PDA

View Full Version : Terrorists could be just getting started



Nickdfresh
07-10-2005, 12:09 PM
Terrorists could be just getting started

Experts in terrorism say the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. The way out, they warn, is far from clear.

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
Associated Press
7/10/2005

New York City and Washington. Bali, Indonesia; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Istanbul, Turkey; Madrid, Spain. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren't encouraged. One terrorism researcher sees the prospect of "endless" war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, "I don't think it's even started yet."

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war.

They say al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining," where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight the United States with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide from March 2004 to last March were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Thursday's attacks on London's transit system mirrored last year's bombings of Madrid commuter trains, and both point to an al-Qaida evolving into a movement whose isolated leaders offer video or Internet inspiration - but little more - to local "jihadists" who carry out the strikes.

Although no arrests have been made in the London attacks, a group using al-Qaida's name made an unconfirmed claim of responsibility. Experts say the bombings bore hallmarks of al-Qaida.

The movement's evolution "has given rise to a "virtual network' that is extremely adaptable," said Jonathan Stevenson of the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Washington office.

The movement adapted, for example, by switching from targeting aviation, where security was reinforced after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to "softer" targets, such as mass transit.

Such compartmentalized groupings, in touch electronically but with little central control, "are going to be a prototype for understanding where terrorist movements are going in the 21st century," said Cynthia Combs of the University of North Carolina, co-author of the Encyclopedia of Terrorism. Combs cited the so-called Earth and Animal Liberation fronts in the United States as examples - if less lethal ones - of "leaderless" militant movements based on isolated cells. In another American example, far-right "militia" cells someday might make common cause with foreign terrorists against the U.S. government, a prospect she called not unrealistic.

Bruce Hoffman, the veteran RAND Corp. specialist who said he fears an "endless war," dismisses talk of al-Qaida's "back" having been "broken" by the capture of some leaders.

"From the terrorists' point of view, it seems they have calculated they need to do just one significant terrorist attack a year in another capital, and it regenerates the same fear and anxieties," said Hoffman, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation in Iraq.

What should be broken, he said, is the cycle of terrorist recruitment through the generations. "Here you come to the main challenge."

He and most of the other half-dozen experts said the world's richer powers must deal with "underlying causes" - lessen the appeal of radicalism by improving economies, political rights and education in Arab and Muslim countries.

Combs cited bin Laden's use of Afghanistan as his 1990s headquarters. "If we hadn't been ignoring Afghanistan and instead offered real assistance, would it have become a base for bin Laden?" she asked.

Not all agree this is an answer. Stephen Sloan, another veteran scholar, prescribes stoicism.

The American, British and other targeted publics must give their intelligence and police agencies time to close ranks globally and crush the challenge, said Sloan, of the University of Central Florida.

"The public has to have the resolve to face the reality there will be other incidents," he said.

Scheuer, who headed the CIA's bin Laden unit for nine years, sees a different way out - through foreign policy. He said he resigned last November to expose the U.S. leadership's "willful blindness" to what needs to be done: withdraw the U.S. military from the Mideast, end "unqualified support" for Israel, sever close ties to Arab oil-state "tyrannies."

He acknowledged such actions aren't likely soon, but said bin Laden will "make us bleed enough to get our attention." Ultimately, he said, "his goal is to destroy the Arab monarchies."

James Kirkhope of the Terrorism Research Center, a Washington consulting group, says terrorist leaders increasingly seem focused on a struggle for Islamic supremacy lasting hundreds of years.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050710/1011584.asp

LoungeMachine
07-10-2005, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
[b]Terrorists could be just getting started


In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.




HUGE step backwards.

We've created more terrorists, more terrorist hotbeds, and given them more ammo THEN BIN LADEN COULD HAVE IN HIS WILDEST DREAMS.

Well done, you Neo Con ASSHOLES.

:mad:


The world is far less safe today, than before 9/11

ODShowtime
07-10-2005, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
HUGE step backwards.

We've created more terrorists, more terrorist hotbeds, and given them more ammo THEN BIN LADEN COULD HAVE IN HIS WILDEST DREAMS.

Well done, you Neo Con ASSHOLES.


No lounge, you're wrong! We invaded iraq because Saddam was mean and he had WMDs and he did 9-11. Also, so that all the terrorists would go and fight us there instead of in America.

:cool:

Big Train
07-10-2005, 07:13 PM
The way out doesn't even involve us. It involves there own people (muslims) controlling their own. Isolating, rather than accepting them, into muslim society.

You may be right about creating more terrorists, but a response WAS warranted. For those who "HAVE" the answers we neocon shitbags apparently don't, what is YOUR way out? Don't cop out with "Wouldn't have done what you guys did" logic...I want actual responses.

LoungeMachine
07-10-2005, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
The way out doesn't even involve us. It involves there own people (muslims) controlling their own. Isolating, rather than accepting them, into muslim society.

You may be right about creating more terrorists, but a response WAS warranted. For those who "HAVE" the answers we neocon shitbags apparently don't, what is YOUR way out? Don't cop out with "Wouldn't have done what you guys did" logic...I want actual responses.

The CORRECT "response" was a direct, swift, and overwhelming strike against Afgahnistan and the Taliban, followed by a complete and thorough SEARCH AND CAPTURE of OBL and his group.

We didnt do that. Not even close.

But we could have.:mad:

LoungeMachine
07-10-2005, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
The way out doesn't even involve us. It involves there own people (muslims) controlling their own. Isolating, rather than accepting them, into muslim society.



Correct.

Something we CAN NEVER, EVER, EVER accomplish by occupying Iraq.

superdave
07-10-2005, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The CORRECT "response" was a direct, swift, and overwhelming strike against Afgahnistan and the Taliban, followed by a complete and thorough SEARCH AND CAPTURE of OBL and his group.

We didnt do that. Not even close.

But we could have.:mad:

Bush was too occupied with his personal vendetta against Saddam

LoungeMachine
07-10-2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by superdave
Bush was too occupied with his personal vendetta against Saddam

It goes even deeper, and further back than that.

This invasion / occupation was planned years before he was even in office.

I think his whole " this is the man who tried and killed my daddy" shit was pure bullshit.

The Chimp couldn't give two shits about poppy, and vice a versa.

This was about oil, money, military bases, leaveing Saudi Arabia, and creating and filling defense contracts and the coffers of Halliburton.

:cool:

Cathedral
07-11-2005, 12:01 AM
One common fact i find popping up in threads in here is the idea that this world was ever safe for any peace loving and compassionate person to begin with.
That's bullshit better left to dreamers.

Since the beginning of time the weak have fallen prey to the strong, that continues and is in our nature to keep doing the same until life ends on this rock completely.

Lots of people don't understand what it took to make America what it is today, but very soon we all will have to stand and fight for our lives.
I suggest everyone get ready for that because hell is coming to earth in ways we could never imagine before.

The terrosists know the resolve of our Government, but they have yet to see the resolve of the people under it.
They are just getting started?

Well so are we, baby!!!!!!!

Lock and Load, if you can...........................

Big Train
07-11-2005, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The CORRECT "response" was a direct, swift, and overwhelming strike against Afgahnistan and the Taliban, followed by a complete and thorough SEARCH AND CAPTURE of OBL and his group.

We didnt do that. Not even close.

But we could have.:mad:

Interesting. So you are saying killing the correct muslims would prevent further muslim extremist violence down the road? Capturing OBL is a given and Bush should certainly be closer than we he is on that.

I just don't get that we shouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan according to all these libs, yet your answer is killing the right ones. Killing fanatics breeds more fanatics libs keep telling us. Very interesting...

Warham
07-11-2005, 06:59 AM
Don't expect them to give you rational , well thought-out answers, BT. ;)

LoungeMachine
07-11-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Big Train
Interesting. So you are saying killing the correct muslims would prevent further muslim extremist violence down the road? Capturing OBL is a given and Bush should certainly be closer than we he is on that.

I just don't get that we shouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan according to all these libs, yet your answer is killing the right ones. Killing fanatics breeds more fanatics libs keep telling us. Very interesting...

No, that's NOT what I said :rolleyes: But nice try.

And I have NEVER said we shouldn't have done into afghanistan. But what exactly did we accomplish other an installing our puppet?

Poppy production is at an all time high

Taliban still fighting

No OBL


Mission Accomplished:rolleyes:


I'm so sick and tired of the thin, always changing, justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq under this so called "war on terror" cover.

It's bullshit, and you know it.:cool:

Nickdfresh
07-11-2005, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Don't expect them to give you rational , well thought-out answers, BT. ;)

Like you would have any, both of you voted for BUSH...:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
07-11-2005, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Big Train
Interesting. So you are saying killing the correct muslims would prevent further muslim extremist violence down the road? Capturing OBL is a given and Bush should certainly be closer than we he is on that.

I just don't get that we shouldn't be in Iraq or Afghanistan according to all these libs, yet your answer is killing the right ones. Killing fanatics breeds more fanatics libs keep telling us. Very interesting...

It's called the "carrot & stick" approach, you neutralize the extremists while trying to win the hearts and minds of those that just want to live in a stable society, we already fucked that up by invading IRAQ and handing the jihadists everything they ever wanted. And spare me the PNAC Neo Con mantra of 'building democracy in the Middle East;' the people who live their are a little dubious since many of our closest allies are virtual dictatorships.

People also tend to be a little dubious of motivation when one states that only our enemies need to be democracies, and can show no historical precedent to back it up how we've tried to democratize our friends. IRAQ had more to do with CHINA, and our fight for oil as this century drones on, meanwhile, the CHINESE need more oil so they can continue to make cheap products for us and put American workers out on the dole.

Big Train
07-11-2005, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
No, that's NOT what I said :rolleyes: But nice try.

And I have NEVER said we shouldn't have done into afghanistan. But what exactly did we accomplish other an installing our puppet?

Poppy production is at an all time high

Taliban still fighting

No OBL


Mission Accomplished:rolleyes:


I'm so sick and tired of the thin, always changing, justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq under this so called "war on terror" cover.

It's bullshit, and you know it.:cool:

Nice Try? Nice skirt of the issue. Neocons are killers, we drop bombs. We advocate selective killing for a greater good. You obviously believe in the same thing. So that puts you on our level. End of story.

Warham
07-11-2005, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Like you would have any, both of you voted for BUSH...:rolleyes:

Nothing wrong with that. You voted for the loser, right?

Nickdfresh
07-11-2005, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Nothing wrong with that. You voted for the loser, right?

Nothing wrong with that, you really won nothing in the last election...You voted against all your own interests blue stater...

Warham
07-11-2005, 03:25 PM
I did? That's news to me!

And I'm a transplanted Hoosier, so I'm really a red-stater living in the Northeast.

I don't think Indiana's voted for a Democrat since Johnson.

Nickdfresh
07-11-2005, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I did? That's news to me!

And I'm a transplanted Hoosier, so I'm really a red-stater living in the Northeast.

I don't think Indiana's voted for a Democrat since Johnson.

So, you're a Ho eh? :D

bobgnote
07-12-2005, 07:02 PM
posted: 07-10-2005 at 06:45 PM
Re: Re: Terrorists could be just getting started, by OD

“ Originally posted by LoungeMachine
HUGE step backwards.

We've created more terrorists, more terrorist hotbeds, and given them more ammo THEN BIN LADEN COULD HAVE IN HIS WILDEST DREAMS.

Well done, you Neo Con ASSHOLES.”
"No lounge, you're wrong! We invaded iraq because Saddam was mean and he had WMDs and he did 9-11. Also, so that all the terrorists would go and fight us there instead of in America."

:D Al Queda could see the deregulated US evnergy scene undermines EVERYONE'S investment. Those remaining peaceful are not aware that Al Queda AND the Chinese AND N. Korea are well capable of seeing YOUR ASSES EXPOSED, so teachers who keep superfunding the California and other inflationary deals by violating the Brown Act and sustaining a hideous conflict over YEARS are about to catch some HIGH HEAT.:p

Cops, corpses, and all have hid how the illegal, INFLATIONARY energy deals were surely a precursor for 9/11, with all incitement, see my journal.