Taliban Leader Vows To Attack D.C. "Soon"

Pakistani Taliban Commander Also Claims Responsibility For Attack On Police Academy

(CBS/AP)  The top Taliban commander in Pakistan promised an assault on Washington "soon" - one he says will "amaze" the world.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Baitullah Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone.

Mehsud also claimed responsibility for Monday's attack on a police academy outside the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore, saying it was in retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.

Mehsud and other Pakistani Taliban militants are believed to be based in the country's lawless areas near the border with Afghanistan, where they have stepped up their attacks throughout Pakistan.

One year ago, CBS News security correspondent Bob Orr reported that U.S. intelligence officials were increasingly concerned that Mehsud could eclipse even Osama bin Laden as a threat to America.

The U.S. recently announced a $5 million bounty on Mehsud's head. Asked about it, he told the AP he would be happy to "embrace martyrdom."

Mehsud has made voluminous threats against the West for years, as he rose to his current stature as the head of the Taliban in Pakistan, and he gave no apparent specifics in his threat on the U.S. capital on Tuesday, notes CBS News' Sami Yousafzai in Peshawar.

The attack on the police academy outside Lahore left at least seven police officers and two civilians dead on Monday.

Determining who actually carried out Monday's brazen assault on the police may prove difficult, if not impossible, in a country where numerous militant groups and tribes overlap and cooperate - both in acts of terror and claims of responsibility.

Conflicting Mehsud's claim, Pakistani intelligence officials based in Lahore told CBS News' Farhan Bokhari on Tuesday that Mehsud and the Taliban may not have been directly involved in the siege, based on ongoing interrogations of militants apprehended after the incident.

Security agents have not ruled out the possibility that militants from the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba may have carried out the attack with some support from Mehsud, but the extent of any such link remains unclear.

A Taliban source told Yousafzai on Monday, meanwhile, that a group of militants called the Fedayeen al-Islam have been trying for some time to stage high-profile hostage takings to demand the release of Taliban and other militants held by the Pakistani government.

At left: Pakistani police officers arrest one of the alleged gunmen (3rd from left) at the police training academy on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan, March 30, 2009.

Last month's brutal attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore was part of that effort, the source claimed. The goal was allegedly to capture some of the famous cricketers riding in the team bus.

Refusing to be named, the Taliban source said Monday's attack might have been aimed at taking large numbers of police hostage - which they managed to do, but only until police snipers and commandos got the better of them.

The attack on Pakistan's police - who have become regular targets of the Taliban and other militant groups in recent months - came less than a month after the ambush on Sri Lanka's visiting cricketers and underscored the threat that militancy poses to the nuclear-armed country.

It prompted the country's top civilian security official to say that militant groups were "destabilizing the country."

Interior Ministry chief Rehman Malik, who visited the police academy after the siege, described it as an "attack on Pakistan."

"There are two choices: to either let the Taliban take over your country or to fight it out. At this time the nation must unite," he said.

The country's information minister Qamar Zaman Kaira congratulated Pakistan's forces who participated in the battle with the militants, saying "they conducted it very successfully."

[mbievtea]

Perhaps Pakistan should think about negotiating some more with the Taliban. They could negotiate with the "moderate" Taliban ... they can call President Obama. I think he has the same naive dream ...

[mjlewis6]

The glassy mountain where you once resided will hold your nuclear-burned remains for 20,000 years locked in a solid sheet with the swine pens.

[gaye5]

Goodness gracious me, yet another threat.. how many times have we hear Muslims saying that they are going to bomb or attack America???? It is a form of terrorism, just as Mohammad said, "a terrorised people are easier to control." Is this just another threat to get the people scared, their numbers have not grown enough in America YET, but they are working on it fast..
It sure lets us know that we should not let any Muslim come into our countries, if we read their holy books we sure wouldnt let them come.. In saying that the first quarter of the quran is full of love, peace, tolerence etc but once their numbers became enough to become a force they became a force and the same is to be done in the countries that they adopt,... wait until their numbers grow to become a force..
And please, non of this stuff of what religious people did way back in the bible, as we are living for today and must protect our own today... look at the past and excuse todays happenings on that ground and we are dead...
People like Baitullah Mehsud are counted as the honorable Muslims, they are the heros, they are the ones who follow the Muslim holy books and follow what Mohammad told all Muslims to do for Allah, for goodness sake read the last three quarters of the quran for yourselves to see what they intend for us..
The Muslims that we call radical, or terrorists or bad are not counted as bad by their own, they are praised and taught to do this and kill infidels from the moment they enter the world.. They do not see it as being evil, they see it as getting rid of the evil for Allah and once we understand their thinking it is easy to see that their own think of them to be praised as they are getting rid of the evil, which is the infidels and Jews..
And I dont blame them our morals are becoming lower than a snakes belly... they dont want their own to live amongst such trash, filth, and sexual depravity..

[parisdakar]

Give it your bet shot, dude. Someday the big American Boot will come down on you too.

[gunownerdan]

Terrorists and other dangerous killers will always prefer unarmed victims!

[whowon]

I guess that must be why Obama brought 500 of his "staff" to Europe with him.

[nofoolling]

There wasn't enough aircraft wreckage in the rubble at the pentagon to make a cessna 152, much less explain where an entire 757 airliner dissappeared to.

Considering 962 time public liar Bush's statements about wmd's, there's absolutely no good reason to believe one word of the official 911 report, which makes just about everything that followed highly questionable.

I wonder where that dang airplane got away to, its about 1/2 the size of a football field so it shouldn't be that hard to find - except no one can.

Find the missing airplane if you can. If you can't, then that should make you wonder what else isnt true about 911.

[mljohns00]

This is the first time that I wished George Bush would spend more time in Washington, D.C.

[tenec]

Check out this video and then decide how crazy these guys are

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M32M-2B2mz8

[bradkt1]

Paint his name on an armed Predator drone and send it to Pakistan...

[Cwindor]

One more thing before I take off for the night. Lawyersguns:

I don't doubt that there are many nutty people with outlandish conspiracy theories about 9/11. I'm sure you could find more than a few of them. What you failed to take notice of, however, is the very populated memberships consisting of licensed professional engineers, physicists, fire fighters, chemists, political officials, etc. For example:

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_
http://www.stj911.com/members/index.html
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=2

To just gloss over all the experts based on a few fringe nutcases you found suggests that your research is pretty superficial.

[Cwindor]

So the "debunkers" once again resort to logical fallacies rather than engage the specifics. Unsurprising. For example, Gravy expresses his inanity by responding to posts with comments like "Are you playing with dolls?" I leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether comments like this count as "logical debunking".

Another example is Slow (fitting name), who responds to an *inductive* argument by asking why it's not a "3-D calculus proof". Any reader proficient in elementary logic can distinguish between deductive mathematical proofs and probabilistic inductive evidence -- which apparently leaves Slow out. (Poor Slow.) Inductive evidence is what is used in scientific debates, since science does not deal with 100% certainty. But leave it to Slow to sloppily misunderstand the basics.

All of this incompetence on the part of the valiant "debunkaarrs!!!" Slow, Gravy, and Lawyerguns, along with their unfortunate attempts at ridicule ("you're just a conspiracy theorist who's mom is fat! you probably play with trains and dolls!") makes one suspect that they are likely a few adolescents aiming to waste the space on a news comment section. Children, let us know when you're ready to seriously confront the facts, rather than accepting on blind faith every word of the 'official story' and believing your government is Holy in all that it does.

Goodnight. And best of luck in your "debunking" games.

[Cwindor]

Nightdragon,

You are just uncritically parroting claims you found from your favorite "debunker" websites. That you choose not to think for yourself does indicate that you're probably not a very bright guy. With regard to the "melting" issue, studies have already been done on this on the references I provided. For example, scientists have noted (contrary to the 'official story' which you accept on blind faith) that:

"Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some
have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S. Let?s discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and mixes with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by gravity. As the mixture cools, if the original molten mix was at S < 31.4%, Fe begins to crystallize out. This increases the S% in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%, the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically) 31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was orange-hot liquid (~1000 C). However, if the thermate contained only 2% S by weight (as specified for Thermate-TH3)12, that would not be enough to even produce a eutectic mixture using all the Fe produced in the thermate reaction, let alone all the added Fe from the cut column. It is not likely that the amount of sulfur used would have produced a product close to the eutectic mixture; however any substantial amount of sulfur will usefully lower the melting point of the attacked steel by sulfidation."

With respect to your comments about "controlled demo", that applies to the WTC7 building, not the towers (which as you note, fell from the top down). So your comments here are off-target, but even so, they are handled here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

As I said above, name-calling (e.g., "you're just a sicko!) is not an intellectually responsible way to go about these discussions. And since it seems you're more concerned with "punking" people (whatever exactly that means), I doubt readers would take seriously what you have to say, especially when nearly all of it is mere repetition from unscientific "debunking" websites.

[nightdragon83]

IrishWench1 @ 7:55pm said...

"POOF!!!! Diminished to cinders by a flaming dragon of the night. I love it!"

Haha thanx IrishWench... I do what I can! :-D

Alright I've had enough truther-beatdowns for one night, it's after 11 here on the east coast... night all!

[Cwindor]

Again to Slow, Gravy, and Lawyersgunsguy

"You have yet to present one logical argument, Mr. High-and-Mighty. Bring out the "logic", and I will use it to pound you into the ground."

OK, logic

1. Thousands of licensed professional architects and engineers, lawyers, physicists, chemists, academics, political officials, fire fighters, etc., after careful logical analysis, have indicated that they find the 'official' 9/11 story to be problematic and/or incoherent.
2. Usually if thousands experts in their field say something is problematic, chances are that it MAY be problematic and they are not just "conspiracy theorists" -- it is at least worth looking into rather than dismissing right away.
3. So probably, the reports made by the people referenced in (1) are not based on mere "conspiracy theory", and rational people ought to look further into it.

In defense of 1, see the following:

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_ALL_
http://www.stj911.com/members/index.html
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=2
etc.

For you to dismiss all of these experts as "crazy conspiracy theorists" is the height of arrogance, no less arrogant than to dismiss a medical doctor's opinion of your health as "just a crazy conspiracy".

Objection: but i did a google search and it has a lot of sites with "debunkings"

Reply: This does not count as peer-reviewed, scientific, logical evaluation. One can also find flat-earth theories on google searches that claim to "debunk" modern science. That does not make them true. The laws of physics are not "conspiracy theories".

Objection: but "popular mechanics" wrote an article that i like to refer to a lot...

Reply: This is outdated. It was discredited long ago. See here: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

Objection: you're a doo-doo head conspiracy theorist who's mom is overweight

Reply: Insults do not count as rational argumentation. Please get back to me when you learn the basics of elementary logic.

Objection: but, but...

Reply: Just do some research. I was once on your side of the fence.

[nightdragon83]

Edit: here's the clip of the South Tower in slow-mo so all the troofers can get their little snuff fix for the evening..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDJDEfXt2uk&feature=related

[nightdragon83]

Hey CWinder...

How many times are you going to post a links to your truther websites? Are you spamming comment sections on news websites to advertise for them or something?

And if I'm so "uneducated" as you say in your last post, (because obviously anyone who dares to disagree with you MUST be stupid and uneducated to NOT accept your crap theories as the truth!), why are you the one dumb enough to not realize that the fire from the planes didn't need to be hot enough to MELT the steel support beams, only WEAKEN them enough to a point where the weight of the floors above exceeded the limit they could sustain, thus collapsing straight down... I mean where the hell ELSE are they supposed to fall... SIDEWAYS??? ROFLMAO!!! I didn't know gravity was capable of doing that... must have missed that in my Troofer 101 class.

And anybody who at least has one iota that lives down the street from a clue about "controlled demolitions" and has at least watched a couple videos of said demolitions can plainly see that every single time, the buildings start to collapse where the main charges are placed... which in just about every case is the base or first few floors of the building. So if the WTC was brought down by a controlled demo, why did it collapse from the top-down (i.e. "pancaked" into itself), and NOT the entire building all at once??? In fact, if it WAS a controlled demo, it probably would have resembled something like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A&feature=related

Notice the dozens upon dozens of charge explosions that can bee seen and heard starting a good 8 SECONDS before the main charge (@ the 0:18 mark) goes off AT THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE, and the entire building collapses at once and is completely leveled in just 8 seconds!!!

Here you go ******... since I know you sickos love watching these videos so much, here's a slow-motion closeup of the south tower collapsing... notice how the impact point where the plane hit is the EXACT starting point of the collapse, and how the portion of the tower above it nearly topples over before finally collapsing down into the structure below... and also notice how not a single part of the building BELOW the plane's impact point starts to collapse until the weight of the portion above the impact point does so and brings the rest of the tower down with it.

You've just been punked and made out to be a fool by some random guy on the internet, congratulations! How does it feel???

[Cwindor]

Gravy, Slow, and LawyerGunguy,

That you prefer to insult licensed professional engineers rather than engage their technical analysis reveals to all the readers how "logical" the so-called "debunker" are. That you prefer soundbites (e.g., "but you're just a conspiracy theorist!!!") over rational argumentation likewise reveals to the readers that your position cannot be defended.

Instead of vague allusions to your personal "google searches" (as if that counts as science) and your oft-discredited "popular mechanics article", please, let us know when you're ready to actually engage the specific logical analysis done by the professionals: http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

[Cwindor]

"Refuted by whom? And what kind of "peer review" are you talking about?"

http://www.ae911truth.org/techarts.php

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

"I've poked around your site - badly-written articles, in general. Trying to get more hits? Try harder."

Poor Slow *pats you on the head*. First, it's not my site. Second, just calling something "badly-written" is an assertion without argument. One can imagine Slow responding to, say, Albert Einstein:

Einstein: Time is relative to the observer
Slow: That's badly written! Yay, I just debunked you! I'm a debunkaaaarrrrr!
Einstein: Um.

"Seriously - why would I care what you think of me? Think whatever you like."

Ok, I think you're uninformed and irrational. Whew, that was easy.

"you appear too deluded to see anything other than what you want to."

Says the guy who dismisses anything that doesn't fit his narrow mindset as a "conspiracy theory". Like I said, Slow, let us know when you have an actual logical argument for your claims in favor of the 'official' story. Otherwise, stop wasting everybody's time.

[Cwindor]

"The website is too long to type so....I googled it."

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X

Instructions:
1. Select text above
2. Right click
3. Select "copy"
4. Paste text into browser

Wow, for a self-styled "debunker" you really are quite uneducated in basic knowledge and tasks.