FBI: Al Qaeda May Strike U.S. Shopping Malls

The Blotter has the exclusive:

The FBI is warning that al Qaeda may be preparing a series of holiday attacks on U.S. shopping malls in Los Angeles and Chicago, according to an intelligence bulletin distributed to law enforcement authorities across the country this morning.

The alert said al Qaeda “hoped to disrupt the U.S. economy and has been planning the attack for the past two years.”

Law enforcement officials tell ABCNews.com that the FBI received the information in late September and declassified it yesterday for wide distribution.

Not much I can add here except the obligatory reminder to remain vigilant.

Bryan at HotAir:

I’m sure we’ll hear a deafening questioning of the timing about this shortly.

NiceDeb finds it at the 3rd comment at the Blotter:

Hmm…economy on the rocks, Bush’s disapproval rating hits a record high, dissatisfaction with Iraq hits a record high…BOOGA BOOGA! Terror! Al Qaeda! Look over there!

This is the kind of ignorance I am talking about when I say remain vigilante. No matter how relaxed we get, and what politics we follow, these warnings should always be taken seriously. I wonder how this person will feel if it does happen? They’ll probably just fall back on some truther, inside job, conspiracy. Bottom line…be careful out there, and keep your eyes open.

But don’t worry too much. Ron Paul’s mall security guards will protect you!

Post to Twitter Post to Plurk Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to Ping.fm Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Email This Email This

Posted by Jay on November 8, 2007 5:33 pm

» Filed Under ACLU, Border Control/Homeland Security, News, Video, War On Terror

Trackback URL:

Links

Comments

16 Responses to “FBI: Al Qaeda May Strike U.S. Shopping Malls”

  1. Otter on November 8th, 2007 6:03 pm

    Good God. The Left truly is ignorant.
    There have already been several Somali
    muslims arrested in Ohio for planning
    to attack one of the major malls where
    they lived.

    And they want to go back to the good ‘ol days
    of clintoon and ‘this should be handled by the
    police’?

    Prediction: Once we get a Democrat in the WH, and
    things like profiling are made illegal, watch what
    happens when attacks begin to occur all across the US.

    We’ll be told we have to live with it.

  2. Jeff Molby on November 8th, 2007 6:17 pm

    There’s no conspiracy, it’s just human nature at its worst. Everyone in the business is so paranoid about preventing the next attack that they see boogeymen around every corner. It’s just massive CYA.

    Nevermind that the paranoia is all our enemy is going for anyways. Nevermind that there are a slew of attacks that are so simple and effective that they don’t require anything more than one suicidal person with access to an everyday ration of every day items.

    Do you really think we could implement any practical policy that would give us a chance to prevent a terrorist from starting a forest fire during a drought as was speculated a few weeks ago? Use your imagination or pickup a 90s era novel. There are a ton of simple and effective ways that we could be terrorized.

    The fact that we haven’t been hit by as much as a sniper (which was very effective) should say more about their means and/or motives than about our defensive abilities.

  3. Jay on November 8th, 2007 6:28 pm

    Yeah, listen to Jeff. If you take a warning issued from the FBI about a possible plan to bomb it seriously enough to take precautions then you are just paranoid of a boogeyman. Pay no attention to the suspicious looking Muslims wearing trench coats…if you do you are probably racist. If you decide to shop online instead of hitting the malls in LA and Chicago, then the terrorists have already won.

  4. Jeff Molby on November 8th, 2007 6:38 pm

    That was an impressive amount of snark packed into one meaningless paragraph, Jay.

    Do you disagree with this statement?

    Nevermind that there are a slew of attacks that are so simple and effective that they don’t require anything more than one suicidal person with access to an everyday ration of every day items.

    What is your answer to this question?

    Do you really think we could implement any practical policy that would give us a chance to prevent a terrorist from starting a forest fire during a drought as was speculated a few weeks ago?

  5. Jay on November 8th, 2007 7:26 pm

    being aware and vigilant as a citizen has thwarted many attacks. Thats what I encourage.

  6. Jeff Molby on November 8th, 2007 7:41 pm

    Really? “many”? I don’t recall any. I don’t doubt that there have been “some”, but “many”?

    Besides that, I’m all for reporting suspicious activity, but that doesn’t even have anything to do with terrorism. Hopefully, my neighbors will report the suspicious guy climbing on my roof, even though my home is not very high on the target list.

    BTW, you encourage a heck of a lot more than that. In fact, I don’t recall a single post-9/11 counter-terrorism policy that you didn’t encourage. I’m all for reasonable precautions but it’s foolish to think the law of diminishing returns doesn’t apply.

  7. po on November 8th, 2007 8:13 pm

    “And they want to go back to the good ‘ol days
    of clintoon and ‘this should be handled by the
    police’?”

    So what, are y’all here advocating the army, marines or national guard patrol the malls this holiday season? oh, right, can’t do that, they’re fighting “them” over there so they’re not here.

    and let’s not forget, that one of the best terrorist attacks on US soil was not done by Muslims in trenchcoats, but an ex-GI in blue jeans. Be vigilant, but please, continue shopping.

  8. Jeff Molby on November 8th, 2007 8:47 pm

    But don’t worry too much. Ron Paul’s mall security guards will protect you!

    Jay, you’re a second amendment guy, aren’t you?

  9. Jay on November 8th, 2007 9:46 pm

    What? I can’t interject a little humor and sarcasm without having my second amendment credentials attacked?

  10. Jeff Molby on November 8th, 2007 10:03 pm

    No, no no. Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that. I was just seeking confirmation because that statement got me thinking about something and the 2nd isn’t discussed here much, so I didn’t remember.

    Here’s the real question:
    Presumably, you support the 2nd in large part because you understand that police are fundamentally bad at preventing crime. How do you reconcile that logic with our current approach to defending against terrorism?

  11. Jay on November 8th, 2007 10:06 pm

    Because I personally know how the military works.

  12. Jeff Molby on November 8th, 2007 10:59 pm

    Ok, I asked you a relevant, open ended question in an effort to better understand how you view the situation. You gave me an answer that tells me nothing besides the fact that you’re certain you are right.

    Would you rather I just launch into a typical internet-style tirade?

  13. kerwin on November 9th, 2007 4:46 am

    I was told the FBI evidence was not reliable about the threat to LA mall. Still it does not hurt to be vigilant.

  14. JRock on November 9th, 2007 12:32 pm

    Lets send more troops overseas instead of protecting our homeland then. Yeah right, I’m donating to Ron Paul again November 11th

  15. Michael Parkatti on November 9th, 2007 1:57 pm

    I wonder why the continued Al Qaeda threats on our Office Supply stores doesn’t get more press? We can’t let them get their hands on our Post-It Notes!

  16. golden phoenix on November 9th, 2007 6:34 pm

    Just allow some armed citizens and make a few less AL QUEDA terrorists

  • Advertise

  • Donate

  • Our Store

    • ACLU Bulldozer
    • Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
  • Syndicate Me