Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Articles on Possible Causes for Terrorist Bombings |
|---|
| slime |
| 09/23/01 at 02:19:37 |
| http://thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c =Article&cid=1000850489976&call_page=TS_News_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=News/Columnists It's the U.S. foreign policy, stupid Haroon Siddiqui STAR COLUMNIST AMERICA IS not the target of terrorism because Islamic fundamentalists hate American democratic ideals of freedom, liberty and "all that we stand for," as George Bush has claimed. Only if it were so. The problem may be much bigger. This is what needs to be grasped, quickly, even in this period of bereavement. There is a danger in this television-driven drama's misplaced focus on the ``how'' of last week's horror, that Americans will not pay sufficient attention to the ``why'' of it. The worst possible interpretation of the evil deed is to assume that it was carried out by spiritually inspired suicide bombers seeking "martyrdom" as a reward for trying to topple American hedonism. The mad bombers did not fit the mould of pious avengers. On the eve of their evil act, two were consuming vodka and ogling strippers at a bar. Another who had come via Germany liked to drink and dance with his live-in girlfriend whom he had ditched before crossing the Atlantic. They were trying to "meld in," to avoid suspicion, say the experts who know not that no true believer would ever behave so, even as a ruse. Nor did the bombers come from impoverished hellholes, the breeding grounds of zealots and ready recruits for extremist causes. They were educated products of privilege, sons of affluent families from Arab nations that are among America's strongest allies. This is scarier than we think. What we think is based on what we are told. What we are being told in the wake of the biggest terrorist act is what we have already been told, ad nauseam, in the years before. None of it inspires much confidence. Osama bin Laden is the prime suspect, yet we can't seem to get even the most basic facts on him right. He is said to have inherited $20 million. Or $200 million. Or $500 million. All stashed in a Sudanese bank. Or invested broadly. His accounts have remained frozen since 1998. Or maybe not. He has only a few dozen followers. Or a few hundred. Or "3,000 Arab radicals from 12 countries." Or an army of "35,000 warriors" assigned to secret cells around the globe. He lives in a cave with three rooms and four wives, satellite TV, faxes and phones. Or he does not spend more than one night in any place. Either out of ignorance or calculation, the theories on the motives for last week's attacks avoid the most obvious: America has many enemies. Not just because of globalization and a McWorld in which Coke brings harmony to all. Or because of American cultural domination. Or because America is arrogant and isolationist. Rather, it is due to American complicity in injustice, lethal and measurable, on several fronts: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which America stands by decades-long Israeli defiance of United Nations resolutions, international law and the most basic standards of human rights, keeping millions penned in military-patrolled enclaves. The decade-long American-led economic sanctions on Iraq that have killed 500,000 children under 5, strangled a whole nation and destroyed the birthplace of civilization. The mess in Afghanistan where the CIA recruited and trained the likes of bin Laden to overturn the Soviet occupation but dumped them once that mission impossible was accomplished. Since then, the American-led economic sanctions ? imposed to help ferret out bin Laden ? have inflicted a new wave of misery, leaving thousands of children dead and about 1 million people starving. American strategic alliances with the military and monarchical dictatorships of Algeria, Turkey and Egypt, as well as the oil-rich Arab states, all of whom crush even the smallest steps towards democratization. Add the American sanctions on Iran, Sudan and Libya, "the rogue states," plus the miseries of Bosnia, Chechnya and Kashmir, and you begin to grasp the utter dismay, and sense of helplessness, gripping the peoples of all these lands. Not all the conflicts can be blamed on America but many can be and have been, especially in the last decade, only to draw indifference or, more scandalously, a barrage of propaganda blaming the victims themselves: that Muslim genes must account for all the savagery and suffering surrounding them. It suits America to avoid the real issues, and the double standard and hypocrisy enveloping them. It suits Israel to keep up the fundamentalist, terrorist mantra, especially now, as it moves to create even more elbow room to crush the intifadah. It suits Russia, which has cloaked its brutality in Chechnya as a war against terrorism. It suits India on Kashmir. It suits China, in battling Uighur separatists in Xingiang region, and in keeping America on side for joining the World Trade Organization. With so many agendas at work, it is difficult to keep it all in context. It goes without saying, but bears repeating, that no grievance can ever justify what happened last week. But the apologists for America and its allies are disingenuous in advancing the racist notion, with nauseating regularity, that the victims burst out in anger because their religion rewards them for it. Some no doubt believe so. But to present them as the sole face of all the oppressed is to distort reality. The public, more than the media, senses this. Some put it crudely: America had it coming. The surprise is how a broad spectrum of the Canadian middle class, including academics, professionals and business people, is coming to the view that America needs, beyond any tactical strikes or smart bombs it might deploy, a more humane and even-handed approach to the world. |
| Re: It's the U.S. foreign policy, stupid |
|---|
| jannah |
| 09/24/01 at 22:54:55 |
| [color=purple] Again no one is justifying these acts and I for one do not know who committed these crimes or why, but thought this was interesting, especially the three reasons mentioned. also the fact that he says that this could not have been a "religiously" motivated crime, because why didn't the terrorists bomb churches or malls or other places.. instead they targetted financial and military targets... anyways read on... [/color] The Terrorists Motives By C. E. Carlson http://www.whtt.org/010921pw.htm USA Today has provided welcome support for our thesis in our analysis of Day911. In that report we stated that the solution to the World Trade Center crime and prevention of any reoccurrence would necessarily require an analysis of the motives of the criminals who conducted the awful act. No intelligent cop or TV detective would even put on his badge in the morning without asking himself 10 times, "what is the motive" for the murders? We are not looking for an excuse. We are looking for the reason or reasons why it happened. We have not so far been given one. In the days following the WTC tragedy, it seemed that no one would ever ask this question. And as we stated, there is a logical explanation for this omission on the part of our controlled press, and it is that those in a position to ask the question and get the answer published already know the answer and don't want it known by the American public. We stated the motive for the WTC bombing was hatred--not of the American people, as we are told, but hatred for our government. We also stated this hatred was logical, though not forgivable. We stated that elimination of the cause for hatred would not only eliminate the chance of a recurrence, but also eliminate all need for a foreign war, such as President Bush now threatens. Bush offers no logical motive for the act, but only "hate". The hatred for the U.S. government results from three over and persistent acts that only government is capable of carrying out: the bombing of unarmed civilians in Muslim countries; massive foreign military aid to the state of Israel; and economic sanctions placed on an overwhelmingly number of Muslim countries. The USA Today cover story for September 19, Extremists' hatred of U.S. has varied roots: Resentment builds over success, broad influence by Ellen Hale and Vivienne Walt is of valuable help in supporting what WHTT and a few others have been saying. The USA Today story is slanted toward what is called "extremism" among Muslims. It makes much of such non-issues as mini-skirts and women in business. In fact, it seems unlikely that anyone would blow themselves up over such questions. Nevertheless it is one of the first stories in the national media that actually looks into the motives behind the suicide bombings of the WTC, and we are grateful. Authors Hale and Walt, quoted Richard Falk, professor of international law at Princeton University, who stated, ''Americans take all this very personally, and they look upon this as an attack that had no foundation." And he went on to say, "America is the most admired and most loved country in the world, but it is also the most hated.'' The authors do the best job we have yet seen by a major media of listing the probable causes behind the bombing. Many foreigners have valid and logical reasons to hate what our leaders are doing to them. While Hale and Walt do attempt to figure out why America is hated, they fail to outright differentiate between hatred for our government for what it does and hatred for our people for what we do, and this is a very important distinction that needs to be made. Hale and Walt write that the scholars and experts state "the reason hatred, resentment or deep dislike exists in one degree or another among many Muslims in the Arab world, lies in a complicated web of U.S. policy, repressive foreign regimes, poverty, religious fundamentalism and even American naivete. There's resentment over U.S. economic, military and political power." To support these unusually frank conclusions Hale and Walt quote Jessica Stern, a terrorism researcher at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Mass.: ''Part of the fury is that the United States is the sole remaining superpower, and we are the magnet for hatred. People feel deprived. They feel that their lives have not gone the way they should. We are a convenient symbol of the 'other'.'' It is truly remarkable for anyone in the media these days to admit the US is the sole superpower, because it begs the question, with whom will a 600-pound gorilla war in a land of pigmies? If there are no competitors, how can there be a match? The taxpayers might even wonder, is it worth the cost to bomb rubble into smaller pieces of rubble, such as exists in Afghanistan. The article also quotes a number of Muslim scholars and clerics and presents their moderated views and might actually arouse some sympathy for the hard-working and praying Muslims, if the words are taken seriously. The authors present a moderate Muslim position stating, "Few Muslims agree with bin Laden that terrorism is an appropriate tool for battling Western culture and politics." But it is doubtful that this article by itself would have much influence on the anti-Islamic-conditioned American public, who are not likely to believe that the Koran does not in any fashion promote violence. Hale and Walt did not help their moderates when they quoted Sheik Abdullah Shami, leader of the militant Muslim group, Islamic Jihad, in Gaza, as an example of a bitter radical. He is quoted as saying: ''Is America too stupid to understand that these attacks are coming upon it because we, as Muslims, resent the way it conducts business? I pity its naivete.'' Contemptuous language, no matter how frustrated, will only reinforce the American public's belief that they are doing a favor for any Muslim they do not lynch. The punch line of the story is somewhat buried in the later half of the paper, where the authors tell us that among the issues that have stirred resentment among many in the Muslim world and hatred among some are: Of Israel and the Palestinians, "Despite many attempts to be a mediator, the United States still is perceived by Muslims to have unfairly provided years of unstinting support for Israel, causing widespread grievances through the Muslim world, even in countries far from the Mideast. The collapse of peace talks last year and the election of conservative Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon earlier this year have fed the agitation." Unfortunately the story unsurprisingly neglects to mention the real burr under Palestine's saddle, which is the enormous American military aid to Israel, and its use of U.S. planes, tanks, helicopter gunships and even sniper rifles to put down the Palestinian uprising. It must be understood that so powerful is Israeli Patriot influence in the major media that no mainline press can be expected to do more than hint at such an outrage. It remains for us to do so. Hale and Walt go on to correctly list U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as a cause, stating our troops "were placed there just before the Gulf War with Saudi Arabia's blessing to protect that nation and to serve as a staging point for taking back Kuwait; the troops have never left." They further state, "The U.S. Air Force has about 5,000 personnel in the country. Their presence enrages some Muslims, who regard the country as holy ground because it is the birthplace of Islam." One of the complaints against England in our Declaration of Independence is the stationing of their troops on our soil. We went to war over the issue, but they are supposed to accept it. The USA Today further lists U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Iran, as causal factors in Islamic hatred, stating, "Such sanctions, aimed at states which the United States says have sponsored or harbored terrorists, have centered almost entirely on Muslim countries." Hale and Walt continue their surprisingly fair-minded coverage by citing "U.S. support of repressive Middle East regimes and feudal monarchies" as a causal factor in Arab hatred. This is unusual because the mainline Americans press tends to paint all Islamics with the same brush. Thus Americans tend to think of every Iraqi as a budding Saddam Hussein, though they would not want to be likened to their own leaders in the same way. The authors omitted mention of several significant "repressive governments" including Turkey, the now-famous Taliban (who President Bush admits giving foreign aid to, and America's Arab foreign aid recipient, Egypt, which is annually bribed to keep peace with Israel at the cost of $2 billion a year. Finally, Hale and Walt give an unusually candid appraisal (for mainline media, that is) of U.S. military tactics. U.S. News writes, "The long-distance missile strikes on Iraq, in particular, have caused resentment." Mary Kaldor of the prestigious London School of Economics is quoted as saying, "President Bush calls ... attacks on the United States cowardly, but from the Mideast viewpoint surgical long distance bombing is cowardly." USA Today continues, "To many Iraqis, the death of civilians and the destruction of the country's infrastructure, from bombing during the 1991 Gulf War and attacks since then -- as well as from economic sanctions by Western countries -- constitute terrorism." Fair-minded persons who know the facts of a prostrate Iraqi population being bombed almost continuously for 12 years by the "world's only superpower" might be moved to sympathy for the people of Iraq. It is noteworthy that in GW Bush's fireside war speech on September 19, Bush had either the audacity or rank ignorance to refer to the Iraq war as a quick and decisive endeavor that was ended in a hurry. Is it possible the president does not know he is still bombing the Iraqis 12 years after his father started the genocide? Princeton Law Professor Richard Falk states: "It's not just that Muslims are offended. They are humiliated by American policy," and adds, "America is seen as this very glittery place, and it's easy to portray it as a kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. It's a very powerful mobilizing message." Says Falk: ''What we're now witnessing is the terrible maturing, the terrible extremity of this resentment by these people who have been unable to realize their goals for decades, who feel entrapped and who are hunting for a way to inflict pain on their perceived enemies.'' Professor Falk says clearly in his Ivy League style what WHTT has been saying in kitchen table English--our government has given Muslims plenty of reason to hate us. Most reasonable, thoughtful persons who read the entire article can see beneath the "extremism" trappings. The writers' research points to much the same conclusion as to the cause of the problems that we did in "Day911." However, it is not likely that many readers would fully grasp the import of this major publication listing facts. The causes of Arab hatred for the U.S. government will not get through to many Americans, partly because the authors have woven elements of Arab chauvinism, radicalism and hatred of the American lifestyle into their article. These are all too familiar in the coloring of our opinion against all Muslims. And GW Bush denounced the terrorists simply as professional haters of the American way of life. It is not a sufficient motive to claim, as President Bush did in his September 20th speech, that the perpetrators hate Americans, our way of life, our religion, and our habits. None of the President's reasons constitute adequate motive for rational men to kill themselves in order to kill a few or many of us. Why? Because our way of life may offend them but it is not imposed upon them. They could leave. Even if a President says it, it is irrational to believe an intelligent man, much less 18 men or more, would kill themselves, and other men with them, because they despise Christian churches, American music or mini-skirts, as we are given to believe. If this is what they hated they could have bombed a big church or a rock concert. If they were jealous of our wealth why would they not have become burglars or drug runners and live to spend the money? They were certainly not afraid of harm, and they had plenty of time to think about it. President Bush's explanation of their motive does not wash. The question is, why does he not tell us the true motive of his enemies? It is also not rational to claim these were insane men, for the crime was far too premeditated to be the act of any but rational persons. When they come to trial, the court will not accept insanity as a defense---wait and see. We are sorry to say our President has dodged the question of the motive. By themselves, therefore, Hale and Walt are straws in the hurricane velocity wind. Nevertheless, we are glad the authors wrote it, because of the credence it adds to our own writings which have made similar basic points. We plan to amplify much more on this story in the coming weeks. Exposing a practical solution to the terrorism problem and the questionable motives of our leaders is left to us. As we said in our paper, Day911, (http://www.whtt.org/010911pw.htm) the solution lies in several simple and inexpensive acts that could have been carried out within 24 hours of the terrible bombing. The solution might even stop the sickening slide of the stock market. It includes halting, once and for all, our financial and military aid to Israel and every other country. Our leaders should also cease their war operations and bombings in Iraq and everywhere else, and withdraw our economic sanctions against every country. C E Carlson Copyright 2001, may be reproduced only in full. We Hold These Truths (www.whtt.org) 4839 E. Greenway Road, #151 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 480 947 3329 Documented references, 345 page, provides an understand of why Day911 happened? Limited supply of first printing: ONE NATION UNDER ISRAEL. (http://www.whtt.org/onui.htm ) Why many of America's political and religious leaders support Israel, and how its organizations influence our Congress. Learn about the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and its excessive influence on Congress. $17.50; 2 for $30.00 Grace Halsell's books: JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM and FORCING GOD'S HAND. (http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm) Famous author and world traveler tells from living experiences. Recommended Viewing: THE PEOPLE AND THE LAND, by Tom Hayes, filmed in occupied Palestine, paid for by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, (PBS) who declined to show it. See firsthand why Palestinian children throw rocks at tanks and men with rifles. $25.00 (http://www.whtt.org/bookstor.htm) |
| Re: Articles on Possible Causes for Terrorist Bombings |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/23/01 at 10:01:40 |
| Bismillah and salam, This article is from the leading Israeli daily Ha'aretz. Saturday, September 22, 2001 Tishrei 5, 5762 Israel Time: 10:44 (GMT+3) 5 Israelis detained for `puzzling behavior' after WTC tragedy By Yossi Melman Five Israelis who had worked for a moving company based in New Jersey are being held in U.S. prisons for what the Federal Bureau of Investigation has described as "puzzling behavior" following the terror attack on the World Trade Center in New York last Tuesday. The five are expected to be deported sometime soon. The families of the five, who asked that their names not be released, said that their sons had been questioned by the FBI for hours on end, had been kept in solitary confinement for three days, and had been humiliated, stripped of their clothes and blindfolded. The mother of one of the young men explained the chain of events as she understands it to Ha'aretz: She said that the five had worked for the company, which is owned by an Israeli, for between two months and two years. They had been arrested some four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building, she said. It appears that they were spotted by one of the neighbors who called the police and the FBI. The mother said that the families and friends of the five in Israel had known nothing of the men's whereabouts for a number of days. "When they finally let my son make a phone call for the first time to a friend in the United States two days ago, he told him that he had been tortured by the FBI in a basement," the mother said. "He was stripped to his underwear; he was blindfolded and questioned for 14 hours. They thought that because he has citizenship of a European country as well as of Israel that he was working for the Mossad [Israel's secret service]." Seven FBI agents later stormed the apartment of one of the Israelis, searched it and questioned his roommate. The Israeli owner of the company, who has U.S. citizenship, was also questioned. Both men were subsequently released. The families here complained that the Israeli consulate in New York and the situation room set up by the Foreign Ministry there to locate missing Israelis had done nothing to help their sons. The Foreign Ministry told the families that the FBI had denied holding the five and that the consulate had chosen to believe the FBI, the mother said. The five were transferred out of the FBI's facility on Saturday morning and are now being held in two prisons in New Jersey by the Immigration and Naturalization Services. They are charged with illegally residing in the United States and working there without permits. The Foreign Ministry said in response that it had been informed by the consulate in New York that the FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. © Copyright 2001 Ha`aretz. All rights reserved |
| Re: Articles on Possible Causes for Terrorist Bombings |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/23/01 at 10:30:32 |
| Bismillah and salam, From the New York Times September 22, 2001 VOICES OF OPPOSITION In Europe, Some Say the Attacks Stemmed From American Failings By STEVEN ERLANGER BERLIN, Sept. 21 — The killing of thousands in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington last week has prompted great unity of purpose in the United States, cemented by shared outrage. President Bush has called on the world to unite against barbarism. While Europeans have expressed enormous sympathy and solidarity, often in emotional ways, they have also been divided in their responses. A debate has begun over whether the inconsistencies of American foreign policy, and the sheer weight of American dominance in the world, mean that resentment of the United States — even, in extreme cases, hatred — are inevitable. There was no rejoicing or support in Europe for the killing of so many Americans. Many Europeans wept and the continent fell silent for a moment last week in remembrance of the dead. But it has also become clear that some Europeans feel that ordinary Americans have largely floated on a tide of prosperity, triumphalism and indifference to the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their view is that the United States has now been confronted with a sobering reality, and that it must try to understand. For those critics, Americans are now facing unsurprising retaliation from an important part of the Islamic world that considers America to have declared war on its faith. The arguments are sometimes simple — America should expect war in return for bombing Iraq regularly. Some Europeans also contend that many Americans have a blinding confidence in their own goodness and so do not see that the acts of the United States are regarded in many quarters as driven by the domineering pursuit of national self-interest. European writers and intellectuals have pointed to a catalog of actions that include the bombing — in reprisal for the terrorist bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa in 1998 — of one of Sudan's two pharmaceutical factories on the challenged grounds that it was linked to Osama bin Laden, aid to Israel to buy weapons used against Palestinians, or even the American refusal to intervene to stop the mass killings in Rwanda. Matthew Parris, a former Conservative Party member of the British Parliament, wrote in The Times of London, "The bigger they come, the harder they fall." Disgusted by calls for quick revenge, Mr. Parris wrote: "Do they think a terrorist is like a pin in a bowling alley: one down, nine to go? Do they want to give Osama bin Laden his own Bloody Sunday? Do they not know that when you kill one bin Laden you sow 20 more? Playing the world's policeman is not the answer to that catastrophe in New York. Playing the world's policeman is what led to it." Dario Fo, the Italian playwright and satirist who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1997, said bluntly in a widely circulated e-mail: "The great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation." There have been other voices that pointed to Mr. bin Laden's various enemies: not just the United States but also the autocratic Islamic governments that Washington supports, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait. The Observer newspaper wrote: "America needs to recognize that, all too often, it poses as a champion of democracy while supporting regimes, such as that in Saudi Arabia, which have no proper respect for democracy." Tariq Ali, a leftist British commentator, wrote that America was now about to wage war on Afghanistan, a country ruled by a religious movement, the Taliban, only as a result of Washington's proxy war against the Soviets. Mr. bin Laden himself joined in that proxy battle, and became a hero partly because of that war. "The underlying maxim is, `we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends,' " Mr. Ali said. In an editorial, Le Monde wrote that America is also unreliable in the sense of appearing inconstant in its choice of allies. The United States, it noted, refused to help Ahmed Shah Massoud, the leader of anti-Taliban forces who died last weekend from injuries suffered in an assassination attempt. Yet it considers Saudi Arabia an ally, although that "is where the financial support of the Islamic radicals comes from." Even in Germany, one of Europe's most pro-American countries, there was concern that NATO allies had somehow handed Washington a blank check. Die Zeit commented that, "The defender against terror must not act like a furious giant," adding: "The fear of U.S. hegemony is as deep-seated as the anti-American sentiment that bubbled up predictably after Bush came to power." Anti-Americanism is almost a reflex reaction among some left-of-center French intellectuals, and there has been a predictable outpouring. To the cry that "we are all Americans now," Marie-José Mondzain, director of the prestigious French National Center for Scientific Research, writing in Le Monde, retorted: "I don't feel at all American, but to the contrary feel redoubled in me all the reasons to condemn a world that sings along with a catastrophic president, who defends the death penalty and who has only disdain for the Middle East." Such anti-Americanism is rare in Germany. But the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen, 73, called the attack on the World Trade Center "the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos," impressive for the imagination of the act and the precision of its execution. His commentary was regarded with horror by a nation that has reached out to Americans with sympathy and support, and Mr. Stockhausen apologized, saying that his allegorical remarks had been misunderstood. |
| Re: Articles on Possible Causes for Terrorist Bombings |
|---|
| jannah |
| 09/24/01 at 22:59:51 |
| has anyone read this book/article?? Exerpts from "The War on Terrorism" by Jacob G. Hornberger (libertarian) Pro-war advocates say that this is not the right time to examine U.S. government conduct because it will have the appearance of defending and justifying what the attackers did. If wrongful conduct by one's government is motivating people to retaliate against Americans, including civilians, then it stands to reason that people might want to stop the wrongful conduct rather than continue it, even as they try to bring the retaliators to justice. Because again, the continuation of the wrongful conduct will surely give rise to new terrorists, even as the government stamps out the old ones. Perhaps more important, if one's government is engaged in wrongful conduct, then it is morally incumbent on the citizenry to put a stop to it, even if there is no possibility of adverse retaliation from others. This is especially true if the potential consequences of escalating the conflict, including the loss of much life on both sides, can be avoided through simply stopping our own government's wrongful conduct. Some people say the attackers and their supporters hate freedom, democracy, and Western values, but they are unable to explain why it is that Switzerland, which enjoys freedom, democracy, and Western values but whose government has always minded its own business in international affairs, never gets attacked by terrorists. |
| Re: Articles on Possible Causes for Terrorist Bombings |
|---|
| amatullah |
| 09/27/01 at 12:40:22 |
| Bismillah and salam, Here is interesting article from the Ha'aretz Israeli paper http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77766&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=77766 Here is another from same source: Thursday, September 27, 2001 Tishrei 10, 5762 Israel Time: 04:58 (GMT+2) 12:18 26/09/2001 Last update - 10:00 27/09/2001 Odigo says workers were warned of attack By Yuval Dror, Ha'aretz Correspondent Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its employees received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and that the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement,including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack. Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two employees received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management. Management immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI. "I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya. As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application. Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message. © Copyright 2001 Ha`aretz. All rights reserved |
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org |