Breaking News: al-Qaida still exists

Intel Report: al-Qaida Takes Aim at US

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al-Qaida is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, The Associated Press has learned.

The draft National Intelligence Estimate is expected to paint an ever-more-worrisome portrait of al-Qaida's ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks, even as Bush administration officials say the U.S. is safer nearly six years into the war on terror.

Among the key findings of the classified estimate, which is still in draft form and must be approved by all 16 U.S. spy agencies:

- Al-Qaida is probably still pursuing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient capability.

- The terror group has been able to restore three of the four key tools it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders. It could not immediately be learned what the missing fourth element is.

- The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside U.S. borders. In public statements, U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.

The document also discusses increasing concern about individuals already inside the United States who are adopting an extremist brand of Islam.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative written judgments that reflect the consensus long-term thinking of senior intelligence analysts.

At a news conference Thursday, President Bush acknowledged al-Qaida's continuing threat to the United States and used the new report as evidence his administration's policies are on the right course.

"The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11," * he said. "That's why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home."

Yet Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Iraq has distracted the United States. He said the U.S. should have finished off al-Qaida in 2002 and 2003 along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Instead, "President Bush chose to invade Iraq, thereby diverting our military and intelligence resources away from the real war on terrorism," Rockefeller said. "Threats to the United States homeland are not emanating from Iraq. They are coming from al-Qaida leadership."

Rockefeller, who voted in favor of toppling Saddam Hussein, called for the U.S. to end its involvement in what he called the Iraqi civil war.

*idiotic debating tactic #559: switching of present and past tenses do appear plausibly unaccountable for creating another problem apart from the original problem.

and again calling terrorists "folks"

full and unemphasized article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_threat;_ylt=AoeIC.dDQwEXncyyLiLdOS.s0NUE

from the same article:

National security officials are frustrated by an agreement last year between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders in western Pakistan, which gave tribes near the Afghan border greater autonomy and has led to increased al-Qaida activity in the region.

Nevertheless, Bush administration officials still view Musharraf as a partner.

is this the frikin twilight zone? "hekuva job musharraf"?

but wait...there's more:

The estimate echoes the findings of another analysis prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center earlier this year and disclosed publicly on Wednesday. That report - titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" - found the terrorist group is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," a counterterrorism official familiar with the reports findings told the AP.

what a gentle, nonimposing way of saying "stronger than ever"

its about to be a finalized and official estimate: we are no safer thanks to king dubya. we are more vulnerable than on sept 11.
(best estimate being about equal meaning still that cheney and rumsfeld failed)

whats more ****ed up is that nobody's interested.

the president who cried wolf. now the threat looks real and everyone yawns.

Look, if you want to get replies in your thread, you need to make a thread about something 11 - 16 year olds have heard of. Gaaawd....

Or maybe it's just the fact that we've all know this for... ever? Common knowledge.

Two things the Repub-Apologist will say...

1) We can't go into Pakistan, it will cause chaos and destabilize the country/government, thereby creating another haven for "terr'rist".

2) If Bush hasn't made us safer, then why hasn't there been an attack since 9/11?

Because it takes years upon years upon years of planning to do it. It's not like one day a bunch of arabs just decided "Hey let's go fly a plane into a building. lolz." .

Originally posted by Schecter
*idiotic debating tactic #559: switching of present and past tenses do appear plausibly unaccountable for creating another problem apart from the original problem.

and again calling terrorists "folks"

full and unemphasized article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terror_threat;_ylt=AoeIC.dDQwEXncyyLiLdOS.s0NUE

from the same article:

is this the frikin twilight zone? "hekuva job musharraf"?

but wait...there's more:

what a gentle, nonimposing way of saying "stronger than ever"

its about to be a finalized and official estimate: we are no safer thanks to king dubya. we are more vulnerable than on sept 11.
(best estimate being about equal meaning still that cheney and rumsfeld failed)

Until Bin Laden and his cohorts are dead, they will always exist

Originally posted by Robtard

2) If Bush hasn't made us safer, then why hasn't there been an attack since 9/11?

Yet the liberals will never give an answer to it 🙁.

Al-Qaida may still exist, but you're crazy if you think they are stronger then they were pre-9/11

Originally posted by KidRock
Yet the liberals will never give an answer to it 🙁.

Al-Qaida may still exist, but you're crazy if you think they are stronger then they were pre-9/11

wow. win.

kidrock: 1
U.S. National Counterterrorism Center: 0

and they're crazy too? well that would render us exponentially more ****ed, wouldnt it?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yet the liberals will never give an answer to it 🙁.

Al-Qaida may still exist, but you're crazy if you think they are stronger then they were pre-9/11

What if there hasn't been a planned attack on U.S soil? Besides, our borders, both Northern and Southern are all but wide open, do you think Bush is actively keeping them at bay with his mind powers?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yet the liberals will never give an answer to it 🙁.

Al-Qaida may still exist, but you're crazy if you think they are stronger then they were pre-9/11

What's the point there are plenty of US soldiers to kill in Iraq, which is far more important because it will get Al-Qaeda more support more power and more money, an attack on the US will just make things more fun but that certainly isn't a necessity for them.

1) We can't go into Pakistan, it will cause chaos and destabilize the country/government, thereby creating another haven for "terr'rist".

Don't forget about the Nuclear weapons they have. Pakistan is a no-go area. You stay away from the Pakistani borders and the Pakistani people because the second you start a war there you are screwed. Not only would there be a huge chance of some terrorists getting their hands on nuclear missiles, Pakistan might actually just start firing some of their own...

Not to mention that Pakistan in general is quite good for us in this conflict. Of course they aren't as hard against Islam extremists as some of us would have wanted, but their country is filled with those people and those people can vote, with elections coming up and all that might be important for the president. Especially when you consider that the extremists have a large chance of winning the elections.

Now unless of course you suggest making the country into a dictatorship unlike the one it is now, then you must agree that we don't really have much of a choice and neither does the Pakistani government.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Look, if you want to get replies in your thread, you need to make a thread about something 11 - 16 year olds have heard of. Gaaawd....

😆

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Or maybe it's just the fact that we've all know this for... ever? Common knowledge.

yeah its not exactly breaking news. The Media has just now chosen to focus more attention on it.

i think the focus on terrorist coming from Europe (namely the UK) and so called "home-grown" terrorists is where the primary focus of the US security should be aimed although that article only gives it a fleeting mention....

clearly thats where the problem is in the UK....although perhaps it is more difficult to aquire the means, within the US itself, to carry out attacks....the procurement of explosive materials etc (not neccessarily high explosives but ammonian nitrate fertilizers etc)

i think its probably inevitable that another attack will take place...as the IRA said in the 70's and 80's....the police have to get it right every time....we only have to get it right once"

Originally posted by jaden101
i think the focus on terrorist coming from Europe (namely the UK) and so called "home-grown" terrorists is where the primary focus of the US security should be aimed although that article only gives it a fleeting mention....

clearly thats where the problem is in the UK....although perhaps it is more difficult to aquire the means, within the US itself, to carry out attacks....the procurement of explosive materials etc (not neccessarily high explosives but ammonian nitrate fertilizers etc)

i think its probably inevitable that another attack will take place...as the IRA said in the 70's and 80's....the police have to get it right every time....we only have to get it right once"

unfortunatly since the invasion of Afghanistan the "home growns" are the new face of Al Qaida.

All domestic European attacks have link to Al Qaida, as do many of the groups running around in the middle east. Al Qaida has morphed from a group able to micromanage large attacks to a uniting philosophical and information network that ideologically and methologically support one another.

A paper I was reading on this seems to believe that the big 9-11 style attacks are a thing of the past, given how much planning is necessary and the high chance of it getting found out. However attacks like the recent ones in the UK will probably increase, probably with at least online support from al qaida.

find the "nemo" document 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunatly since the invasion of Afghanistan the "home growns" are the new face of Al Qaida.

All domestic European attacks have link to Al Qaida, as do many of the groups running around in the middle east. Al Qaida has morphed from a group able to micromanage large attacks to a uniting philosophical and information network that ideologically and methologically support one another.

A paper I was reading on this seems to believe that the big 9-11 style attacks are a thing of the past, given how much planning is necessary and the high chance of it getting found out. However attacks like the recent ones in the UK will probably increase, probably with at least online support from al qaida.

find the "nemo" document 😉

Sounds likely enough and a good strategy if you ask me. It's far better to have people scared of taking a cab or going into a coffee shop then having them scared of flying. Which happens far less often.

Originally posted by Fishy
Sounds likely enough and a good strategy if you ask me. It's far better to have people scared of taking a cab or going into a coffee shop then having them scared of flying. Which happens far less often.

Unfortunately that kind of stuff is really difficult to stop while still maintaining democratic freedoms. The Glasgow night club bombs were spotted by accident... Imagine how terrible that would have been.........

The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11

He's basically admitting that the government was behind 9/11, isn't he?

Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11

He's basically admitting that the government was behind 9/11, isn't he? [/B]

OMFG ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT

lets march on bohemian grove and burn those bilderburgers at the steak!

Originally posted by Schecter
whats more ****ed up is that nobody's interested.

the president who cried wolf. now the threat looks real and everyone yawns.

Well that's what happens when you talk a lot of shit with no follow-through. And that when shit does hit the fan, it bites you in the ass, ey.

I honesltly wonder how W. will be remembered 50 years from now, what will American kids read about him in their history book.

Originally posted by Fishy
Don't forget about the Nuclear weapons they have. Pakistan is a no-go area. You stay away from the Pakistani borders and the Pakistani people because the second you start a war there you are screwed. Not only would there be a huge chance of some terrorists getting their hands on nuclear missiles, Pakistan might actually just start firing some of their own...

Not to mention that Pakistan in general is quite good for us in this conflict. Of course they aren't as hard against Islam extremists as some of us would have wanted, but their country is filled with those people and those people can vote, with elections coming up and all that might be important for the president. Especially when you consider that the extremists have a large chance of winning the elections.

Now unless of course you suggest making the country into a dictatorship unlike the one it is now, then you must agree that we don't really have much of a choice and neither does the Pakistani government.

None of that is surprising, especially coming from the world's first Islamic Republic. Pakistan is an under-the-table ally/best friend/providing-cover-fire nation for al Qaeda.

I wonder where India stands in all this. (their opinion)