Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Al-Qaida Strongest Since 9/11

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

  • Al-Qaida Strongest Since 9/11

    Intelligence report: Al Qaida at renewed strength in Pakistan
    By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers


    WASHINGTON — The al Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since it was expelled from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a new top-level U.S. intelligence assessment concludes, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

    Calling al Qaida the most potent terrorist threat to U.S. national security, the classified draft makes clear that the Bush administration has been unable to cripple Osama bin Laden and the violent terror movement he founded.

    The report is known as a National Intelligence Estimate, which is the highest level analysis produced by the U.S. intelligence community for the president and Congress. It represents the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

    These conclusions were reflected in an unclassified report on global threats to U.S. security delivered Wednesday to the House Armed Services Committee, said U.S. officials, who spoke anonymously due to the intelligence issues involved.

    Al Qaida's core leadership — a reference to bin Laden and his top aide, Ayman al Zawahri — is increasingly directing global terrorist operations from a haven in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, officials from the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in presenting the unclassified report.

    "We actually see the al Qaida central being resurgent in their role in planning operations. They seem to be fairly well-settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there," John Kringen, the CIA's director for intelligence, said.

    "We see more training, we see more money, and we see more communications," Kringen said.

    Ross Feinstein, a spokesman for Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, confirmed that the National Intelligence Estimate is due for completion this summer. He declined to discuss its contents.

    The report has been in the works for some time "and is not a response to any specific threat," Feinstein said.

    )

    The U.S. intelligence community's assessment of the al Qaida threat comes as more bad news for President Bush.

    Bush has repeatedly tried to cast the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq as part of the struggle against worldwide terrorism.

    But many of the government's own counterterrorism analysts say the Iraq war has fueled anti-Western militancy and served as recruitment aid for bin Laden and like-minded Islamic extremists.

    Over the last two weeks, Bush has cited the violence in Iraq perpetrated by a group calling itself al Qaida in Iraq. But that group wasn't present in Iraq before the March 2003 U.S. invasion, and there is no evidence it is under the control of bin Laden or his lieutenants.

    Paul Pillar, a former top CIA official, said in an interview that al Qaida has seen "a partial strengthening of their position in South Asia."

    That doesn't mean the group has fully reverted to its former strength, he said. "That's not the same as saying we're back to the way things were before September 11, 2001," Pillar said.

    The intelligence analysts also stated in their congressional testimony — more bluntly than officials have before — that bin Laden and his closest aides are in Pakistan, ensconced in that country's rugged tribal areas bordering Pakistan.

    "They continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders hiding in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa, and Europe," Thomas Fingar, deputy director for analysis in McConnell's office, said in written testimony prepared beforehand.

    Previously, U.S. officials have said only that they suspect bin Laden is hiding in the remote border region. It is unclear whether Fingar's remarks reflect new intelligence data on the terrorist leader's location.

    Appearing before the committee, Fingar spoke more vaguely of al Qaida leaders "hiding in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region."

    Pakistan's role as a haven for al Qaida prompted pointed comments from committee members.

    Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., complained that Pakistan's military regime refuses to allow U.S. forces to intervene militarily in the tribal areas. "That doesn't sound like a formula for success to me," Cooper said.

    But Fingar warned that armed U.S. intervention could bolster the militants. "It is not too great an exaggeration to say there is some risk of turning a problem in northwest Pakistan into the problem of all of Pakistan," he said.

    U.S. officials have said in recent weeks that there are growing indications of activity by al Qaida-linked terrorists. But they caution that there is no intelligence involving a specific threat to U.S. soil.

    In remarks reported Tuesday, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board that he believed "we are entering a period this summer of increased risk." Chertoff said his comments were based on a "gut feeling."

    Posted on Wed, July 11, 2007
    McClatchy Newspapers 2007



    I'm guessing we won't be hearing the President talking about Al-Qaida being "on the run". The irony is that Al-Qaida has regrouped under the protection of Pakistan, a supposed ally of the U.S. The upcoming elections in Pakistan, if their military lets them happen at all, could be incredibly important.
    I can't run no more
    With that lawless crowd
    While the killers in high places
    Say their prayers out loud
    But they've summoned, they've summoned up
    A thundercloud
    They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen

  • #2
    People also forget that Saudi Arabia is a huge haven for al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally of the United States.

    Consider these facts about Saudi Arabia:

    1. Of the 19 terrorists about the 4 hijacked planes in the 9/11 tragedy, 14 of them were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq.

    2. Osama bin Ladin, the alleged leader of al Qaida, was born and raised in Saudi Arabia.

    3. At the time of September 11, 2001, there were more al Qaida members in Saudi Arabia than in any Muslim country.

    Why has not the USA tried to hold Saudi Arabia responsible for al Qaida? IMO, the USA does not want to offend Saudi Arabia, which is the number one importer of Mideast oil to the USA.

    It should be noted that Iraq has the #2 proven reserves of oil in the Mideast--which is what the rationale for the Iraq invasion is truly all about, IMO. Invading and occupying Iraq is primarily about securing Iraq's oil. Fighting al-Qaida is just a smokescreen for having our troops in Iraq.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by oregonpackfan
      People also forget that Saudi Arabia is a huge haven for al-Qaida. Saudi Arabia is supposedly an ally of the United States.
      The Saudi royal family are ... lets say greasy. They are very practical, unprincipled, interested in one thing - staying in power. They will cut deals with anybody: Islamist extremists, Jews, Americans, doesn't matter.
      In the past, they placated Islamic extremists, bought them off by financing their lovely extremist schools, the Madrasses.
      But I promise you that the Saudi goverment is no longer coddling the extremists! They are now at war. Bin Laden is commited first and foremost to toppling the Saudi royal family. al-Qaedi types hate the Saudi establishment (and the governments of Egypt, Jordan etc.) far more than the U.S. They want to establish a caliphate (muslem empire) across the middle east. Maybe someday they hope to take Ohio too, I don't know; but really their goal is to purify muslem lands.




      Originally posted by oregonpackfan
      2. Osama bin Ladin, the alleged leader of al Qaida, was born and raised in Saudi Arabia..
      yes, but his primary beef is with the insufficiently holy Royal Family. He went into the terrorism business because the Royal Family let infidels, that would be us, on sacred Moslem land during the first Gulf War.

      Originally posted by oregonpackfan
      Invading and occupying Iraq is primarily about securing Iraq's oil. Fighting al-Qaida is just a smokescreen for having our troops in Iraq.
      I agree with this, pretty much. But the business about bringing democracy to the Middle East was also sincere in many war supporters minds.

      Comment


      • #4
        Get use to it. We are going to have to deal with these bastards forever. You just can't tuck them away in your closet and hope they disappear when you shut your eyes to go to sleep at night.

        Eventully they will find countries willing to accept their money and harbor them until the United States pressures them to kick them out, or until the United States infiltrates the said country. If Pakistan so wishes to harbor terrorist then Bush needs to keep his word, and make no distinction in those that cause terror verses those that harbor terrorist.

        I don't have an answer in dealing with these morons, but who does? How can you fight an enemy that doesn't even respect their own lives? Bush has decided to take the war to these fellas, it isn't exactly working and Clinton stuck his head in the sand and that didn't exactly work either. I think it is time to go to one extreme or another with this Muslim dogs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deputy Nutz
          Get use to it.
          Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.
          [QUOTE=George Cumby] ...every draft (Ted) would pick a solid, dependable, smart, athletically limited linebacker...the guy who isn't doing drugs, going to strip bars, knocking around his girlfriend or making any plays of game changing significance.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by swede
            Originally posted by Deputy Nutz
            Get use to it.
            Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.
            The only problem is that the left wing MSM continues to give sustenance to our enemies. We are winning the war, but they won't report it.

            The only hope for this country is to re-elect the bestest president ever, God bless president Bush.

            I know that he will not rest till Osama is found.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
              Originally posted by swede
              Originally posted by Deputy Nutz
              Get use to it.
              Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.
              The only problem is that the left wing MSM continues to give sustenance to our enemies. We are winning the war, but they won't report it.

              The only hope for this country is to re-elect the bestest president ever, God bless president Bush.

              I know that he will not rest till Osama is found.
              I voted for Bush for two terms, but I find his method and understanding of the rest of the world is not the answer in dealing with these individuals or for that matter the world.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Deputy Nutz
                Originally posted by Tyrone Bigguns
                Originally posted by swede
                Originally posted by Deputy Nutz
                Get use to it.
                Too right! Given the lack of a geographical issue and the fight over cultural and religious issues without respect, really, to any country or government in particular, this could be a 2 or 3 hundred year conflict.
                The only problem is that the left wing MSM continues to give sustenance to our enemies. We are winning the war, but they won't report it.

                The only hope for this country is to re-elect the bestest president ever, God bless president Bush.

                I know that he will not rest till Osama is found.
                I voted for Bush for two terms, but I find his method and understanding of the rest of the world is not the answer in dealing with these individuals or for that matter the world.
                Yet you voted for him twice.
                C.H.U.D.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So did I.

                  I can agree that the Bush Administration's handling hasn't been perfect, but I positively shudder at the thought of either Gore or Kerry in charge.

                  BUSH= Ballot Ugly; Settled Here

                  And for all of you who are bent outta shape by this report, consider that these are the same folks that brought us reports of yellowcake in Niger and WMDs in Iraq. If you don't believe what they said then, and "Bush Lied", then why are you so ready to believe them now? Just because it's politically convenient?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by the_idle_threat
                    So did I.

                    I can agree that the Bush Administration's handling hasn't been perfect, but I positively shudder at the thought of either Gore or Kerry in charge.

                    BUSH= Ballot Ugly; Settled Here

                    And for all of you who are bent outta shape by this report, consider that these are the same folks that brought us reports of yellowcake in Niger and WMDs in Iraq. If you don't believe what they said then, and "Bush Lied", then why are you so ready to believe them now? Just because it's politically convenient?
                    Well I agree that Kerry was not a "Beautiful" option but considering who was in office...
                    C.H.U.D.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      One interesting thing to consider is that what Musharaf did in Pakistan (essentially withdrawing troops from Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.

                      I agree with the sentiment that a substantial motivation for going into Iraq was to secure oil. But don't forget that the U.S. only gets about 18% of it's oil from the midwest. 2/3 of the the few hundred million to billion barrels Iraq has exported in the past several years did not come to the U.S. With China expanding their influence on oil everywhere around the globe (along with their support of corrupt regimes) there is great concern that the oil market, which will be essential to the world economy for a long while yet, will be at risk. Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market? A lot of lives depend on it. Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best method for securing oil, but perhaps it was. Who has the crystal ball?
                      "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mraynrand
                        Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.
                        Judging by the ease with which the Sunnis threw al Qaeda out of Anbar, you have to suppose that al Qaeda is pretty weak and vulnerable. I really think the Iraqis are turning against them decisively, this is the good news.

                        Originally posted by mraynrand
                        Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market?
                        this begs the question: How is the Iraq War securing oil shipping? We've created 10 years (minimum) of future instability in Iraq.

                        If I was running the show, I'd start drawing the troops down this fall.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mraynrand
                          One interesting thing to consider is that what Musharaf did in Pakistan (essentially withdrawing troops from Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.

                          I agree with the sentiment that a substantial motivation for going into Iraq was to secure oil. But don't forget that the U.S. only gets about 18% of it's oil from the midwest. 2/3 of the the few hundred million to billion barrels Iraq has exported in the past several years did not come to the U.S. With China expanding their influence on oil everywhere around the globe (along with their support of corrupt regimes) there is great concern that the oil market, which will be essential to the world economy for a long while yet, will be at risk. Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market? A lot of lives depend on it. Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best method for securing oil, but perhaps it was. Who has the crystal ball?
                          You just made a very good argument for why we should be doing a lot more to develop alternative sources of energy. Also, if we're going to send people to war to secure oil, shouldn't we be honest about why we're really going to war?
                          I can't run no more
                          With that lawless crowd
                          While the killers in high places
                          Say their prayers out loud
                          But they've summoned, they've summoned up
                          A thundercloud
                          They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                            Originally posted by mraynrand
                            Waziristan) is exactly what a lot of people want us to do in Iraq. Clearly al Quaeda is in Iraq and clearly giving them a secure base from which to train is a bad idea.
                            Judging by the ease with which the Sunnis threw al Qaeda out of Anbar, you have to suppose that al Qaeda is pretty weak and vulnerable. I really think the Iraqis are turning against them decisively, this is the good news.

                            You see the point. Al Quaeda is not that strong militarily. When 170,000 US troops are in the area and there is local co-operation, they'r effectively pitiful. That's why you have to stay until you run them out. Further South, you still have to dear with Sadr. He has more power, but at least he's been marginalized by the government. In Waziristan, there doesn't seem to t be the same will power and U.S. forces (i think) don't have the same freedom to go through there (they would have to violate Pakistan sovereignty I believe, to attack al Quaeda there).


                            Originally posted by mraynrand
                            Is there really anything wrong with the U.S. trying to secure the oil shipping market?
                            this begs the question: How is the Iraq War securing oil shipping? We've created 10 years (minimum) of future instability in Iraq.

                            If I was running the show, I'd start drawing the troops down this fall.
                            I'd start drawing down once the Iraqi troops could show that they can secure areas without U.S. troops. I'd draw down U.S. troops immediately wherever the Iraqi forces prove competent. So I guess I'd be doing the same thing you suggest, but with specific criteria as a guide.

                            The area may be destabilized for the next ten years, but at least after those ten years, we should have a strong ally that will trade oil with the rest of the world. If China controls African and Venezuelan oil by that time, the world would be up shit river without a paddle with fewer oil-rich allies in the mideast (at least I think that's the reasoning.
                            "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Joemailman
                              You just made a very good argument for why we should be doing a lot more to develop alternative sources of energy. Also, if we're going to send people to war to secure oil, shouldn't we be honest about why we're really going to war?
                              Exactly. But the grown-ups in the room realize you're not going to dismantle and replace a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure surrounding oil production in a short time. I would submit that we already have the means to dispense with most mideastern oil (but the reast of our allies may not). There is absolutely no good reason why the entire U.S. electrical grid can't be supplied by nuclear power. That's just a lack of will. More nuke plants could also provide the energy to produce hydrogen, and that would further reduce the need for oil. But even f there were a concerted effort, you're talking about several decades. Who will support 100-500 new nuclear plants?
                              "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X