as to the bbq - you guys seem to lump all chechnyans just like you do the arabs. you know they are not all terrorists.

We should learn from Russian mistakes. They stirred up the pot in chechnya and now they are paying consequences..surely could be compared to Iraq.

I am all for whiping the scum that purp. such acts agains the most innecent, off of the face of the earth but not just randomly everybody who is in the vacinity...

if we are serious about winning the war on noun the we need to quit talking chit and quit setting up rules that just don't allow us to win. total war is total war not some hanky panky...

Despite attacks on al-Qaida, terror threat remains: bin Laden still undefeated
Knight Ridder News


WASHINGTON - Three years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the terrorist threat to the United States and its allies remains as serious as ever, despite an intense, multipronged assault on al-Qaida, according to senior U.S. officials, diplomats and counterterrorism experts.

That assault has badly wounded al-Qaida's central leadership, including many of the men who were behind the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

But it has failed to stem the spread of Osama bin Laden's ideology and methods, which have been adopted by violent Islamic groups worldwide. Those groups are even harder to track and are capable of great damage, the officials and experts said.

"The threat of al-Qaida-related terrorism remains as great as ever. But the nature of the threat has changed," a United Nations panel said in a report issued in late August.

President Bush, who's made the "war on terrorism" the core of his re-election campaign, appeared to waver last week on how it's proceeding. He said in a television interview Monday that "I don't think you can win" the war. The remark quickly drew criticism and he modified it, saying the next day: "Make no mistake about it: We are winning and we will win."

Yet in interviews and writings, senior U.S. counterterrorism officials presented a less black-and-white picture of success and failure, and recent events argue that it's anything but certain that Americans are safer today than they were three years ago.

The threat from al-Qaida itself, the organization bin Laden built with fellow veterans of Afghanistan's wars, probably has waned, and the group is battered and frayed, experts said.

But the threat from the new "franchise" groups is growing rapidly and may even have surpassed it. It's fueled by widespread resentment in the Muslim world of U.S. policies, including the invasion of Iraq and what is perceived as unblinking support for Israel.

"Even with al-Qaida waning, the larger terrorist threat from radical Islamists is not," senior CIA official Paul Pillar, a former head of the agency's Counter-Terrorist Center, wrote recently.

"Al-Qaida still has the capacity to inflict lethal damage, but the key challenges for current counterterrorism efforts are not as much al-Qaida as what will follow al-Qaida," he wrote.

Al-Qaida is still aiming for another catastrophic strike against the United States, counterterrorism officials say. But with the group's remaining leaders on the run and U.S. defenses increased, such a strike seems less certain than it did three years ago.

The affiliate groups may not be capable of attacking the United States themselves. But they could support al-Qaida operations against this country by providing foot soldiers who don't fit the standard profile of young Muslim men from the Middle East and South Asia, counterterrorism officials say.

And bloody attacks on civilian targets by spinoff terrorist groups are now virtually a weekly occurrence worldwide, from the recent suicide bombing, jetliner downings and school hostage-taking in Russia, which together killed hundreds, to bombings in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

The train bombings March 11 in Madrid, Spain, which killed 191 people, were carried out by a group whose members have no known organizational link to al-Qaida, the U.N. report noted. "None had been to Afghanistan," where al-Qaida's terrorist training camps were, it said.

The metamorphosis of Islamic terrorism is all the more remarkable because it comes despite a relentless, U.S.-led campaign against al-Qaida that's achieved numerous successes, though many of its stated goals remain frustratingly unmet.

Bin Laden, whom Bush once vowed to capture "dead or alive," remains at large along with his deputy, Ayman al Zawahri, probably in remote tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

But bin Laden's ability to manage al-Qaida "has been degraded," and he and his comrades spend a lot of time and effort worrying about their security, said a senior U.S. counterterrorism official, who agreed to an interview on condition of anonymity.

Roughly 70 percent of al-Qaida's leadership has been killed or captured since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration says, although it hasn't published details to back up the assertion. Between 2,000 and 4,000 al-Qaida-linked individuals have been detained in dozens of countries.

Interestingly, military actions have played a relatively small part in the successes of the post-Sept. 11 campaign against terrorists. While the war began with U.S. troops and their Afghan allies ousting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in late 2001, much of al-Qaida's leadership escaped that onslaught to Pakistan.

Since then, the counterterrorism successes largely have been the result of multinational cooperation from police and intelligence services.

A shift in attitudes by the Pakistani and Saudi Arabian governments has been crucial to the effort. Their more aggressive actions followed a series of deadly suicide attacks in Saudi Arabia and two assassination attempts against President Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.

The worried Saudi monarchy has moved to choke off funding for al-Qaida, shutting down terrorist-linked foundations and enacting new regulations on charitable donations.

But even in the area of terrorism financing, success is mixed. The U.N. report found that curbs on terrorist financing, including 5-year-old sanctions on al-Qaida and the Taliban, have failed to keep up with the changing face of bin Laden-inspired terrorism.

The report also noted that "al-Qaida operations are not characterized by high cost." It said the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania cost less than $50,000, while the Cole attack cost less than $10,000, as did the Madrid bombings.

U.S. officials say the stepped-up efforts by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia still don't go far enough because of domestic sensitivities. Pakistan, for instance, only recently has begun aggressive operations against foreign militants in the tribal areas along its Afghan border and moved against remnants of the Taliban, which its own security services helped create, said a senior State Department official, who asked not to be identified.

Still, Pakistani authorities say they've arrested more than 60 people in the last six weeks. The most important are Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian indicted in the 1998 embassy bombings, and Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, a Pakistani computer engineer who apparently operated a communications link between al-Qaida's leadership-in-hiding and operatives worldwide.

Computer files seized in the arrests of Ghailani and Khan alerted U.S. authorities to al-Qaida's earlier surveillance of five financial bastions in Washington, D.C., New York City and New Jersey. And they led authorities to Abu Eisa al Hindi, also known as Dhiren Barot, a senior al-Qaida member who was detained in the United Kingdom in August. Bin Laden sent the senior operative to case targets in the United States in early 2001. A British court has charged al Hindi with possessing surveillance plans of the New York Stock Exchange, International Monetary Fund headquarters and other sites.

A senior White House official, who also asked not to be named, called the transcontinental chain of arrests "a strategic success against al-Qaida."

But some analysts said the arrests demonstrated that al-Qaida remained surprisingly cohesive despite three years of battering, and had graduated new leaders to compensate for the loss of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Looked at from al-Qaida's viewpoint, said Bruce Hoffman of Rand Corp., which advises the Pentagon on counterterrorism, the group has endured an unprecedented onslaught from the United States - and survived.

"Do we know of any organization in the world that could be functioning after three-quarters of its leadership (was eliminated)?" he asked. "Even though we've damaged or weakened them, this is a very determined ... implacable enemy."

Analysts said they weren't entirely certain why al-Qaida hadn't conducted another attack on U.S. soil, even one on the relatively modest scale of a suicide bombing at a shopping mall or hotel.

They suspect it's because the group has greater difficulty sneaking its operatives into the United States and would expend precious resources only for a catastrophic attack intended to shock America and reinforce al-Qaida's image worldwide.

"They set the bar pretty high three years ago," the senior counterterrorism official said.

But many analysts said the real threat now comes not from al-Qaida itself, but from the spread of bin Laden's ideology to small, amorphous cells that are hard for intelligence agencies and police forces to track.

They noted that the group of North Africans who carried out the Madrid bombings weren't seen as a major threat by Spanish police and that they obtained explosive materials from a quarry and used cheap cellular phones to detonate their bombs.

Such groups pop up, with little or no notice, in Western Europe, north and east Africa and southeast Asia. They have barely known names - such as the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front in Turkey and Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat - or no names at all.

"It's sort of like Whack-A-Mole at the beach," the senior counterterrorism official said, referring to the popular arcade game.

That poses real threats, as the United States begins remaking its intelligence services in response to the Sept. 11 attacks.

In the future, CIA official Pillar wrote, suspects may go unnoticed "not because data on analysts' screens is misinterpreted, but because they will never appear on those screens in the first place."

It is getting harder, even in the Islamic world to play the oppressed victim when you see footage of little children getting massacred by the hundreds by Islamic terrorists. Now would be a good time to announce that we are coming after the terrorists and while we will try to limit the collateral damage we really don't give a damn. It will be much less painful to hand the bad guys over. The old "with us or against us" might actually mean something and yield some results. Eventually, the people that sit quietly by while terrorists live and train in their midst will get tired of being blown up because they hang out with or just tolerate these guys.

You gotta have balance. First, you whack the mole. But at the same time you need to disconnect the damned machine. You gotta take James T. Kirk's lead with the "Kobiyashi Maru". There are always alternatives.

First, you encourage everybody to develop and use their respective spines. The UK has one. So does Poland, Italy and Australia. Russia seems to have discovered a sudden need for one. Old Europe needs some hormonal therapy. This is the whack-the-mole-brigade. We have the biggest, baddest bat, so we naturally must assume the greatest role in mole-bashing.

Concomitantly and with a lot of effort, we have to address the problems that create futility in the hearts and minds of Muslim young men. IMO, most of that futility is due to the oppression of the terrible systems of government in which they live. A second, large share is due to their hopeless economic situtation, largely a product of stupid state-controlled, centralized economics and restraints on free trade. If young men have hope for providing for the future of their children, they're less likely to go berserk and kill people.

Thus, countries with military muscle and national will must assume responsibility for militarily suppressing the bad guys. But that solves only the immediate problem. Other folks need to begin helping to transform the miserable conditions under which young men meet the world in the Middleast.

Bot

I don't think there would be that much collateral damage if it was fought right. Unlike Botsnst, I don't think we have the resources, as Iraq is proving, to go on some save-the-Islamic-masses-from-their-government thing. To fight this war properly, we need to start making sure the right people come up dead, starting with the Islamic clerics who motivate these guys. They'll start getting the message real soon. The stuff about the Europeans is BS. They have been doing the hit squad thing on these guys for years. That's how you fight them. Same goes for the Israelis. They had about as much luck in Lebanon doing the invasion thing as we are having in Iraq. Now they are fighting it the way it needs to be fought.

As far as the miserable governments of thse countries go, we simply must stop supporting them and supplying them with weapons that they use on their own people. If you had seen F-911, you would have seen the incredible diplomatic ass-kissing we do to the Saudi Arabians. It is sickening that our President gives these guys the Lewinsky treatment - except this time he's playing Monica. They are fascist bastards and we should start treating them as such, and we should start letting the chips fall where the people of thsese country's want them to fall - thats how democracy is created, not at the point of a gun with puppet governments.

I agree with that for the most part, the key is how influlentials are the Russians today? None of us could answer that question.

I will say this, 9-11 shook me up a bit but I feel like an ant in a bottle now, I just hope we can sort this out so my kids don't have to deal with it.

Summarny: This scares the living bejesus out of me. 9-11 was body count the results of this could be doomsday.

The major joker in Russia's deck is the nucular, chemo, and bio bomb stuff.

If Russia decides to kick somebody's a$$ in Asia, it will get kicked and it will stay kicked. But just like the USA, if the voters get all whining and weak, the army will pack it in and head for home.

Its easy as heck to say we oughtta (or they oughtta) go kick some country's a$$. Getting in is easy. Staying isn't that hard for the troops if they believe their country is 100% behind them. They can take the casualties and make the enemy pay 20:1 for the pain. But the weak, spineless Mofos eager to send young troopers to die one day and then head for cover the next are who get our youngsters killed for no reason and to no lasting result. War ain't like placing an eBay bid--change on a whim and no harm done.

This is one reason why old generals are the most reluctant warriors. They know the grim price paid by the kids and they don't want to ask that price so some dumbass can feel good about killing bad guys.

I agree with your statement. Now think real hard about the real reason we're in Iraq. Because some dumbass wanted to feel good about killing people. The way you fight the war on terror is with special ops teams inserted into the country of choice, backed up by a larger force. If the government that is "our ally" (Saudi Arabia anyone?) while secretly supporting and/or even tolerating these assh*oles balks at our special forces picking off these guys we breathe down their necks with a few hundred thousand troops and let them decide if they really want the fight.
This a asymetrical warfare, we're fighting old style and getting our boys shot up for no good reason. Send them in, kill the mullahs, and get the f**k out. Play by the rules the bad guys use. I learned in my first street fight that there is no such thing as the Marquis de Queensberry rules. Plus, fighting underhand looks really stupid.

I agree with both previous posts:
a Russian attack on Pakistan -or any other Islamic country- would be another wet dream for OBL after he managed to lure GWB into Afghanistan and Iraq by the 9/11 provocation and created an ideal guerilla warground for his muhjahedin fighters. It's also not unthinkable that the present crisis in Dafur is no coincidence and serves to draw Western forces out into their favourite, desert terrain. OBL has lived in Sudan, has close ties to the Sudanese leadership and the Janjaweed militias are Arab. These extremists also don't mind sacrificing a few lives. This guy is very clever devil, and so far he has the Western leaders do exactly what he wants them to do.

I have seen the light! How could I have been so wrong.

Clever how he lured the USA into killing 3/4 of the Al Queda leadership, destroyed the only gov that gave him overt support, realligned Pakistan into hunting and killing Al Queda, de-nuked Libya, deposed Saddam and destabilizing other despotic regimes in the neighborhood.

Now that genius is cleverly hiding in the remote mountains of central Asia far removed from his followers, who are being hunted down and killed all over the planet. Yeah, real clever plan.

In contrast, I'm waiting for the French to take-on the Janjaweed in a full-scale frowning match.

Haha and you think that's NOT happening? First try to keep in mind that bigger isn't always better that's why Afganistan's back bone was Special Ops and Rangers mainly because that type of warfare is their cup of tea, so you're partially correct.

Special OPs and Rangers have been thin since the Mid 90's that's one area that they will not decrease standards just for bodies and to be honest theres more Rangers in Afganistan now than there is in Iraq.

It seems odd to me that people are saying that were fighting the innocent people of Iraq and then the Muhajedeen in Iraq?

Good read

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=725

I VERY strongly agree with this. Right on target.

Mike

Touche'

Al Qaeda's two founding chiefs (Bin Laden and second-in-command Al-Zawahiri that planned 9/11) are both still alive and well according to their regular video-updates. Mullah Omar and the Taliban are back in business in Afghanistan. Pakistan's anti-terror policy is mere window dressing to keep US dollars coming. Libya is/was completely irrelevant. Saddan's gone but was completely irrelevant in war on terror but still serves OBL well as a perfect decoy.
Oh yeah, Powell now calls Dafur genocide: that sounds like sending troops soon to me.

Clever enough, I'd say.