holds up to scrutiny. Evidence seized by the government after 9/11 which has been requested for indepndent investigations has been denied them. Much of the steel that would have helped determine how the towers fell has been recycled… the remainder locked away. FOIA requests for video of the destruction of WTC7 was routinely denied until a certain dissident group sued to have them released… at which point many videos were turned over having had portions edited out. This is one concern for the timely release of evidence… the fear that alterations may be perfected over time. When the JFK assassination files are finally released… why should we expect them to be unaltered?… what safeguards do we have to prevent it? I don’t that think this is an unreasonable concern. Other proof offered by dissidents dismissed as speculation… isn’t speculation at all. It isn’t speculative to state that the collapse of the WTC towers could not have happened as explained by NIST. There are physical laws that would either allow for the explanation to be possible or not. Physically… the pancake collapse theory offered by NIST isn’t possible. It may be speculative to propose that the towers were demolished by explosives… but going back to my earlier argument… the ability to investigate and verify this theory has been denied. There is corroborating evidence in thermite chips having been found in the rubble. Physically… A magical shot that offed President Kennedy… and struck Senator Connally several times… shattering a wrist bone to be found without blemish is impossible. It isn’t speculation to say this couldn’t have happened. So… mainstream theorists like to play ball in their court and by their rules… and when they are losing try to de-legitimize the opposition through vacuous accusations such as this… working on the premise that most people ignorant of the actual scenario will be persuaded by it. I’m no such ignoramus.

Answer #14

Me thinks thou dost protest too much! First off, facts are facts. If something is true, it is a fact. Speculation may or may not be true. When you said Davis “was caught giving nuclear fissile and explosive material to Al-Qaeda groups in Waziristan”” you stated it as fact. You didn’t say “it is believed that”, or “the Pakistanis reported that” or that you were just speculating. I was only talking about the Davis incident, and not all conspiracy theories. I truly wanted to know if you had confirmation of this other than from the Pakistanis. Secondly, I would never think you are any kind ignoramus. I know better than that. But, I do not tend to jump to conclusions easily. I know you think my political leanings make me somehow incapable of independent thought, but that is no truer than you thinking that everyone having anything to do with politics or government is involved in some kind of cover up (except for Ron Paul that is). Not saying you are wrong, just saying that we don’t know. I am all for open and honest discussion and investigation. But the reasons given for the way bin Laden was handled are not far fetched. Yes, I would have like to see him answer some questions. But I was not there, and neither were you. We can only speculate on the truth of the official story. Bottom line, this was no accusation, it was a legitimate question. I would say you are being paranoid, but your heightened sensitivity might make you take that as an insult to your theories… Just kidding…

Answer #15

Methinks you’re missing my point. When two purported accounts conflict… assigning accuracy to the accounts takes some discernment. I have acknowledged that this is my interpretation of the facts provided. I acknowledge the Pakistani source for the account concerning the dirty bomb material at the link I gave. By your assessment… something can only be ascertained if it is witnessed first hand… which is ideal… but a little too stringent to be workable for debate. Did you fly the jets into the buildings? Were you there when Bin Laden fomulated the attack? Of course not. You’re taking someone elses word for it. As far as confirmation other than Pakistani ISI… No. My belief stems from circumstantial evidence admittedly. I believe it is more than likely true based on my knowledge of events prior and by reasoning what makes the most sense. I find it to be too coincidental that Raymond Davis… a CIA contractor… just happened to kill two Pakistani ISI whom he believed to be robbers. There is obviously a backstory here. One side offers a back story… the other wants me to believe it is coincidental… and also hushed up the story and initially denied parts of the story that have since been deemed factual. This is why I believe what I do. I couldn’t care less how I am perceived by those whom I have my own doubts of. No offense taken… the only insult was to my eyes trying to make some sense out of these garbled words… you’re better than your last jab at me.

Answer #16

Are trying to pick a fight? My original question was a sincere one, and not meant to refute what you were saying. I was truly tryin to find out if you had any other sources for the info other than the Pakistanis. It seems you took it as me doubting the veracity of your claim, and I wasn’t. I agree with many of the things you say, I am just not as willing to jump to a conclusion about it. And I never said that eye-witnessing an event was the only criteria for assessing the validity of claims surrounding said event. Of course we have to take someone elses word for things as none of us were there. And all of us have our own filters we use to determine the accuracy. And some may be more informed than others to be able to determine that.

But that does bring up another point. You seem to think that those who are partisan are quick to believe evidence that supports their POV. And I have no doubts that is true in many cases. But wouldn’t it also be true that conspiracy theorists do the same, and are quick to believe any evidence that points to government complicity and/or cover-up of various world events? Nothing is black and white, including conspiracy theories… And the last jab was truly meant as a joke, and not at all serious. We need add a little levity to these discussions, because ultimately what we say here has absolutely no affect on anything other than our own egos.

Answer #17

No… I took your last statement as jest… and meant to continue the lighthearted tone with my own. I’m not trying to pick a fight… but you responded to my post… should I not defend my position? Perhaps I took it as an insinuation questioning the veracity of my claims here… as well as my other fringe beliefs when you stated that “A lot of conspiracy theorists (not you necessarily) talk of speculation as if they are fact.” I offered the rebuttal… when the avenues to investigate are denied skeptics… all that is left for them is speculation. I’ve also listed the known facts… and in this particular case… why I believe as I do. I was attempting to make the point that I am not sure which additional facts you would want that could not also be disputed. Why certain cases will require us to reason what makes the most sense. I’m not going to be able to articulate the best argument for positions I take here. How can I justify my entire apostasy adequately? I can only hope to provide enough of an argument to get people to place some credence in my argument and pursue the truth for themselves. The Davis incident needs to be heard. You’re correct when you say that we each have a filter to vet information… but when the filter is controlled through information outlets… the resulting paradigm is prejudiced. I haven’t argued with you solely to feed my ego… though it has a huge appetite. I hope that as crazy as it may sound… one person sees these two sh!theads going at it and reads the exchange and is persuaded by it. You’re an intelligent, well intentioned guy… this isn’t about you or my feelings towards you.. or my ego… only to reach those who genuinely seek answers.

Answer #18

You should absolutely defend your position when it is being questioned. But you should also not be so attached to your position that is prevents you from seeing other sides. We are all guilty of that though. We are both intelligent, well intentioned guys… So it’s all good….

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!

The New Yorker

News, Local Events, Politics


Chart Attack

Legal Services, Criminal Defense, Justice System


The New Indian

Politics, Business, Sports


Aminov Law

Estate Law, Probate Law, Elder Law


Morgan Legal Group PC

Legal Services, Law Firms, Attorneys