DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum The Return of Al Qaeda? But.........

The war goes on, and we are winning. (Applause.)

To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda. They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies. (Applause.)

We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits the Gibraltar. We've broken al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London, Paris, as well as, Buffalo, New York.

We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice. (Applause.)

From his State of the Union speeach, January 2003

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

On Sept. 30, George W. Bush, during the first presidential debate, stated, "We pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to hide. Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we're after them." He also said, "[Osama bin Laden is] isolated--75 percent of his people have been brought to justice." Then, on Oct. 8,he said, "I vowed to our countrymen that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. That's why we're bringing Al Qaida to justice. Seventy five percent of them have been brought to justice." And, on Oct. 13, he said, "I have got a comprehensive strategy to not only chase down the Al Qaida, wherever it exists--and we're making progress; three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice--but to make sure that countries that harbor terrorists are held to account."
The "75%" claim was also made by Bush during the Republican convention.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/102604Cherbonnier.shtml


Now to reality in 2007.......................................

The Return of Al Qaeda

A new National Intelligence Estimate raises concerns that the terrorist group is growing stronger.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek

Updated: 6:10 p.m. ET July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007 - A new National Intelligence Estimate presents a sobering analysis of terrorism threats to the United States, concluding that Al Qaeda has reconstituted its core structure along the Pakistani border and may now be a stronger and more resilient organization today than it appeared a year ago, according to three U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the draft document.

The officials, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive matters, said the still-classified document reflects growing jitters among U.S. counterterrorism officials, even while those officials stressed there is “no credible, specific” intelligence on any imminent threat to the homeland. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff underscored the concerns this week when he told the Chicago Tribune that he had a “gut feeling” that the country was entering a new period of increased risk this summer.

In fact, the activities of Al Qaeda’s leadership along the Afghan-Pakistani border are only one component of an overall threat environment that is worrying officials both in the United States and Europe. The stepped-up movement of suspected Islamic militants between Iraq and Europe has proven so troubling that the German government recently set up a special interagency team to track the flow of suspected jihadi recruits to and from that worn-torn country, two German sources told NEWSWEEK.

Over the past few months, U.S. officials said, the U.S. Embassy in Berlin has issued a number of warnings that Islamic militants associated with Al Qaeda may be plotting an attack on U.S. military facilities and personnel in Germany. The suspected plots are believed to be linked to an obscure terrorist network known as the Islamic Jihad Union. The group originated in Uzbekistan, but its German network has recently attracted recruits of other nationalities. Investigators also suspect it may have established contact with Al Qaeda’s high command.

A wealth of new evidence from recent overseas developments, including the investigation into the foiled bombing attacks in the United Kingdom, has prompted the FBI to mobilize teams of agents to track down leads and potential witnesses in the United States, a law-enforcement official confirmed today. The official said that recent assignments, first reported on the ABC News online column The Blotter, were part of a "stepped up" effort over the next few weeks in light of the disturbing current threat picture.

Assessing the precise nature of terror threats has proven a notoriously unreliable exercise for the U.S. intelligence community. In the first few years after the September 11 attacks, for example, nervous U.S. officials repeatedly announced warnings of increased risk—in some cases issuing Orange alerts, the second highest level—sometimes based on what turned out to be faulty or exaggerated intelligence reports. U.S. officials are fearful of again being perceived as “crying wolf” or scaring the public—one reason they have for the time being decided not to raise the alert level this summer.

The NIE reflects the consensus judgment of U.S. intelligence agencies and is prepared by the National Intelligence Council. A version of the new report, due to be released later this summer, is especially striking because it contrasts in some respects with previous analyses by the U.S. intelligence community. An NIE on “Trends in Global Terrorism”—portions of which were declassified last September—concluded that U.S. counterterrorism efforts “have seriously damaged the leadership of Al Qaeda and disrupted its operations.”

At the same time, however, last year’s NIE also warned that Al Qaeda had spawned a jihadi movement that had metastasized, and that radical jihadis were “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” One cause, the analysis concluded, was the U.S. invasion of Iraq—which intelligence officials said had become a “cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihaidst movement.”

But the new NIE’s conclusions about Al Qaeda activities in Pakistan, along with the increasing signs of jihadi militants flowing out of Iraq, suggest that the U.S. counterterrorism community may now be facing the worst of both worlds: a reconstituted Al Qaeda leadership coupled with a growing and dispersed worldwide army of angry jihadis inflamed by the U.S. presence in Iraq. The new document’s conclusions also could make it more difficult for the White House to argue, as it frequently has in the past, that President Bush’s post-9/11 efforts have made the country “safer.”

The signs that Al Qaeda leaders have regrouped and reconstituted themselves have been evident in increased intelligence reporting about plots against U.S. interests emanating from the Pakistani border, along with what one official called an unsually “robust” Al Qaeda public-affairs campaign. The organization has released audio, video and Internet messages on average once a week. (In just the last week, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has released two messages—one audio and one video—in which he rails against U.S. policies. He also threatened to attack Britain in response to the granting of a knighthood to author Salman Rushdie.)

The primary development that has allowed all this to happen, U.S. officials say, was the peace agreement signed last year between the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in the remote region of North Waziristan. The withdrawal of Pakistani troops under that agreement gave Al Qaeda leaders new freedom to operate with relative impunity, officials said. "Clearly, they are resurgent,” said one senior U.S. intelligence official about Al Qaeda. (The official, who is familiar with the NIE’s findings, asked not to be identified because the document remains classified.)

The NIE was described by officials as a broad look at potential terrorist threats to the homeland, and includes discussion of a number of worrisome trends, including the rise of so-called "homegrown” jihadis inside the United States who are not necessarily connected to Al Qaeda but inspired by its message. Although a draft of the document is circulating among U.S. security agencies, it is not yet in final form and has not yet been briefed to congressional intelligence committees. But officials said that its conclusions about the renewed strength of bin Laden’s terror organization are not likely to come as a surprise; they are consistent with briefings the panels have been receiving for some time. European officials contacted by NEWSWEEK affirm that recent intelligence they have gathered substantiates the notion that Al Qaeda’s high command was regaining strength.

The news of the German effort to track the movements of suspected Islamic militants to and from Iraq follows disclosures of possible connections between Al Qaeda’s Iraqi affiliate—known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, or AQI—and one or more suspects in the recent attempted car bombings in London and Glasgow.

One of the British suspects who is believed to have built and planted the London bombs and then ridden in a booby-trapped Jeep driven into a Glasgow Airport terminal was Bilal Abdullah, an Iraqi doctor working near Glasgow for Britain's National Health Service. Authorities charged Abdullah last weekend with conspiracy to cause explosions. A second man in the Glasgow airport Jeep, Kafeel Ahmed, an aeronautical engineer, was severely burned after setting himself on fire during the airport incident and may not survive his injuries.

Two officials close to the British investigation say that some intelligence has already been collected indicating that one or more of the suspects in the London/Glasgow plots had been in contact with AQI, and possibly with AQI leaders. (One of the officials said there is no indication that the plotters were in direct contact with AQI's notorious founder Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the bloodthirsty Jordanian-born jihadi who was killed in U.S. airstrike last year.)

A similar concern about possible threats from Iraqi jihadis seems to have prompted the recent decision by the German government's Joint Counterterrorism Center (known in Germany as GTAZ) to set up an "Iraq travel movement project."

German sources, who agreed to discuss the matter in exchange for anonymity, said the number of suspects whose movements are being tracked by the project is classified; that figure is also the subject of some debate in government circles. But it is "more than a handful," according to one source. Another source said German authorities know "for sure" that there have been movements from their country to areas in Iraq where jihadi groups like AQI are believed to hold sway. "A number" of jihadi suspects who have returned to Germany after spending some time in Iraq are on the travel project's radar screen, the source says.

The sources said the project coordinates the activities of several German agencies. They include the Federal Criminal Police (Germany's FBI); the Federal Border Police; spy units like the Federal Intelligence Service (Germany's CIA), and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (the equivalent of Britain's M.I.5). The object is to monitor "quite closely" the movements of German-based suspects to and from Iraq and nearby countries.

German government experts believe that the war in Iraq is already providing potential "motivation" for suspected terrorist plotters, whose plans are periodically uncovered by German authorities. These include plots by self-recruiting cells of disgruntled Islamic militants who might have little obvious previous contact with known terror networks.

Some suspects known to the project who have visited Iraq are believed to have "got a very good education" in jihadi ideology and tactics while there, one of the German sources said. Still, German authorities do not believe that jihadis returning from Iraq pose immediate attack threats. At the moment, said one source, known Iraq returnees appear to be "very calm."

But German authorities are taking few chances. Over the last few weeks, they have issued a series of increasingly anxious public warnings about growing intelligence indicating possible Islamic terror attacks inside Germany. At a press conference last month, August Hanning, a deputy Interior minister who previously headed the Federal Intelligence Service, said that the intelligence picture German agencies were seeing was reminiscent of what intelligence agencies saw in the months before 9/11.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

He may have taken care of the original Al Qaeda, but the problem is that the threat isn't in the individual terrorists - it's in the mindset that fuels people to turn to terrorism (and that hasn't gone away in the slightest). Unfortunately, for every one you kill, there's a terrorist waiting in the wings to take his place.

Right...so lets just give up and say you win terrorists you win...

Or maybe we should be come completely isolationists and turn our backs to anything outside our borders...because that always works well for every country that has tried it...

Combating terrorism, physically, monetarily as well as educationally is the only way to defeat them. By combating them physically we choose our battlefield. Monetarily, we can prevent the funding needed for a plan to take shape. And with education(and I am not just talking about ABC's) we can deny a recruiting base for new terrorists....The problem is that all of this takes time that most are not willing to wait for....

Or maybe instead of being in the middle of Iraqs civil war and nation building,we should be fighting Al Qaeda?

Or are all the Sunnis and Shias in Iraq part of "Al Qaeda" now too? Because that's what we're doing in Iraq.

Al Qaeda's MAJOR strong holds are still in Afghanastan and now in Pakistan too. Why aren't we putting our efforts into where the bulk of them really are instead of playing this foolish game and CLAIM to be fighting them?

But some people still don't get it.............................

Pakistan Reaches Peace Accord With Pro-Taliban Militias
Deal Arouses Alarm in Afghanistan

By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 6, 2006

KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 5 -- The government of Pakistan signed a peace accord Tuesday with pro-Taliban forces in the volatile tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, agreeing to withdraw its troops from the region in return for the fighters' pledge to stop attacks inside Pakistan and across the border.

Under the pact, foreign fighters would have to leave North Waziristan or live peaceable lives if they remained. The militias would not set up a "parallel" government administration.

Reached as Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, prepared to visit the Afghan capital Wednesday, the accord aroused alarm among some analysts in Afghanistan. They expressed concern that, whatever the militias promise, a Pakistani army withdrawal might backfire, emboldening the groups to operate more freely in Pakistan and to infiltrate more aggressively into Afghanistan to fight U.S. and allied forces there.

"This could be a very dangerous development," said one official at an international agency, speaking anonymously because the issue is sensitive in both countries. "Until recently there has been relative stability in eastern Afghanistan, but now that could start to deteriorate."

The agreement could add a new element of tension to Musharraf's visit, aimed at smoothing over his relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The two Muslim leaders, both allies in the U.S.-led war against Islamic extremists, have clashed heatedly over allegations that Taliban forces in Afghanistan are receiving support and shelter from inside Pakistan.

Pakistan's move also appeared to complicate the U.S. role in the region. U.S. officials have praised Musharraf for his help in capturing al-Qaeda members and refrained from pressing him hard on cross-border violence. A withdrawal of Pakistani forces could reduce pressure on al-Qaeda figures believed to be hiding in the region, including Osama bin Laden, allowing them more freedom of action.

NATO forces are currently in a fierce conflict with Taliban insurgents in southern Afghanistan, where the militia has attacked in rural districts with increasing boldness in recent months. In the past four days, officials said, a NATO military operation in Kandahar province has killed more than 200 insurgents.

The conflict spread during the summer across the south, where about 10,000 NATO troops recently replaced a smaller number of U.S.-led forces. This week, Britain's top army officer said his forces were barely able to cope with the conflict, and the senior NATO commander here appealed for more support from member countries.

More than 1,500 people have been killed in combat and terrorist attacks this year as violence in Afghanistan swelled to its highest level since 2001, when U.S.-led forces drove the Taliban from power. Suicide bombings, once unheard of, are now almost daily occurrences. Schools have been burned across the region and dozens of community leaders have been assassinated.

U.S. forces continue operating in eastern Afghanistan, where attacks have been far less frequent. But in recent weeks, attacks have stepped up dramatically in Ghazni province, situated between the two regions.

Many Afghans, including President Karzai, have blamed Pakistan for the violence. They charge that the Musharraf government has either failed to control Islamic militants at home or actively supported the Taliban militia, which it officially backed until 2001, in order to destabilize and gain sway over Afghanistan.

Musharraf has denied such claims and vowed to curb armed Islamic extremism in the border areas. In the past several years, he has sent more than 80,000 army troops into the semiautonomous tribal region, where Islamic militants including Afghans, Pakistanis and some Arabs were defying government rule, killing opponents and preaching holy war against the West.

The army units have met with fierce opposition, however, and critics say their presence undermined the tribal political system needed to counter rising Islamic militancy. On Tuesday, the peace pact was greeted with relief and jubilation by army and tribal representatives who gathered in the border town of Miran Shah in the North Waziristan tribal area, according to news service reports.

But some analysts said that the agreement exposed the military government's weakness and that by withdrawing troops, Musharraf is buying a dubious local peace at the risk of giving pro-Taliban groups more power both at home and across the border.

Taliban leaders in North Waziristan announced a unilateral cease-fire during the summer as peace talks got underway. But they have reportedly continued their brutal tactics, such as executing people they view as traitors. Less than a week ago, Pakistani officials found the headless bodies of two men near Miran Shah with notes saying they had been spies for the Kabul government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501249_pf.html

To win the war against terrorism,you really should be fighting them "where they are". At least the bulk of them and their infrastructure.

I'm not against fighting Al Qaeda. I'm all for it. But this civil war between the Sunnis and Shias isn't fighting Al Qaeda. I can't fathom how people are still swallowing that tripe myself.

We're not even fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, we're fighting small individual terrorist cells that probably have more connections to the Taliban than Al Qaeda, but the American public doesn't need to know details.

Im just glad that our resources are where they need to be, In Iraq.

That will surely fight terrorism and we are meeting our goals in Iraq, we arent wasting money and lives.

WE ARE WINNING THE WAR!!! USA USA USA!!!!

The rest of the world looks up to us and we are setting the example of how to properly combat terrorism. I can hold my head up high and say, Im proud to be an a American.

wait a second,,,,

Interesting article I found today:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/07/securitymatters_0712

The Evolutionary Brain Glitch That Makes Terrorism Fail
07.12.07 | 2:00 AM

Two people are sitting in a room together: an experimenter and a subject. The experimenter gets up and closes the door, and the room becomes quieter. The subject is likely to believe that the experimenter's purpose in closing the door was to make the room quieter.

This is an example of correspondent inference theory. People tend to infer the motives -- and also the disposition -- of someone who performs an action based on the effects of his actions, and not on external or situational factors. If you see someone violently hitting someone else, you assume it's because he wanted to -- and is a violent person -- and not because he's play-acting. If you read about someone getting into a car accident, you assume it's because he's a bad driver and not because he was simply unlucky. And -- more importantly for this column -- if you read about a terrorist, you assume that terrorism is his ultimate goal.

It's not always this easy, of course. If someone chooses to move to Seattle instead of New York, is it because of the climate, the culture or his career? Edward Jones and Keith Davis, who advanced this theory in the 1960s and 1970s, proposed a theory of "correspondence" to describe the extent to which this effect predominates. When an action has a high correspondence, people tend to infer the motives of the person directly from the action: e.g., hitting someone violently. When the action has a low correspondence, people tend to not to make the assumption: e.g., moving to Seattle.

Like most cognitive biases, correspondent inference theory makes evolutionary sense. In a world of simple actions and base motivations, it's a good rule of thumb that allows a creature to rapidly infer the motivations of another creature. (He's attacking me because he wants to kill me.) Even in sentient and social creatures like humans, it makes a lot of sense most of the time. If you see someone violently hitting someone else, it's reasonable to assume that he's a violent person. Cognitive biases aren’t bad; they’re sensible rules of thumb.

But like all cognitive biases, correspondent inference theory fails sometimes. And one place it fails pretty spectacularly is in our response to terrorism. Because terrorism often results in the horrific deaths of innocents, we mistakenly infer that the horrific deaths of innocents is the primary motivation of the terrorist, and not the means to a different end.

I found this interesting analysis in a paper by Max Abrams in International Security. "Why Terrorism Does Not Work" (.PDF) analyzes the political motivations of 28 terrorist groups: the complete list of "foreign terrorist organizations" designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. He lists 42 policy objectives of those groups, and found that they only achieved them 7 percent of the time.

According to the data, terrorism is more likely to work if 1) the terrorists attack military targets more often than civilian ones, and 2) if they have minimalist goals like evicting a foreign power from their country or winning control of a piece of territory, rather than maximalist objectives like establishing a new political system in the country or annihilating another nation. But even so, terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy.

There's a lot to quibble about in Abrams' methodology, but he seems to be erring on the side of crediting terrorist groups with success. (Hezbollah's objectives of expelling both peacekeepers and Israel out of Lebanon counts as a success, but so does the "limited success" by the Tamil Tigers of establishing a Tamil state.) Still, he provides good data to support what was until recently common knowledge: Terrorism doesn't work.

This is all interesting stuff, and I recommend that you read the paper for yourself. But to me, the most insightful part is when Abrams uses correspondent inference theory to explain why terrorist groups that primarily attack civilians do not achieve their policy goals, even if they are minimalist. Abrams writes:

The theory posited here is that terrorist groups that target civilians are unable to coerce policy change because terrorism has an extremely high correspondence. Countries believe that their civilian populations are attacked not because the terrorist group is protesting unfavorable external conditions such as territorial occupation or poverty. Rather, target countries infer the short-term consequences of terrorism -- the deaths of innocent civilians, mass fear, loss of confidence in the government to offer protection, economic contraction, and the inevitable erosion of civil liberties -- (are) the objects of the terrorist groups. In short, target countries view the negative consequences of terrorist attacks on their societies and political systems as evidence that the terrorists want them destroyed. Target countries are understandably skeptical that making concessions will placate terrorist groups believed to be motivated by these maximalist objectives.


In other words, terrorism doesn't work, because it makes people less likely to acquiesce to the terrorists' demands, no matter how limited they might be. The reaction to terrorism has an effect completely opposite to what the terrorists want; people simply don't believe those limited demands are the actual demands.

This theory explains, with a clarity I have never seen before, why so many people make the bizarre claim that al Qaeda terrorism -- or Islamic terrorism in general -- is "different": that while other terrorist groups might have policy objectives, al Qaeda's primary motivation is to kill us all. This is something we have heard from President Bush again and again -- Abrams has a page of examples in the paper -- and is a rhetorical staple in the debate. (You can see a lot of it in the comments to this previous essay.)

In fact, Bin Laden's policy objectives have been surprisingly consistent. Abrams lists four; here are six from former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris:

1. End U.S. support of Israel
2. Force American troops out of the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia
3. End the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and (subsequently) Iraq
4. End U.S. support of other countries' anti-Muslim policies
5. End U.S. pressure on Arab oil companies to keep prices low
6. End U.S. support for "illegitimate" (i.e. moderate) Arab governments, like Pakistan


Although Bin Laden has complained that Americans have completely misunderstood the reason behind the 9/11 attacks, correspondent inference theory postulates that he's not going to convince people. Terrorism, and 9/11 in particular, has such a high correspondence that people use the effects of the attacks to infer the terrorists' motives. In other words, since Bin Laden caused the death of a couple of thousand people in the 9/11 attacks, people assume that must have been his actual goal, and he's just giving lip service to what he claims are his goals. Even Bin Laden's actual objectives are ignored as people focus on the deaths, the destruction and the economic impact.

Perversely, Bush’s misinterpretation of terrorists' motives actually helps prevent them from achieving their goals.

None of this is meant to either excuse or justify terrorism. In fact, it does the exact opposite, by demonstrating why terrorism doesn't work as a tool of persuasion and policy change. But we’re more effective at fighting terrorism if we understand that it is a means to an end and not an end in itself; it requires us to understand the true motivations of the terrorists and not just their particular tactics. And the more our own cognitive biases cloud that understanding, the more we mischaracterize the threat and make bad security trade-offs.


~Lyuokdea

Being in Iraq is making us less safer, not more so. I want our soldiers home and finding Bin ladin. Make our borders secure, that would make us safer. Work for a stable (but not occupied) middle east, that would make us safer. Have actaul cooperation between government agencies and branches, that would make us safer.

By occupying a country we are creating terrorists. JMHO.

"Being in Iraq is making us less safer, not more so"

I totally agree. Not only are the resources not in the US, but we continue to of the Middle East. One day we will realize, I just hope its not too late.

See,here's where I get frustrated by the strategy.

I feel the "redeployment" of our troops is far more wise than "bringing them home".

Al Qauda isn't strictly an "Iraq issue". Why claim to be in "a global war on terror",then put all your eggs in one basket? Unless of course you feel we're just going to "invade EVERY country where these terroriste reside" one by one?

Only through intelligence with strategic hits on terrorist strongholds can you truely have anything that resembles a "global war on terror".

I have no clue how long,or how much evidence has to mount untill that becomes a realisation to some. Pakistan is harboring more "terrorists" than anyone I know of right now. In Afghanastan some of responsibilities have been handed over to NATO forces. I'm not even sure who's calling the shots in that war now,the U.S. or NATO? Afghanastan was the problem from the very beginning. It could have and should have been priority one. And I've said that from the very start.

And the agreement between the leader of Pakistan and militant Islamics?

Oh yeah! They're government are our friends! If that isn't a load of BS,I don't know what is.

Keeping the Shias and Sunnis from killing the hell out of each other in Iraq in no way addresses a global war on terror. Our current strategy and methodology will not achieve that.

JMHO

Oh I hear ya! I still want that guys head on a pole. Root him and his whole organization out in the stans.

Plus I said, safer and I think I should have sais "less safe"

More coffee needed. It's still early in alaska!

Quote:

---

Al Qauda isn't strictly an "Iraq issue". Why claim to be in "a global war on terror",then put all your eggs in one basket?

---

Pit, you and I have discussed this before and I still maintain that our original intention with respect to Iraq was to own the basket. We needed a place from which launch our global war on terror... the real one. We were also hoping.. HOPING that if Iraq worked out, we could use it as a trophey to show the civilians of other Islamic countries.... this is the kind of freedom and prosperity you too could enjoy, if you would rise up and overthrow your dictator...

The problem is, we could have all of the best intel in the world, we could use the search and destroy method, but if we found a terror cell in Iran, what are we going to do about it? Bomb them? Assault team? this applies to most other countries as well.. we could know for sure that there were 20 terrorists living in a house in Pakistan and we could blow it up... but if the 7 year old on his bike in the street takes some shrapnel or loses a leg, the media will still make us look like the bad guy...

Yes DC,that's what I'm saying.

I mean,from my perspective on the issue,these governments in some cases,and much of their populations in others,are no less contemptious towards us for being in Iraq,than they would be with isolated strikes against extremists. I think the "hearts and minds" angle is a lost cause in much of the Islamic controled part of the globe either way you attack the problem.

At least our overall global image would be more respected IMO. Because we wouldn't be "overthrowing governments" or "occupying nations" as we are now. Instead? We would be using "strategic strikes on the terrorists". From a logistics,casualty and monitary standpoint,I believe it would be a far greater and more effective strategy than anything we've seen thus far.

The main reason we are in Iraq is to secure future sources of oil for the USA. China has spent the last few years signing long term contracts with oil producing countries around the world. China wants to ensure that it's oil needs and future growth is secured. The USA has to do the same or our standard of living and quality of life will go way down.

Reason two is to focus Jihadi/Radical Muslims/Al Queda forces overseas where few Americans will be affected. I have no problem calling in artillery or air strikes in Iraq. I'm sure that wouldn't be the case if we were bombing terrorist hideouts in the USA. Car bombings are bad, but since most of the car/IED bombings are in Iraq and Afganistan, few Americans are affected. Iraqis comprise most of the casualties. Fighting a war and destroying someone else's country is much better than destroying ours.

Reason three is that none of the previously listed Al Queda objectives will be met any time soon, therefore they will follow us (to the USA) and keep fighting. It is fairly easy to make car bombs and put them in Wal-Mart/mall/anywhere parking lots or just drive them into buildings and blow them up. None of us want to see that happening here. Internet sites allow bomb building plans to be accessed by almost anyone, even if they haven't been to Pakistan or Afganistan.

Achieving these objectives will not stop future fighting between us and the terrorists. The terrorists goal as faithful Muslims is to establish the Caliphate (Muslim government) to conquer the world. Their eventual mission is Converting all non-Muslims to Islam, killing or enslaving the ones that don't.

Muslims (Ottoman Turks) put very heavy taxes on non-Muslims (Infidels), took away their children to forceably indoctrinate them to become Muslims and made Infidels wear or carry heavy items (yokes, special clothing or markings etc...). The children that were taken away and indoctrinated later came back as members of the Ottoman empire's army and slaughtered the Christian villages where they came from.

Pakistan is a powderkeg of Islamic fervor. If Musharaf pushes too hard on the Taliban and Muslim fundamentalists (MFs), he will be overthrown. We will then have someone with nukes that hates America in Pakistan arming the Taliban and Al Queda. We cannot win in Afganistan, unless the border is secured with Pakistan and Muslim fundamentalism is reduced. We might be able to contain the MFs.

I cannot support a withdrawal of troops from Iraq until the job is done. The draft should be reinstituted and more troops sent to both Afganistan and Iraq.

We live in dangerous times and sometimes we have to earn our freedom. Let's spread some of the blood, sweat and tears around instead of riding our soldiers into the ground.

There's only one serious question Lee, we will do it ourselves "with what"? I mean,we were there once,at least in Afghanastan. I believe we had between 40,000 to 60,000 troops. But the terrain as it is,you would need a far greater number to truely be able to strategicly corner and conquer them with the landscape as it is.

That's where I see the problem. You see,Iraq,after FOUR YEARS of "training their military,has a grand total of "three brigades" ready to actually work as valid military units. While American troops? Four years is a four year tour for one of our troops. Just ask somebody who was drafted or joined the military during war time just how long it took them to be "war ready" and sent into battle.

I do think we can't "pull out" all together. We still need to support them in an effort to "help themselves". We need to leave troops there to continue to help train their military. Enough troops to make startegic strikes against "terrorist strongholds" they find within Iraq.

But my question is,realisticly,after four years,it's time to expect some accountability from them. From their army,from their government. How long is it considered rational to keep excusing them for not making an earnest attempt to help themselves? How long is long enough before we expect their government to stabilize itself. Or at the very least,show signifigant progress to be a stable government?

That's my point. We can't just keep writing off hundreds of billions of dollars helping those who refuse to truely step up and take the reigns of their own destiny. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

I think at some point,"winning the war on global terror" has to override trying to wait out a government and military in Iraq that has done little to improve their own political and military situation.

It's been over three years since Bush stated "As they start stepping up,we will start stepping down" How long must we wait,how many of our troops must die,before it becomes rational and realistic to expect them to start "stepping up"?

Or do they just get a free pass for an unlimited period of time while we spend our blood,sweat,tears and billions of dollars helping those who simply refuse to help themselves? While all at the same time,watch the Taliban and Al Qauda build stronger and stronger along the Afghanastan Pakistan border. While we have so many troops stationed in Iraq,we lack the boots on the ground to place elsewhere to truely fight our enemy where they really are? Which isn't Iraq.

No your right, when is it really "long enough". The bad thing for us though is we are in a situation to have to stay there until they can stand up and fight. But with all the access they have to guns and old Iraqi munitions were in for it for a long time. The United States put the Iraqi people into this mess and forced them to start over. So it is something they really didn't ask for and it's hard to put a timeline on that. But your right and those that have stepped up should have a timeline to know at least when we will be reducing our troop levels so they can be redeployed. Us putting them in that situation or not they will need to function.

Iraq aside, Al Queda is just sitting in Pakistan plotting and training. Sitting in a country thats supposed to be a friend. And this friend isn't letting you into their area to get the mutual enemy. It would be like your best friend telling you "Ohh well we can be friends, but not in school. In school don't even talk to me b/c I don't want anyone to know". The whole Muslim politics. I do understand they have done some things, but if you don't want to solve the problem then let the NATO force keep the heat on. We have an air force that can do something. I am sure these guys train somewhere in the open, let our air force try and take them out.
This is what Musharraf said a few years ago:

He vehemently rejected a suggestion that Pakistan invite a large U.S. force in to patrol the Pakistani side of the border.

"No, sir, that is not a possibility at all,'' said Musharraf. "It's a very sensitive issue.''

Pakistan has a large, experienced army and has no need of foreign forces on Pakistani territory, he said.

"We have a very strong, effective, quick-reaction force who take action whenever we spot any al-Qaida elements,'' Musharraf said.

"Everyone is very satisfied with whatever we've done. On our side, Pakistan operates. On the Afghan side, it is ISAF and U.S. forces which are operating.''

"There is total cooperation of the two sides, and things are functioning very well operationally. There is no need of change now.''

Other reports confirm this statement, with Musharraf saying Al Qaeda was "ineffective" and "on the run."

Terrorism is a global problem. They hate ALL of us and it starts with the jerkweed who's country these tools are siting in to start to do a little more.

Well,I may be wrong here Lee,but I think the odds are that a democrat will be elected president in 08. If not,it will be a GOP that plans to stop "military operations" in Iraq.
ie......Only leave enough troops for training the Iraqi military and strategic terrorists strikes.

The overriding sentiment in this nation is to get out of Iraq. My biggest fear is that someone will be elected who will simply pull ALL of our troops out. That would be a complete disaster.

But with the sentiment in our country,and the elections being next year,I don't feel there's a question of wheather we'll be withdrawing troops from Iraq. But when we'll be doing it and to what extent we'll be doing it.

JMHO

‘The Government Cannot Deliver’

Personally targeted for assassination by the Taliban, the governor of an Afghan province explains why the militants are regaining power and why Osama bin Laden still hasn’t been captured.

By Dan Ephron
Newsweek
Updated: 5:24 p.m. ET July 12, 2007

July 12, 2007 - One of the areas in Afghanistan that's seeing a resurgence of the Taliban recently is Kapisa, a small province about 20 miles northeast of Kabul. In the past few months alone, Taliban fighters have regrouped in Kapisa's district of Tagab and staged several attacks. They're also targeting the governor of Kapisa, Abdul Sattar Murad, who is among Afghanistan's most capable politicians. NEWSWEEK's Dan Ephron sat in recently on meetings Murad held with U.S. military officers coordinating reconstruction projects in his province. American-educated and a veteran of the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Murad worked under President Hamid Karzai, who later signed his appointment as governor. After his meetings, Murad sat down with Ephron for this interview. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: Why is the government losing ground to the Taliban?
Adbul Sattar Murad: This phenomenon is happening all over the country and there are many factors, external and internal … Some strong figures in Pakistan are behind these increased activities of terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, ISI [Pakistan’s intelligence service] in the past was involved and still some of the officers of ISI are involved now in promoting Talibanism in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. In terms of internal factors, the government cannot deliver, and this is a problem. As a governor, I'm not supposed to say this, but I see that we cannot deliver what we're expected to. In remote parts of the country there is practically a vacuum of authority, a vacuum of power. Somebody will have to fill that vacuum. Either the criminals fill that vacuum or the Taliban and Al Qaeda do.

Why would elements of ISI be interested in destabilizing Afghanistan?
Unfortunately, ISI from the very beginning had the idea of having an orthodox state in Afghanistan, backwards, and then using it in the wars against India and Kashmir, recruiting and creating an army of these zealots and sending them to Kashmir. They were pursuing this policy during the era of the Taliban, but that tendency within the ISI still remains. They don't want to see a strong, stable and developed Afghanistan.

But the United States works with President Pervez Musharraf and views him as a key ally.
Those elements are not under his control … Musharraf is himself a target for them right now.

And you said the Afghan government cannot deliver. Why is that?
What's missing is leadership. Afghanistan at this critical moment of its history, we don't have a leadership that can unite the national leaders, which can see the needs of the people and respond to them. All the political parties are now drifting away from the national leadership. All over the country, the people are distancing themselves from the government … Many of the elders, those who have influence, feel they have been left out and are not in the same convoy with the government.

You mentioned being targeted yourself by the Taliban.
The Taliban is targeting me right now and planning to assassinate me by a suicide bomber or a car bomb. We're trying to resist and trying to keep a low profile.

How do you do that?
I changed my routines, my times of going and coming. I change my vehicles frequently. I don't reveal the times of my meetings to others. I have increased security wherever I go. For example, I'm sitting here right now and many people cannot enter the building freely.

Why, after six years, has the United States been unable to locate Osama bin Laden and his deputies?
The U.S. is not receiving full cooperation from Pakistan. Pakistan is cooperating, but the ISI faction, which knows where Al Qaeda is, is not really forthcoming to U.S. intelligence. Inside Afghanistan, there is also a lack of cooperation. The recent resentment created among former leaders who were involved in the war against the Taliban has created a gap between the government and these people, and this is naturally hurting the efforts to find Al Qaeda. Americans, again, are not receiving good information from those leaders, who can play a key role in capturing Mullah Omar and Osama, if he is in Afghanistan. Unless there is a change in this situation, you will see this gap increase day by day.

You're saying there might be various figures in Afghanistan who know where Al Qaeda figures are hiding but aren't cooperating?
Yes. Let me give you an example. People in the present government, particularly some of the ministers or their colleagues, they paint all the people who fought against the Taliban and the Soviets as warlords. They don't differentiate between a good and a bad warlord. They paint everyone in black. Now, [the warlords] feel threatened, so they keep their distance and they don't cooperate. And if they don't cooperate, no one in Al Qaeda is going to be found.

How satisfied are you with the level of U.S. support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan?
I really from my heart appreciate the role the U.S. government is playing in that regard. In my province, particularly, the PRT [the Coalition's Provincial Reconstruction Team] is playing a crucial role. From the time I became governor two and a half years ago, the PRT has been a great supporter of my development plans.

How long do you envision U.S. and NATO forces remaining in your country?
It depends how we conduct ourselves. If we plan well and conduct ourselves well, Afghanistan will develop quickly and have its institutions in place to take care of its own affairs. In that scenario, the U.S. would decrease its presence. But in any event, I think the U.S. will remain in Afghanistan for quite some time, and Afghans are very thankful for it.

What do you tell an Afghan citizen in your province who thinks America is just another occupying power, like the Soviets and the British?
Thank God, that image is not widespread in Afghanistan. Afghans see Americans as a helping force, not an occupying force in the country. A few people have that view but they are a small minority.

Can you envision a situation where the Taliban returns to power?
Really not. The people of Afghanistan hate the Taliban.

Civilian casualties are on the rise here as result of U.S. and NATO operations. How does that impact Afghan public opinion?
The impact is negative. People resent it, and it should be avoided. The problem is that there is no close cooperation between NATO and Afghan security agencies. They don't share intelligence, they don't conduct joint operations, they do things on their own. Two years ago a team of special forces came to the place where you and I are sitting and searched a house for three or four hours and didn't find anything. They confined the family to one or two rooms because they had some information about a cache. The people of Afghanistan are very traditional. And they came to me and said, “What's going on? Are you the governor or are Americans the governors?” I didn't know about the operation and neither did our chief of police. This was very bad for me. They didn't think of sharing this information with our intelligence officers. We have many intelligence officers, they work hard and know many things. The people wanted to protest in the thousands, but I persuaded them not to do that … But I believe for the future of this nation, it's very important to promote Afghan police and the Afghan army, to send them to the front while [U.S. and NATO forces] stay in the back and support.

I suppose American commanders would say in response that they would risk compromising missions by telling Afghan police about them ahead of time. Isn't that a concern?
That is a concern but it can be worked out. It's very simple. They could simply share the information with the top brass. These are technical issues.

There's a lot of talk in the U.S. Congress now of forcing the Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq. If that were to happen, how would it impact Afghanistan?
This would send the wrong signal to Al Qaeda all over the world. For Iraq, I'm afraid it would be a disaster. For Afghanistan, if that kind of atmosphere prevails, it would be very dangerous.

Do you believe American suggestions that Iran is helping arm the Taliban?
We hear that, but I don't believe it myself. Iran doesn't have very good intentions for Afghanistan, but sending arms? I think Iran would not dare to do that. They would fear a U.S. response. They want to see instability in Afghanistan and American troops getting killed. But sending arms? I don't believe it.

© 2007 Newsweek, Inc

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734160/site/newsweek/page/0/

These people in Washington just want to make the American people happy like all is well. Bring our boys home and everything will be better. Well guess what John Q Public, things aren't well in the world. These people over there hate you. They hate our country. They hate anything not Muslim. 6 years later people forget 2 symbols of American success crumbling to the ground. For whatever reason you want to believe about the United States in Iraq, we are still in Iraq. We are in their hood giving them a chance to strike us there and you know what, 9/10 times we will win. It gives us an area to take the fight to them Vs them bringing it to America. The American people are tired of death. The memories of 9/11 have faded and people dying has become bad for business. But this crap is dirty. War is dirty. People die. We have a trained armed forces standing on the line to engage those that hate you so you don't have to. So you don't have to worry about some jackass flying a plane into your office. Pulling out of Iraq before Iraq is ready to stand up for themselves is wrong and is going to create another problem we will have to deal with sooner than later. I want our guys home as much as the next guy, but pulling completely out of there will cost us more trouble and made the guys that have died over there die for nothing. Gradually pull the troops back to Kuwait.Have a quick reaction force ready to go back in when needed and support the boots still on the ground and hit the enemy hard. We have this ability. Not being a General or even any kind of brass I can tell we are prob 2 years away for really getting a good size of our forces out of there. Till then redeploy some to the rear but still with the ability to strike fast n hard.

Tell you what, when the next 9/11 happens, and God I hope it never does, the Americans will wake up once again and after the troops are gone wonder why we didn't stop it from happening.

U.S. Government Uses Al-Qaeda To Attack Iran
Bush authorizes group formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind to be bankrolled & armed by CIA for covert regime change
Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, May 28, 2007


Recent revelations illustrating the fact that the U.S. government is using a Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorist group formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to carry out bombings in Iran undermines the entire war on terror as a monumental hoax that is being exploited purely to realize a geopolitical agenda.

"President George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed. Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs."
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.

Jundullah is a Sunni Al-Qaeda offshoot organization that was formerly headed by alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if you believe the official story of 9/11 to the letter, the fact that Bush has personally authorized U.S. support for this group completely dismantles the facade of the war on terror.


The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad's government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.

The U.S. government is arming and directing a Sunni Al-Qaeda group to carry out bombings in Iran and yet Bush has the temerity to grandstand during his Rose Garden speech last week and wave the Al-Qaeda bogeyman to strike the fear of God into American citizens.

"As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are. That's their strategy. Their strategy is to drive us out of the Middle East. They have made it abundantly clear what they want. They want to establish a caliphate. They want to spread their ideology. They want safe haven from which to launch attacks. They're willing to kill the innocent to achieve their objectives, and they will fight us. And the fundamental question is, will we fight them? I have made the decision to do so. I believe that the best way to protect us in this war on terror is to fight them," Bush said on Thursday.


Bush's definition of fighting Al-Qaeda is apparently to lend them all the funds, weapons and tactical know how they need to carry out attacks against innocent civilians in Iran, and let us not forget that America's allies the British have also been caught training insurgents in Iraq to carry out hi-tech bombings that are later blamed on Iran - just as the SAS worked with U.S. special forces to train the KLA in Kosovo, which was also an Al-Qaeda chapter having been financed directly by Bin Laden himself.

But in the world of newspeak and the lowest common denominator propaganda that cloaks the real agenda of the "war on terror", anyone who rises up against occupation, be it a kid who throws a rock in Baghdad or a car bombing on behalf of an increasingly Shiite-led insurgency, the natural enemies of the Sunni "Al-Qaeda," are terrorists and are Al-Qaeda members.

A cruel irony exists whereby anyone and everyone who opposes military occupation is smeared as an Al-Qaeda terrorist and yet the only real Al-Qaeda terrorists are being bankrolled, armed and directed by the CIA itself, with Bush's explicit approval.

Since President Bush didn't know the difference between Sunni & Shiite Muslims until two months before the invasion of Iraq and the incoming chairman of a congressional intelligence committee said Al Qaeda prominently came from the Shia branch of Islam, we can't hold out much hope for Joe Public and this is why the simplest propaganda is always the most effective.

They're the bad guys, we're the good guys - black and white with no shades of gray.

In reality, Al-Qaeda only exists within intelligence circles coordinated by the highest echelons of the U.S. government, and is being used yet again as a tool for destabilization in nations targeted for regime change by the Neo-Cons.

Jundullah is not the only anti-Iranian terror group that US government has been accused of funding in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government.

Multiple credible individuals including US intelligence whistleblowers and former military personnel have asserted that the government is conducting covert military operations inside Iran using guerilla groups to carry out attacks on Iranian Revolution Guard units.

It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, is now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations and carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

After a bombing inside Iran in March, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official has blown the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.

Got a link to that story? It was written in May, and if it were true you'd think the mainstream press would be all over it.

Those authors Watson write about global takeovers, 9/11 conspiracies and make other bizarre accusations.

Once again Lee,it's pretty much a proven fact and not a matter of debate,that the major forces of Al Qaeda,the one's responsible for 9/11,are NOT in Iraq.

They are in Afhganastan in in Pakistan along the Iraqi border. And they are pretty much getting a free pass from the Pakistani government to stay,build and operate from there.

Secondly,I have not been advocating bringing the troops "home". But redeploying them there. You know,to achieve the things you "claim" we're doing in Iraq,but have little to no evidence to support?

Intelligence reports have shown that Al Qaeda is as strong as they were in 2001. It shows that their strength is in the regions I've been pointing out in this thread.

That's why I've strongly supported the war effort in Afghanastan. That's why I've openly shown my disgust for being "sidetracked in Iraq" instead of concentrating our efforts in Afghanastan to wipe out Al Qaeda. That's why I've been against using a Pre-emptive war against a country that had NO involvement in 0/11,instead of accomplishing the mission we were told that we needed to do. That's why I complained about the lack of troop strength in Afghanastan. Now,finaly,the evidence is coming in to support those asertions.

So we've spent over 4 years in Iraq "fighting Al Qaude" (at least that's YOUR claim). If your claim holds any marreit,how have they regained their strength while we've been killing them?

Because they're doing it exactly where I've stated they have. And we're not there. We're not fighting them "where they are". And we haven't weakenned them to stop the threat of yet another attack. But keep drinking the kool-aid bud.

Well Arch,I'll have to look up the articles and links I've read providing it. But yes,I have seen some. And secondly,I consider the gov. of an Afghan province as a pretty good intelligence source. I posted the article above in which he plainly states that they are building strength in that region. You can read exactly what he said in the article above. I mean is there a better source than the guy running that province on the conditions there? But here's the link again.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19734160/site/newsweek/page/0/

I also posted the article showing how the Pakistani government struck an agreement with Taliban militants that gives them free reign and mobility within Pakistan along the Afghanastan border. You don't consider that credible intelligence?

And the intelligence report that just came out,states they are back to the strength they were "in 2001". Now wheather that was pre 9-11-01 or post 9-11-01 is semantics. But I stated 2001 as the report indicates.

New Report Shows al-Qaeda Growing Stronger by the Day

al-Qaeda is growing stronger by the day - and now the president and Homeland Security chief are explaining to America just how worried we should be about a possible new terror threat.

Six years and billions of dollars later, al-Qaeda may be just as strong as it was in the months before the 9/11 attacks - that is according to a new report. But both President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff are downplaying that finding.

Sources say of chief concern is a terror cell that may have made its way from Pakistan over to Europe, or possibly across the ocean to the United States. That could indicate al-Qaeda is in the planning stages for another attack somewhere inside the U.S. But figuring those plans out will be hard, since Chertoff admits they know of no specifics.

NEWS10's Christina Arangio has more on Thursday's top meeting at the White House, about the heightened risk.

The five-page intelligence report about the renewed strength of al-Qaeda is being discussed as part of a multi-agency meeting at the White House. It is being called, "al-Qaeda, Better Positioned to Strike the West."

According to counter-terrorism officials, al-Qaeda has used its safe-haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to build up its terror network. Multiple, credible intelligence reports indicate an al-Qaeda cell is on its way, or already in the U.S.

"We actually see the al-Qaeda central being resurgent in their role on planning operations," says Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of National Intelligence. "We see more training, we see more money, and we see more communications."

And yet President Bush told reporters Thursday, because of his actions, al-Qaeda is weaker than it otherwise would have been. He took the opportunity to reiterate his position on just how important it is to succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, and anywhere else the terrorists are found to be.

And here at home, dozens of FBI agents have been given a two-week deadline to rundown some 700 new leads - 100 of them in New York, alone.

Chertoff tried to explain his gut-feeling about a potential attack.

"I was talking about the increased number of public statements by Zawahiri and others in al-Qaeda - I was talking about a history since 9/11 of attacks directed toward the west over the summer," Chertoff says.

The intelligence report indicates al-Qaeda has spent a lot of time training in the mountains of Pakistan. That is where many believe Osama bin Laden is still alive and waiting to see another attack, play out on U.S. soil.

http://www.wten.com/Global/story.asp?S=6785075

There ya go Arch.

BY: Joe Repya, Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
>>> 101st Airborne Division
>>>
>>> Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was
>>> forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior
>>> to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.
>>>
>>> I left Baghdad, and a war that has every indication that we are winning,
>>> to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in
>>> 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old
>>> in just four months, but I'm tired:
>>>
>>> I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican, who
>>> lack the courage, fortitude and character to see these difficult tasks
>>> through.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history
>>> when the going gets tough.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support
>>> the Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and
>>> casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of
>>> their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and
>>> women are having on the battlefield.
>>>
>>> I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship
>>> into a democracy overnight.
>>>
>>> I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to
>>> the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent
>>> Parliament.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving
>>> aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen
>>> soldiers, a family whose loved ones gave their life in a just and noble
>>> cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly
>>> protesters is beyond shameful.
>>>
>>> I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom -- Vietnam generation, who
>>> have such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult
>>> tasks through to victory.
>>>
>>> I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives
>>> than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.
>>>
>>> I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the
>>> press, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front-page news.
>>>
>>> Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from
>>> history that there is no substitute for victory.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Joe Repya, Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
>>> 101st Airborne Division
>>>
>>> Please send to all your e-mail friends. [With pleasure...]
>>> This needs to get all over the U S A
>>>
>>> Verified @
>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/repya.asp

I very much respect his opinion and the fact that he is willing to fight to uphold the constitution which gives me the right to mine.

Unfortunately,that doesn't change the fact that the latest inteligence reflects that Al Qaedas strongholds are in Afghanastan and in the regions of Pakistan along the Afghan border.

So are we after Al Qaueda? Are we after those responsible for 9/11? Or is stopping a civil war more of a priority now for our military and to our government?

To me,Al Qaeda is enemy #1. Not the Sunni and Shis in Iraq. JMHO

I do no know of these authors; The articles do have highlighted sections of the stories to links for their sources. There are a few things that I have heard elsewhere, like Cheney wanted to go for a military strike around the time that we had the training exercise by Irans maritime border.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/280507usesalqaeda.htm

http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2007/060407Anti-Iranian.htm

http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/300307Iran_provocation.htm

Carry on Arch. The joke's on you. You really think childishly trashing every thread will make you feel important? Look good? Set a good example for your children? You got taken to the cleaners on this thread. I proved the intel supported what I asserted.

Carry on Arch. I couldn't make you look any more foolish than you're doing yourself. So I won't even try............

since when is intel always correct?

Well,let's see.

In this thread alone,we have quotes from a gov. from an Afghan province telling us this.

We have a basic truce agreement from the government of Pakistan with militant Taliban leaders in the area of Pakistan that borders with Afghanastan AND we have the intel reports added with those factors.

So it's not "just the intel report" but other factors that are a strong indication,actually that HAVE BEEN strong indications of this for quite some time.

I really didn't need the intel report to add up 2+2=4. But some did. And then no matter how overwhelming the evidence is from no matter how many credible sources,they won't admit the truth anyway.

These posts are actually intended for people with open minds that are willing to look at the evidence and weigh it out. For those who look at things from several sources and be realistic and logical in their deductions.

Not for most of those who actually respond.