PDA

View Full Version : CIA chief: Al Qaeda to strike




Shrek
Oct 18, 2002, 12:37 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/intelligence.inquiry/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/17/intelligence.inquiry/index.html)

CIA chief: Al Qaeda poses new threats

'Threat environment' as bad as summer 2001

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The al Qaeda terrorist network has reorganized after its ouster from Afghanistan and "intends to strike us here and overseas," CIA Director George Tenet told a congressional committee Thursday.

The domestic "threat environment" is as bad as it was in the summer of 2001, before the September 11 attacks, Tenet said.

"When you see the multiple attacks that you have seen occur around the world, from Bali to Kuwait; the number of failed attacks that have been attempted; [and] the various messages that have been issued by senior al Qaeda leaders, you must make the assumption that al Qaeda is in an execution phase and intends to strike us here and overseas," he told the Joint Intelligence Committee. "That's unambiguous, as far as I am concerned."

Tenet's testimony came as attacks believed tied to al Qaeda or affiliated terror groups have escalated.

On Thursday, five people were killed and more than 140 injured after bombs exploded in Zamboanga in the southern Philippines. Philippine officials are blaming the bombings on "Islamic extremists."

The city also was the scene of an October 2 blast that claimed four lives, including a U.S. Green Beret.

In Bali last week, back-to-back explosions at a crowded nightclub killed more than 180 people and injured hundreds more. Investigators say they suspect al Qaeda may have had a direct or indirect role in the attack.

On October 6, audiotaped statements purportedly made by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri warned of new attacks. That same day, a French tanker was bombed off Yemen. Two days later, in Kuwait, gunmen killed a U.S. Marine. Both of those attacks are believed connected to al Qaeda.

Intelligence oversights

In earlier testimony, Tenet said the agency should have placed two September 11 hijackers on a "watch list" long before it did.

Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi first came to the CIA's attention in December 1999, when they attended a meeting of known terrorists in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Tenet told lawmakers. Yet the CIA did not warn the FBI and other law enforcement agencies that they might try to enter the United States until August 23, 2001 -- more than 11 months after the two had been in the country.

"Before August 2001, the CIA should have sent the names of both Alhazmi and Almidhar to the State Department for inclusion on its watch list," Tenet said Thursday. "The error exposed weaknesses in our internal handling of watch listing, which have been addressed. Corrective steps have been taken."

Tenet defended the CIA's performance against al Qaeda, but said 1990s budget cuts stretched the agency's capabilities.

"The last decade saw a number of conflicting and competing trends: military forces deployed to more locations than ever in our nation's history; a growing counterproliferation and counterterrorism threat; constant tensions in the Mideast; and to deal with these and a host of other issues, far fewer intelligence dollars and manpower," Tenet said.

In the late 1990s, said Tenet, he warned U.S. intelligence officials to consider themselves "at war" with bin Laden. The agency then began shifting more resources into counterterrorism, and the results showed in the spring and summer of 2001, he said.

"We increased the tempo of our operations against al Qaeda," said Tenet. "We stopped some attacks and caused the terrorists to postpone others."

In the months before September 11, 2001, CIA sources told the agency "spectacular attacks" were planned, said Tenet. "Nevertheless, with specific regard to the 9/11 plot, we never acquired the level of detail that allowed us to translate our strategic concerns into something we could act on."

Terrorism indicated

The Bali explosions, say investigators, bear the trademark of the sort of terrorist attack for which al Qaeda is known. Authorities have questioned four suspects in the attack, but say they haven't arrested anyone.

Police have said they think the attack was planned by the al Qaeda terrorist network, possibly in conjunction with the Jemaah Islamiya regional Islamic militant group. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/17/bali.plot/index.html))

Investigators also are taking a close look at the blasts Thursday in Zamboanga. Seven bombs detonated in two department stores, and Philippine authorities say they think Islamic extremists may be behind the attack. (Full story (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/10/17/philippines.bomb/index.html))

In Washington, meanwhile, efforts to create an independent commission to conduct a longer, broader investigation remained at an impasse.

About 10 relatives of September 11 victims met on Capitol Hill with lawmakers and two White House officials, Nicholas Calio and Jay Lefkowitz, in an unsuccessful attempt to break a deadlock, stems from differences between the White House and victims' families and congressional leaders about who the commission would be formed.

"Our frustration level has never been higher," said Beverly Eckert of Voices of September 11.

Uh oh. :(



Hemingray
Oct 18, 2002, 01:11 AM
I'd like to see them try another stint like 9/11. Those bastards will not succeed! What a bunch of sad gits.

3rdpath
Oct 18, 2002, 01:41 AM
sadly, i don't think its a matter of "if", but a matter of "when".

Kethoticus
Oct 18, 2002, 01:57 AM
I'll say this much: these maniacs aren't making any friends. I mean, attack their own people in Bali?!? Yeah, those Indonesian Muslims will just run to their side now.

jefhatfield
Oct 18, 2002, 07:33 AM
obviously, they are working in such small, unrelated cells, and autonomously, that it would be hard to catch them all

to call the cells unified or under one name is a misnomer

it's not as if we can catch all their current leaders and stop terrorist activity in the name of al qaeda

as long as their is one person angry enough to do harm and they want to call themselves al qaeda, then that organization is alive and succeeding on its diabolical goals

the only way terrorism will stop is when there is no longer a huge distance between the usa and the rest of the world in terms of dollars and cents

we are a rich country and thus a target for a lot of disenfranchised citizens of the world who live in war and poverty...whether the usa had a part in their dispair or not

i believe, at least some of al qaeda think they are doing something right to help the plight of some populace they think they are representing

but as history shows, this type of brutal, random violence never succeeds in the end

Ovi
Oct 18, 2002, 10:18 AM
22

macktheknife
Oct 21, 2002, 08:37 PM
Man, reading this story was so sad and scary:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101021028/story.html

This whole incident is so damn terrible: my friend told me that Bali is to Australians whan Hawaii is to Americans. With this recent incident, I think Bali's tourism industry will be in trouble for quite some time.

I think Al-Qaeda is going to change its tactic to car bombs and suicide bombers to hit civilians everywhere. It's easier and more damaging psychologically.

Kethoticus
Oct 21, 2002, 10:40 PM
If one wants to understand terrorism one needs to read the book Islam Unvelied. It has nothing to do with wealth or foreign policy. The balance of power in the middle east is held by moderate leaders who hold millions in check to prevent the masses from jihad. The Quaran clearly show what a true muslim must do to the infidels.

Terrorism will stop only when the Islam faith goes through a reformation. In the mean time they must be fought with every ounce of energy for these people will stop at nothing to kill as many innocent people as possible.

I was recently admonished (and insulted) for putting up a quote that read, "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sent his Son to die for you." I said that I'd remove this quote from the bottom of all my posts until I found more conclusive evidence that such a statement was accurate and fair to Muslims. It sounds like you've found something that backs up that quote. Am I right? Wrong? What does the statement "The Quaran clearly show what a true muslim must do to the infidels" mean? Does the Q'uran really tell people to commit suicide in the name of Allah? Is this an actual tenet of the religion or just a perversion of the religion on the parts of some psychopaths?

If the book claims the former, what evidence do they provide to back themselves up? Do they quote verses within context? I guess what I'm asking is, is the book written by a reputable author? If you prefer to keep this from developing into a potentially tense thread, feel free to email me privately.

Ovi
Oct 21, 2002, 11:49 PM
22

Kethoticus
Oct 22, 2002, 01:54 AM
I am not expert on Islam but I feel I understand it better than most. The religion itself can live in complete harmony with others. Here in the US it does for the time being. Things can turn ugly in an instant. If we have one more mass terrorist attack in which we loose several hundred thousand, I can guarantee you that every mosque will be closed by the government and most muslims will be placed in camps. It will make the Japanese interment camps a picnic. This will not happen for it is unlikely we will have the attack.

Don't completely discount this. Don't think that N Korea wouldn't smuggle a nuke into the US if they could. Or even China. In fact, I have heard that China, at times, has considered--or has actually worked with terrorists to hit the US with a nuclear attack without launching a single rocket, and presumably staying away from any blame. We have enemies everywhere.


Islam Unveiled does a great job in explaining what I am about to. Yes even in the Bible we can find numerous verses describing how the Children of Israel should deal with their enemies. We can even call Samson a suicide bomber, whether he will be saved is left for others to debate.

I can not debate this at this time, but I can say this: I believe that Samson and others in the OT were sent by God to judge peoples whose pagan ways had reached a limit that even God's near-infinite patience could no longer tolerate. I believe that these Muslim terrorists are acting less on Allah's judgement and more out of their own jealousy and psychological ***** envy of the US.


However in Christianity we had the New Testament which taught Christians not to follow the laws of the Old with the exception of the ten commandments. We then turn to the reformation and Martin Luther which took Christianity a step further.

He based his faith on the Bible itself. Actually, he attempted to bring the Church BACK to Biblical fundamentals, something the Catholic Church had seriously departed from. His reformation was not in rewriting Christianity, but in getting back to the basics of it.


Islam has been the same for over 1500 years with no changes. The Koran is sacred and must be followed as it is written.

We Christians see the Bible the same way. The difference: Christians are taught to preach and to love in order to lead people to God. The wrath part is supposed to come from God Himself.


I will not quote verses but there are plenty which clearly ask the followers to make the whole world muslim and those who don't convert shall be killed.

Christians are called to make disciples of all people all over the world as well. But again, we're called to love people into the Kingdom of God and to preach the "good news" of Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection. In no way, shape or form are Jesus' followers called upon to wage war against the unGodly. In fact, what did Jesus do when Peter raised his sword in defense of Jesus the night he was arrested? He told him that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Sounds like a discouragement to commit violence.


Bush and Blair know this. It is a balancing act they must follow but slowly the forces of moderation in the muslim world will reform the religion.

Eeek. I hope you're right. There is opposition in Iran and Iraq, so I suppose that's a glimmer of hope.


If the world did not depend so much on Saudi and Iranian oil those would be the first countries which would be attacked.

Amen to that. Hence one of my reasons for planning on getting a "green" car and a solar-powered house.


All in good time.

I hope so. One way or the other--internal revolution, war, negotiations, treaties--for our safety, these countries need to radically change.


But thanks for that. That was interesting.

Ovi
Oct 22, 2002, 10:25 AM
11

Kethoticus
Oct 22, 2002, 11:04 AM
I know that Desert Storm was at least partially about oil, and unlike others, I will not criticize that. But I truly do believe that for the sake of our environment, our safety, etc, etc, we need to pursue home-grown, environment-friendly, renewable sources of energy. And the sooner the better. If anything, our war on terror has magnified this need and will hopefully move our nation to be more aggressive in pursuing alternative fuel sources.

All signs indicate that the world will need more oil not less. Once Russia gets on board and there is more drilling in North Africa, OPEC will become just another little country club.

Well, that will have the benefit of making Russia richer and therefore, more stable, as well as weakening the hold the Arab world has on the West.


Henry Kissinger said something very interesting right after Sept. 11. After Afghanistan the next target (Iraq) we will seperate the sheep from the goats.

I'm not sure if I like the sound of that. What exactly is he talking about?


The axis of evil speech a blue print to things to come. N. Korea may end up our next target. The problem is not them but rather China.

I agree with that, to a point. I think BOTH countries should be of concern to us. I do not want to get into a conflict with nation that has over a billion people over a tiny island. But N Korea does need to be dealt with. I believe that they are a potentially terrorist-supporting country and are aggressive.


China will eventually need to attack Taiwan in order unite its population. Despite its gains in capitalism the average Chinese is not better off. Their military is worse off than old Soviet Union. They can inflict a great deal of damage, but can also be beaten back.

I don't see how this is going to benefit China economically. Or is it just a distraction for its people?


Iran will fall on its own. There are daily demonstrations there and most love the US rather than hate it.

Not having to attack yet another Muslim country would be a great relief. That's that much less we'll look like a bully to the Arab world. I hope you're right about this.

mcrain
Oct 22, 2002, 11:38 AM
I think the extremism that exists within the Islamic world is more a product of individuals rather than the religious texts. Sure, any nutjob can point to something in the old testament, new testament, koran, whatever to justify a point of view or course of action. However, Islam has a long, long history of expanding peacefully. When they first expanded into what is now Isreal, they lived peacefully with the jewish population for hundreds of years. It wasn't until more militant interpretations of Islam came about that the problems with India, Isreal, the US, etc... came to the forefront.

Islam, by itself, is just a religion. Islam interpreted by whackjobs can be just as sad and pathetic as Christianity was during the crusades.

(edit)

Take a look at this article on the difference between Islam and Islamism...
http://www.danielpipes.org/talks/19980630.shtml

Ovi
Oct 22, 2002, 11:58 AM
11

jefhatfield
Oct 22, 2002, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Ovi
mccrain,

great article. Then we must conclude that the muslim world is already moderate and the terrorist have choosen not to be moderate. There are conservitive christians and liberal, however they both agree that we must not kill women and children in the name of God. I now need to see more moderate muslims speak out against those who are conservative. When I do than I will accept that Islam is a faith of peace.

there are tons of moderate muslims

the press concentrates on the extremists because they are more newsworthy and add the the network's ratings

note the lack of happy news these days

Ovi
Oct 22, 2002, 12:13 PM
11