Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Islamists vow revenge for the death of a ‘warrior’

04 May 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/islamists-vow-revenge...html

Tom Allard, Jakarta | May 4, 2011

THE killing of Osama bin Laden will bring ''disaster'' to the US and the al-Qaeda leader secured victory even in death, according to radical Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir.

Bashir, who is in prison as he faces charges of leading and financing a new terrorist organisation, met with his acolytes yesterday for the first time since news of bin Laden's demise.

''Ustad Abu [Bashir] said if the news is true, it means Osama won the battle twice,'' said his spokesman, Sonhadi, who visited Bashir in the Jakarta penitentiary.

''First, he will get the title as martyr in the afterlife and, second, his death is the victory over the hegemony of infidels. Ustad Abu also said Allah will bring disaster upon the US for killing the warrior of Islam … we just don't know what that disaster will be.''

Mr Sonhadi, who himself was imprisoned for four years for hiding terrorist leaders, said Bashir had his doubts that bin Laden had been killed, noting that no pictures of his corpse had been made public.

It was a theme prominent on Indonesian jihadist blogs and comments from militants yesterday, as were predictions of bloody revenge.

''Americans may be partying, celebrating his death. But they will cry later and be blanketed with pain,'' Syawal Yasin told the Jakarta Globe newspaper.

Syawal is the son-in-law of Abdullah Sungkar, who along with Bashir founded Jemaah Islamiah (JI), the terrorist group with direct links to al-Qaeda responsible for multiple attacks in Indonesia, including both Bali bombings.

JI has been badly fractured thanks to successful law enforcement efforts but other extremist groups have come to the fore, including some that are legal and have links to the police and political figures.

The Islamic Defenders' Front (FPI), which has been behind a string of attacks on religious minorities, will hold a commemoration service tonight in honour of bin Laden.

Jakarta's governor and police chief attended FPI's anniversary celebrations last year. The Jakarta police chief, Timur Prabopo, was later appointed national police chief by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. A series of plots have been uncovered in Indonesia in the past two years, including a plan to explode a massive bomb near a church during Good Friday services last month.

Any operational involvement by al-Qaeda in Indonesian militant groups these days remains unclear but great intrigue surrounds the arrest of Umar Patek, Indonesia's most wanted militant, in January in Abbottabad, the same Pakistani city where bin Laden was slain. The arrest followed a firefight in which the JI operative was shot.

Patek was a senior JI member who trained in Afghanistan and acted as deputy field commander in the first Bali bombing that killed 202 people, including 88 Australians.

Pakistani media reports said Patek was liaising with an al-Qaeda operative, a courier who also worked as a clerk at Abbottabad's post office.

According to an anonymous source from Indonesia's intelligence agency quoted in Koran Tempo, Patek was in Abbottabad to meet with al-Qaeda operatives and plan attacks to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Anthony Bubalo, an analyst writing on the Lowy Interpreter blog, said: ''Perhaps most interesting of all is why bin Laden was not spooked into moving location as a result of Patek's arrest.''

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Andrew Adams,

you have argued that there would always be natural clouds present if conditions were right for persistent contrails.

In my reply I quoted an atmospheric scientist who spends his life with researching contrails. He says that persistent contrails can form in levels of ice supersaturation that are not yet high enough for natural cirrus formation.

Do you think he is wrong?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:54:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

what is your evidence for the aerosol spraying that you are referring to?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:39:28
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

There is no reason on earth why one should keep on talking about contrails vs chemtails just because those who launched this aerosol spraying decades ago thought that it would be nice to have the contrails cover story. The starting point for discussion is the claims by geoengineering advocates (such as Clive Hamilton in Australia) that solar radiation management would be a good idea and that aerosol spraying for geoengineering or other undisclosed purposes is not already a global reality. And the onus of proof is on them, i.e. those that are making this claim.

By Wayne Hall on 2014 11 01 - 16:42:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh dumdum,
you still seem incapable of comprehending the simple fact that i consider engaging seriously with you a complete waste of time..

your only qualification from the school of sophistry does not qualify you to pretend you are some sort of expert on anything, and again, nothing you say is of any interest to me. you have failed time and time again to prove people should not be concerned.

i dont need you to tell me anything, nor does anyone else. there are plenty of qualified experts who are not afraid to put their names to their claims who id trust way before someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on nondescript websites trying to “debunk” the truth…

that is the lie.

 

 

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 10:20:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

you say “if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present”.

And there often are other cirrus clouds around when contrails persist for long! In clear blue skies, contrails are quite often not persisting. Both does not always apply though; see quote further below which has the reason for that.

The process I described is how persistent contrails form; it’s not just a claim I make. Read NASA’s contrail pages for a starter. It has to say:

Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide), but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.” (Emphasis is mine)

Or read Ulrich Schumann’s concise 2005 paper on contrails, which contains this sentence:

Contrails evaporate quickly if the ambient air is dry; they persist, evolve into more extended cirrus clouds and grow in particle size by deposition of ambient water vapour on the ice particles in the contrails if the ambient air is humid enough.” (Emphasis is mine)

In the conclusion of the paper, you’ll find a hint why it’s quite possible that there may be persistent contrails without surrounding clouds:

Many aspects of contrail formation are well understood. Contrails from for thermodynamic reasons when the ambient air is cold enough. Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses. In such cases often contrail cirrus forms where no cirrus would form otherwise because ice supersaturation is often too low for natural cirrus particle nucleation.” (Emphasis is mine)

Now can you tell me where you think there is a lie?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 09:25:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.”

if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present, ones that have not come out the back of an aircraft. if the humidity is there, you wouldnt need an aircraft going past in order for clouds to appear in an otherwise perfectly clear blue sky.

appareently fenton likes truth here, yet not only does he tolerate your lies, he encourages it.

not the first sign of hypocristy we see from him though. still cant tear himself away from facebook i see )

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:34:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.
Isn’t it the case that those that rule us do so in deference to our sovereignty.
Isn’t it the case that .many of us do not consent to the above mentioned rulership.
Isn’t it the case that if one were to ask one of the said rulers to write down and sign at their own individual unlimited commercial liability that geoengineering, including but not limited to “chemtrails”, for the purpose of weather manipulation is not being conducted that there would be a refusal.
Is it not the case that a refusal to the previous proposition would amount to tacit agreement that what is referred to is happening.
The burden of proof rests on him who affirms not on him who denies….but there are ways snaring the slippery.

By Cris on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

““i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.”

i think you need to look up the definition of dictatorial fenton. banning people here simply because you can would more fit the definition than me suggesting someone take a drink from a mug.

as far as honesty goes, i really doubt you have a leg to stand on there, because if i were to believe you really want me to “have a nice day” instead of it being a smarmy glib sarcastic jibe, then id be as gormless as josh, who still cant seem to understand the fact that nothing he can say here, in his role as unqualified mendacious shill, is of any interest to me.

further on honesty, you say “i think we can all agree that a plane hit the pentagoin” - not verbatim, but its close - so perhaps you can show us what you base that falsehood on?

further on honesty you continue to pretend chemtrails are a non issue, disregarding the concerns of thousands more qualified than you.

further on henesty, you call this site truthnews…

have a shitty day <—- at least im honest

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 23:46:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories