Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

War on Terror a rousing success: al-Qaida has rebuilt to level just before 9/11

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • War on Terror a rousing success: al-Qaida has rebuilt to level just before 9/11

    Gee, I'm so glad we took the fight to them in Iraq where al-Qaida wasn't before we invaded and that we diverted resources from Afghanistan/Pakistan in order to hunt them down in a country where they weren't previously.

    The latest news and headlines from Yahoo News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos.


    U.S. intel warns al-Qaida has rebuilt

    By KATHERINE SHRADER and MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writers 26 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

    The conclusion suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

    Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

    A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

    The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

    Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document focuses on the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

    Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

    The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

    At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

    John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaida's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

    "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

    The threat assessment comes as the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies prepare a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being finalized, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

    Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis. "Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it would probably be ready for distribution this summer.

    Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al-Qaida's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.

    Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer time frame to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that al-Qaida would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

    The new threat assessment puts particular focus on Pakistan, as did Kringen.

    "Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he told the House committee. "At the end of the day, when we have had success, it is when you've been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them."

    Several European countries — among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands — are also highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

    This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

    The report also notes that al-Qaida has increased its public statements, although analysts stressed that those video and audio messages aren't reliable indicators of the actions the group may take.

    The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

    "The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq, the chief organization for killing innocent Iraqis."

    The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq. A progress report that the White House is releasing to Congress this week is expected to indicate scant progress on the political and military benchmarks set for Iraq.

    The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

    The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

    It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

    "Being No. 3 in al-Qaida is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

    The counterterror official said the report does not focus on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, his whereabouts or his role in the terrorist network. Officials say al-Qaida has become more like a "family-oriented" mob organization with leadership roles in cells and other groups being handed from father to son, or cousin to uncle.

    Yet bin Laden's whereabouts are still of great interest to intelligence agencies. Although he has not been heard from for some time, Kringen said officials believe he is still alive and living under the protection of tribal leaders in the border area.

    Armed Services Committee members expressed frustration that more was not being done to get bin Laden and tamp down activity in the tribal areas. The senior intelligence analysts tried to portray the difficulty of operating in the area despite a $25 million bounty on the head of bin Laden and his top deputy.

    "They are in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to al-Qaida," Fingar said.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.

    ___

    On the Net:

    Office of the Director of National Intelligence: http://www.dni.gov/

    CIA: http://www.cia.gov/
    The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

    The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

  • #2
    which is why "The War on Terror" is a bumper sticker

    Comment


    • #3
      Here's to the splendid progress we have made thus far.
      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

      Comment


      • #4
        The real question is: what would Al Qaida have been if we hadn't battled them? Perhaps they would've been 10 times as worse.

        Not to mention that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq finally have hopes for a better future.

        Another valid question is of course: the levels of criminality in most western nations hardly ever drops but mostly stays the same. Shall we stop trying to jail the criminals?
        Formerly known as "CyberShy"
        Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

        Comment


        • #5
          You are missing the point. They weren't in Iraq and Iraq has drained resources that we could have used to do the job properly in Afghanistan.
          Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
          Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
          We've got both kinds

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MikeH
            You are missing the point. They weren't in Iraq and Iraq has drained resources that we could have used to do the job properly in Afghanistan.
            Both jobs are jobs that take time and do not depend on more or less resources.
            Both countries need time to figure out their intern problems, and as with almost all countries that are freed from tyrany, that's been done through war.
            Formerly known as "CyberShy"
            Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by CyberShy
              The real question is: what would Al Qaida have been if we hadn't battled them? Perhaps they would've been 10 times as worse.

              Not to mention that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq finally have hopes for a better future.

              Another valid question is of course: the levels of criminality in most western nations hardly ever drops but mostly stays the same. Shall we stop trying to jail the criminals?
              Originally posted by CyberShy
              Originally posted by MikeH
              You are missing the point. They weren't in Iraq and Iraq has drained resources that we could have used to do the job properly in Afghanistan.
              Both jobs are jobs that take time and do not depend on more or less resources.
              Both countries need time to figure out their intern problems, and as with almost all countries that are freed from tyrany, that's been done through war.
              What part of "al-Qaida was NOT in Iraq prior to the US invasion" is confusing to you Cyber?

              Edit: QFanti-DanS'ing
              Last edited by DRoseDARs; July 12, 2007, 05:51.
              The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

              The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Seems a bit naive to claim the Iraq war has anything to do with sanctuary given to AQ in Pakistan. The decision to not press the actions here has everything to do with stability of Pervez Musharraf. Or am I mistaken that most posting in this thread are advocating actions resulting in immediate overthrow of "My words are backed with Nuclear Weapons" Pakistan?
                "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                Comment


                • #9
                  What part of "al-Qaida was NOT in Iraq prior to the US invasion" is confusing to you Cyber?


                  What confuses you that much that you think that it confuses me? I'm really confused since I've said nothing about Al Qaida in Iraq.
                  Formerly known as "CyberShy"
                  Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
                    Seems a bit naive to claim the Iraq war has anything to do with sanctuary given to AQ in Pakistan. The decision to not press the actions here has everything to do with stability of Pervez Musharraf. Or am I mistaken that most posting in this thread are advocating actions resulting in immediate overthrow of "My words are backed with Nuclear Weapons" Pakistan?
                    And this is even dumber than what Cyber posted. It has everything to do with Iraq. Part of the Bush Administration's public attempts to get the public behind war with Iraq was the incessant intermingling of Iraq and 9/11. al-Qaida attacked us, not Iraq. al-Qaida was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Resources being used to fight al-Qaida and the remnants of the new-deposed Taliban in Afghanistan were redirected to Iraq, where neither entity existed. The Taliban and al-Qaida have retaken much of Afghanistan because our attention and resources were diverted elsewhere, Iraq, which allowed them to also slip into Pakistan to bolster anti-Musharraf, radical fundamentalists in that country. In taking those actions, we've greatly exacerbated the threat to the stability of Musharraf's government. We made it much more possible for the anti-Musharraf elements to move against him and take control of that country as well.
                    The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

                    The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's been a giant cluster f*ck from start to finish.
                      Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
                      Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
                      We've got both kinds

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        And this is even dumber than what Cyber posted.


                        If you think that my posts are dumb, respond to me with arguments, instead of making this kinda remarks to other members.

                        It's a bit arrogant, btw, to think that arguments you disagree with are 'dumb'.

                        It has everything to do with Iraq. Part of the Bush Administration's public attempts to get the public behind war with Iraq was the incessant intermingling of Iraq and 9/11.


                        No, that's not true.
                        As it's not true that Bush invaded Iraq b/c of WMD.
                        It's a (well executed and succeeding) corruption of history.

                        The Bush administration has argumented that Sadam should be removed before terrorists would join forces with SH, not because they had already done that.
                        The idea is very simple, the Afghanistan administration used to give home to terrorists, now the Taliban had been gone we must be sure that no other governament could possibly take over.

                        2nd argument (or maybe: the #1 argument) was that the 9/11 attacks were mainly based in the USA presence in Saudi Arabia (the holy land for all muslims).

                        The USA troops were in SA to contain SH since the 2nd Gulf War. (which worked perfectly, btw.)
                        After 9/11 there was a new situation where it was neither a good idea to stay in SA for an unknown timeframe nor to leave SA and give SH a good change to start new wars.

                        The report that showed in the end that SH didn't have WMD did also state clearly that SH had the intention to start his WMD program again as soon as the USA/UK forces would've left SA/Quwait.

                        Thus: the forces had to leave to end the provocation of the muslims, but that could only be done after the regime of SH had been changed.

                        Regime Change has ALWAYS been the #1 reason for the war.

                        It was Tony Blair, and Europe, that would only want to intervene if there were security risks for Europe (selfish bastards). And thus only if there were WMD. Tony Blair convinced Bush that the WMD card had to be played only to get the other world leaders in line behind him.

                        The biggest mistake Bush has made was his very very bad PR. From which he suffers from till today.
                        Formerly known as "CyberShy"
                        Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by CyberShy
                          What part of "al-Qaida was NOT in Iraq prior to the US invasion" is confusing to you Cyber?


                          What confuses you that much that you think that it confuses me? I'm really confused since I've said nothing about Al Qaida in Iraq.
                          Right, and no one in the Bush Administration ever said al-Qaida and Iraq were in cahoots to make the 9/11 attacks possible. Instead, they did exactly what you have done in this thread: Made allusions, changed the subject, avoided the issues, brought up irrelevant points, and threw out different reasonings every other day.

                          You tried to make it seem anyone here is saying we SHOULDN'T have gone into Afghanistan. I supported that action and still do, but the diversion to Iraq totally fuxored whatever progress we made in Afghanistan. We made things worse there because instead of finishing them, we allowed them to have just enough strength to slink over the border and bolster efforts there to overthrow a nuclear government, as well as regroup to take back a large portion of the country they had just snuck out of.

                          Iraq had squat to do with Afghanistan, we had no business going there. If you insist that we did, there are dozens of other countries
                          whose citizens are in desperate need liberation from oppressive regimes, and regimes who support terrorism, and regimes who have had, have sought WMDs, or seek to produce WMDs. Iraq was no threat. No one, not even our own intelligence agencies, thought they were a threat or had WMDs. No one except the delusional few who were jonesing for war with Iraq. This was a war of choice, not one of necessity, and matters that truly need our attention have gotten worse because of the diversion to Iraq.

                          And then you go on some asinine tangent on "criminality in most western nations" which is irrelevant to this thread.
                          The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

                          The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Oh, obviously wrong things have been said. On all sides.

                            Yes, Iraq had everything to do with Afghanistan. Not because Al Qaida was linked to Iraq, but because of the reasons I gave above.

                            Terrorism had a home in Afghanistan. Al Qaida was started to fight corrupt islamitic leaders, and to fight the presence of 'heathens' in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). And the heathens were in the holy land to contain Saddam Hussein. It's as simple as that.

                            The presence of the USA/UK troops in Saudi Arabia provoced the muslims to the 9/11 attacks. And since there was no sight of improvement in Iraq, action needed to be token, not in the last place because an untrustworthy regime as the SH regime could easily start to host or fund new terroristic activities now Afghanistan couldn't do that anymore.

                            Al Qaida and SH didn't share anything, except a common enemy. And everybody knows that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is still one of the major rules in conflicts.
                            Formerly known as "CyberShy"
                            Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by CyberShy
                              And this is even dumber than what Cyber posted.


                              If you think that my posts are dumb, respond to me with arguments, instead of making this kinda remarks to other members.

                              It's a bit arrogant, btw, to think that arguments you disagree with are 'dumb'.


                              It has everything to do with Iraq. Part of the Bush Administration's public attempts to get the public behind war with Iraq was the incessant intermingling of Iraq and 9/11.


                              No, that's not true.
                              As it's not true that Bush invaded Iraq b/c of WMD.
                              It's a (well executed and succeeding) corruption of history.

                              The Bush administration has argumented that Sadam should be removed before terrorists would join forces with SH, not because they had already done that.

                              The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.


                              The idea is very simple, the Afghanistan administration used to give home to terrorists, now the Taliban had been gone we must be sure that no other governament could possibly take over.
                              And when we diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaida retook a large portion of that country, as well as infect northern Pakistan. We haven't exactly done a good job of "making sure" Afghanistan is under the complete control of friendly forces...

                              2nd argument (or maybe: the #1 argument) was that the 9/11 attacks were mainly based in the USA presence in Saudi Arabia (the holy land for all muslims).
                              You have a particular point for telling us what we already know and no one questions?

                              The USA troops were in SA to contain SH since the 2nd Gulf War. (which worked perfectly, btw.)
                              Again, your point for stating the obvious?

                              After 9/11 there was a new situation where it was neither a good idea to stay in SA for an unknown timeframe nor to leave SA and give SH a good change to start new wars.
                              You're still wandering aimlessly and throwing out the "9/11 changed everything" bumbersticker meme...

                              The report that showed in the end that SH didn't have WMD did also state clearly that SH had the intention to start his WMD program again as soon as the USA/UK forces would've left SA/Quwait.
                              We weren't going to be leaving anything so long as Saddam was in power. Given how crippled his regime was, had we stayed right where we were he would never managed to develop WMDs with us breathing down his neck.

                              Thus: the forces had to leave to end the provocation of the muslims, but that could only be done after the regime of SH had been changed.

                              Regime Change has ALWAYS been the #1 reason for the war.

                              It was Tony Blair, and Europe, that would only want to intervene if there were security risks for Europe (selfish bastards). And thus only if there were WMD. Tony Blair convinced Bush that the WMD card had to be played only to get the other world leaders in line behind him.

                              The biggest mistake Bush has made was his very very bad PR. From which he suffers from till today.
                              Too contorted to bother with.
                              The cake is NOT a lie. It's so delicious and moist.

                              The Weighted Companion Cube is cheating on you, that slut.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X