Are we safer now than in 2001? Part II

[Donkey®]

Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001 - CNN.com

Originally Posted by article

Government report: Al Qaeda strongest since September 11, 2001

* Story Highlights
* Despite counterterrorism efforts, al Qaeda has regained strength, report says
* Report says al Qaeda has found a safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan
* Sen. Harry Reid: It's no surprise al Qaeda has been able to reorganize
* FBI has created a group of agents, analysts to examine new threats


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Al Qaeda is the strongest it has been since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a new U.S. government analysis concludes, according to a senior government official who has seen it.

Despite a campaign of military action and counterterrorism operations, al Qaeda has regained its strength and found safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says, according to counterterrorism officials familiar with the report.

The five-page intelligence analysis remains classified and was prepared for senior U.S. policymakers. It was not issued in response to a specific threat.

Two intelligence officials said the report's finding are similar to what is expected to be in the National Intelligence Estimate anticipated to be released later this summer. The NIE is the intelligence community's collective analysis of pressing national security issues.

The White House's view is that "over the past six years, we have prevented attacks from al Qaeda by taking the fight to them," a senior administration official said. "But they are an enemy that adapts."

This new report backs up warnings by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and other officials that al Qaeda remains a serious threat and that the United States is vulnerable despite the numerous security changes made since September 11, 2001. Chertoff said Wednesday, however, that there is no "specific, credible information" that terrorist attacks on the United States are imminent.

In a House Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday, several senior intelligence officials talked about how the terrorist group has found refuge in parts of Pakistan.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."


Thomas Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, told lawmakers that al Qaeda leaders hiding in Pakistan are able to maintain relationships "with affiliates throughout the Middle East, North and East Africa and Europe."

In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it was no surprise al Qaeda has been able to reorganize and rebuild "given President Bush's stubborn dedication to keeping our overextended military mired in an Iraqi civil war."

"It is a travesty that Osama bin Laden remains at large nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks and appears to have found new sanctuary to operate freely in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions," Reid said. "The Bush administration and most congressional Republicans would rather stubbornly stick with a flawed strategy and fight a war that senior military leaders say cannot be won militarily, than adapt to fighting the enemy who attacked us six years ago."

In recent weeks, counterterrorism authorities have expressed concern about the possibility of another attack on U.S. soil, saying several factors, such as the thwarted terror plots in Britain, have them on edge.

The FBI has created a small group of agents and analysts to examine new threats and leads over the summer, a bureau official told CNN. The group, which was created several weeks ago, is supplementing what agents and others are also doing in field offices across the country and is an example of how the government is trying to make sure no credible lead is missed, the official said.

So billions spent. Lives lost. What do we have to show for it? I am going to go ahead and say nothing. Absolutely nothing. All the things the Democrats are looking to pin on this administration should be thrown to the side and THIS should be used instead. It is shameful.

[WickedLou9]

The Iraq war was the biggest mistake of the last 50 years.
They should have taken all of those resources to ensure that Afghanastan had a stable government. Instead you have NATO making a mess of thigns and the Taliban making a comeback. How much have we spent on IRaq? 300 billion? something like that? what if we put that money into border security and intelligence and into the FBI and CIA.

[thatguyoverthere]

Nearly six years after 9-11, and this is the state of the war on terror. We've made absolutely zero progress.

Afghanistan's in bad shape too. Look at how well our war with them went.

Afghanistan's poppy crop could yield more than 2006's record haul, UN says - International Herald Tribune

Not only are we not winning the wars on terror, and not winning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we've spent tons of our money and provided great recruitment advertising for their side.

Even if it ended tomorrow, Lou is right, it's our worst foreign policy mistake in 50 years. But the horrible part is, right now there is no end in sight. The war in Iraq has already gone on longer than World War II. How much longer will it continue?

Awful, just awful...

[Scrum]

But the Republicans are the ones who are tough on terror, right?


We have seen this train wreck coming for years and anyone who said something about it was called everything from a sympathizer to a moodbat.

Hopefully the American people wake up soon and quit buying this bullshit the GOP have been feeding people.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Hopefully the American people wake up soon and quit buying this bullshit the GOP leaders, MSM, Democrat leaders, and Washington elites have been feeding people.

.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Scrum

But the Republicans are the ones who are tough on terror, right?


We have seen this train wreck coming for years and anyone who said something about it was called everything from a sympathizer to a moodbat.

Hopefully the American people wake up soon and quit buying this bullshit the GOP have been feeding people.

I don't think it's that they aren't tough on terror, I think they are quite serious about it, it's just that they apply the wrong solutions. We realyl should look to england. They have been dealing with terrorism for a LONG time. The IRA has been an issue for them for quite some time, and they didn't resolve the issue by invading Ireland. They viewed it as an intelligence matter and used law enforcement to arrest them one by one. Terrorism is essentially a global criminal problem and you can't use the military to combat that, possibly with a few exceptions like the Taliban who took over a country.
Isreal has been dealing with terrorism for longer than we have and military solutions have never worked. They have the opposite of the intended effect.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

.

Democratic leaders have been telling us that the war on terror is making us safer?

I must have missed that.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Democratic leaders have been telling us that the war on terror is making us safer?

I must have missed that.

Clinton and all the rest of those faggots voted for the war.


And they've all now started talking about going to war with Iran, including Obama.


So yes, Democrat leaders have their fair share of blame for this as well.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think it's that they aren't tough on terror, I think they are quite serious about it, it's just that they apply the wrong solutions. We realyl should look to england. They have been dealing with terrorism for a LONG time. The IRA has been an issue for them for quite some time, and they didn't resolve the issue by invading Ireland. They viewed it as an intelligence matter and used law enforcement to arrest them one by one. Terrorism is essentially a global criminal problem and you can't use the military to combat that, possibly with a few exceptions like the Taliban who took over a country.
Isreal has been dealing with terrorism for longer than we have and military solutions have never worked. They have the opposite of the intended effect.

I can go along with that, but I also think these people saw a golden opportunity to abuse their power under the guise of protecting people from the boogie man who hates you because of bikinis and capitalism.

It's a load of shit. They don't care about the Afghanis or the Iraqis. They only care about solidifying their power base and getting huge military contracts for their friends who help them pay to win elections. That's all this has ever been about.


The best thing that ever happened to al qaeda was George W. Bush. They couldn't have asked for a better propaganda tool.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by lew

Clinton and all the rest of those faggots voted for the war.


And they've all now started talking about going to war with Iran, including Obama.


So yes, Democrat leaders have their fair share of blame for this as well.

They share blame for getting us there, but not the way it has been handled since. Joe Biden (D) and Lugar (R) got together 2-3 years ago and have come up with a plan back then to get Iraq on its own feet and our boys home at the same time.

This war would be far, far, far less controversial if it was handled properly.

All that Iran rhetoric is coming from them trying to act tough because republicans are trying to exploit the 'soft on terror' bullshit.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Clinton and all the rest of those faggots voted for the war.


And they've all now started talking about going to war with Iran, including Obama.


So yes, Democrat leaders have their fair share of blame for this as well.

I'm not saying they are blameless, but the lions share rests with the republicans.


All these years, all this money, all these lives and they still haven't made us any safer.

[RMNIXON]

Did anyone bother to read past the headline?

"Despite a campaign of military action and counterterrorism operations, al Qaeda has regained its strength and found safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says, according to counterterrorism officials familiar with the report.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."


I guess you missed words like "Pakistan" and "regained" and "resurgent."

There is nothing here to suggest that Operations in Afghanistan failed to remove them from that base of operations, or that it did not hurt them enough so that it would be many years before they "regained" what they may have today well outside of that country. Certainly nothing here to suggest Iraq has anything to do with this unique problem in Pakistan! Unless you really think this operation would have mellowed if we stayed out of Iraq? Please explain?

And how this mess will be cleaned up by more police and intel ops when the problem as outlined is just a bit out of our juristiction?


Between Bush trying to downplay this problem and the left shouting failure the politics makes me SICK!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Scrum

All these years, all this money, all these lives and they still haven't made us any safer.

We have not been attacked in 6 years and it took them that long to get up to the organization they may have now. From what state did they have to move and regroup from that took so long?

So we did nothing of any benefit what so ever?

[garbagemanlb]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

We have not been attacked in 6 years and it took them that long to get up to the organization they may have now. From what state did they have to move and regroup from that took so long?

So we did nothing of any benefit what so ever?

I'll ask this again...how long was it between terrorist attacks on American soil after the first WTC bombings?


I have never understood that argument.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

We have not been attacked in 6 years and it took them that long to get up to the organization they may have now. From what state did they have to move and regroup from that took so long?

So we did nothing of any benefit what so ever?

They moved to another zip code and are back at pre-9/11 strength. We have spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives.


Where exactly is the benefit?

[mididoctors]

you had a 1:100,000 chance of being killed by terrorists n he USA in 2001

thats not that dangerous.. you have a 1:10,000 chance of being killed on the road. a whole order of magnitude higher

every other year since then you have been safer from terrorist attack

unless you join the army

what kind of terrorist incident can kill 1000+ people is possible

Hijacking and suiciding a airliner looks almost impossible now, largley because the passengers are going to risk anything to stop you.. even if ALL the airport security is removed

that alone makes it unlikely.

blowing up a LNG tanker would make a big bang.... thou where they dock is unlikely to have a thousand fatalities in the blast radius.. unless you manged to pirate one and sail into a city harbor or waterfront

but one could cause significant economic damage just by blowing one up.. in fact its probably a better strategy to attack economic targets than go for the big kill numbers.

the major new threat is not AQ strength but the potential for massive geopolitical blow-back from the Iraq adventure. which has certainily made a lot people far from safe.

mostly people from the ME

US casualties are thought of as the issue but on inspection its the distorted US mindset that is the issue here

Boris
London

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Did anyone bother to read past the headline?

"Despite a campaign of military action and counterterrorism operations, al Qaeda has regained its strength and found safe haven in the tribal areas of Pakistan, the report says, according to counterterrorism officials familiar with the report.

"We actually see the al Qaeda central being resurgent in their role in planning operations," John Kringen, head of the CIA's intelligence directorate, testified at the hearing Wednesday. "They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan there. We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications."


I guess you missed words like "Pakistan" and "regained" and "resurgent."

There is nothing here to suggest that Operations in Afghanistan failed to remove them from that base of operations, or that it did not hurt them enough so that it would be many years before they "regained" what they may have today well outside of that country. Certainly nothing here to suggest Iraq has anything to do with this unique problem in Pakistan! Unless you really think this operation would have mellowed if we stayed out of Iraq? Please explain?

And how this mess will be cleaned up by more police and intel ops when the problem as outlined is just a bit out of our juristiction?


Between Bush trying to downplay this problem and the left shouting failure the politics makes me SICK!

Yea it makes me SICK that Bush among others still calls Pakistan an Ally and is soft with them when it is obvious there are not pulling their weight in this so called "war on terror" - its a failure of politics

Whatever happened to "either your with us or against us"? Or the 1% doctrine? It seems to me its selectively used based on our interests and we would be foolish to think the world doesn't see that and take advantage of it.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Yea it makes me SICK that Bush among others still calls Pakistan an Ally and is soft with them when it is obvious there are not pulling their weight in this so called "war on terror" - its a failure of politics

Whatever happened to "either your with us or against us"? Or the 1% doctrine? It seems to me its selectively used based on our interests and we would be foolish to think the world doesn't see that and take advantage of it.

How do you know what Pakistan is really doing? For internal political reasons, Musharraf can't appear to be too helpful to Americans. But who knows what he's doing behind the scenes.