Report: al-Qaida Ranks Swelling Worldwide

[zimv20]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040525/ap_on_re_eu/al_qaida_6)


LONDON - Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq (news - web sites) is swelling its ranks, a report said Tuesday.

Al-Qaida is probably working on plans for major attacks on the United States and Europe, and it may be seeking weapons of mass destruction in its desire to inflict as many casualties as possible, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said in its annual survey of world affairs.

Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network appears to be operating in more than 60 nations, often in concert with local allies, the study by the independent think tank said.

Although about half of al-Qaida's top 30 leaders have been killed or captured, it has an effective leadership, with bin Laden apparently still playing a key role, it said.


The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror the wars in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq may have boosted al-Qaida.

Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.

And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al-Qaida and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq brought al-Qaida recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents, the survey said.


The United States is al-Qaida's prime target in a war it sees as a death struggle between civilizations, the report said. An al-Qaida leader has said 4 million Americans will have to be killed "as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory," the survey said.


gee, the war in iraq may have increased terrorism? who could have predicted it? besides me, pseudobrit et. al., of course.

[mactastic]

Hmmm.... cause (invade Iraq) and effect (increase in terrorism)???? :D

Yeah, who woulda thunk it? Besides a whole bunch of us internet jockeys that is. So the justifications for war were what again?

WMDs? Well besides that single sarin gas shell that no one's really sure where it came from and some stuff buried since 1991, there's nothing. Most of the evidence presented to us pre-war has been discredited. Today administration officials say things like 'Now, I never said Saddam was an imminent threat.'

Humanitarian? We kinda blew the top off that one when we let our guys take photos of violations of the GC. Sure we're better than people who behead other humans, but thats not something you want to put on your diplomatic 'resume'.

To make the US safer? Well we seem to be having the opposite effect, our actions are of the 'one step forward and two (or three) steps backwards' variety.

Strategic geopolitical positioning? Rumors are we just got played; conned into doing the Iranians dirty work for them. We'll see how that pans out, but geopolitics wasn't how this war was sold even if that was a neocon goal that some of us again pointed out.

"He tried to kill mah daddy"?

[miloblithe]

I was kind of under the impression that most people predicted that this war would feed al-Qaida recruiting. It's so obvious it almost goes without saying: destabalize a controlling, repressive regime and create an atmosphere of chaos. Of course it's going to feed into recruitment.

Maybe I just hang out with too many educated realists.

[wwworry]

Would it be crass to wear an "I told you so" t-shirt around the RNC convention? 'cause really there were quite a lot of us predicting all this. I'm sure it will be like the first NYC protest - police state, cops beating people up and cop horses running at people just for standing on the sidewalk.

[IJ Reilly]

Before anyone gives themselves too much credit, I seem to remember the CIA making similar predictions. In fact I don't recall any credible source suggesting that the Iraq invasion would do anything to reduce the size of Al Qaida.

[wwworry]

I'm not saying I invented the idea that going into Iraq was a bad idea. Lot's of people knew. But that doesn't mean we can't rub it in a little. It's important to let the political-powers-that-be know when they are stupid.

[Neserk]

Personally, I especially would like to rub it in considering how many times I was shut down last year for daring to suggest that the beloved President of the United States was not infallible. :eek:

How dare I!

[Spizzo]

Yeah...But now we have access to much more oil...... :confused:

I'm moving to Ireland!!!

[blackfox]

Before anyone gives themselves too much credit, I seem to remember the CIA making similar predictions. In fact I don't recall any credible source suggesting that the Iraq invasion would do anything to reduce the size of Al Qaida.
Which of course brings us back to the idiocy of this War in the first place. That it did not address our real threat, and as this thread mentions, exacerbated it...it seems amazing that this fact still escapes so many people. If a dog **** in my yard, if I wanted to punish it, I probably wouldn't go kick the cat...even if I was able to convince my family that it was indeed the dog.

(ok, I admit my analogies need work...you get the idea)

[pseudobrit]

Yeah...But now we have access to much more oil...... :confused:

I'm moving to Ireland!!!

Going after the world's supply of peat?

[toontra]

Would it be crass to wear an "I told you so" t-shirt around the RNC convention? 'cause really there were quite a lot of us predicting all this.

There was a report drawn up by the UK intelligence services prior to war which predicted just such an outcome - an increased risk of international terrorism following a war in Iraq..

That report was kept secret from the public, I can only assume, because it did not fit in with the rush to war. Every other bit of "intelligence" which supported the case for war was printed, published and trumpeted from the rooftops (almost all now discredited).

The latest mantra from GW & TB is to say "let's go from here, not from some ideal starting point". Well, I for one am going to be around saying "If you'd listened to all the arguments and acted on all the evidence, as you were morally obliged to do, WE WOULDN'T BE STARTING FROM HERE, you idiots!"

PS My posts will be thin on the ground for a few weeks; I'll check in when I can (dial-up!). Don't think I've gotten tired, and while I'm away don't cut the war appologists any slack!!

[Voltron]

You don't win against terrorism by giving in to it.
Giving in to terrorist is in fact allowing them to win so even if the battle gets bigger you can't. The only answer to terrorist is death. So the whether or not Al-Qaeda got bigger the answer is not do what the terrorist tells us to do. You do not defend against terrorist by kissing their butts. The world should be united at killing them.

[Zaid]

You don't win against terrorism by giving in to it.
Giving in to terrorist is in fact allowing them to win so even if the battle gets bigger you can't. The only answer to terrorist is death. So the whether or not Al-Qaeda got bigger the answer is not do what the terrorist tells us to do. You do not defend against terrorist by kissing their butts. The world should be united at killing them.

dunno why i'm wasting my time ...

The point is that its not just a matter of killing every single terrorist, if your actions simply alienate more people into becoming the next generation of terrorists.

when US actions result in a 10 year old girl saying "Americans killed my father, why shouln't i kill Americans?" -- daughter of one of the vicitms of the wedding masacre -- then your actions are just being counter-productive.

It's not just a matter of killing the terrorists. It's removing the reason for their existance.

[miloblithe]

You don't win against terrorism by giving in to it.
Giving in to terrorist is in fact allowing them to win so even if the battle gets bigger you can't. The only answer to terrorist is death. So the whether or not Al-Qaeda got bigger the answer is not do what the terrorist tells us to do. You do not defend against terrorist by kissing their butts. The world should be united at killing them.

Examples, Voltron. Examples. Arguments are made by offering examples and making points with them. (Consider, if you will, 1886 Haymarket riots in America and the 1860s 'People's Will' movement in Tsarist Russia...)

Also, the insistance that there is one answer to any problem is simpleminded. A sensible strategy would procede on multiple fronts: reduce the number of active terrorists by combatting them directly, reduce the number of future terrorists by persuading those who are not terrorists not to become terrorists. The equation of the Iraq occupation obviously fails on the latter point.

[mactastic]

But it sounds so good to say 'let's kill the all.' :rolleyes:

[Thomas Veil]

One has to wonder if -- instead of invading Iraq, we'd spent the same amount of effort putting more soldiers into hunting al-Queda in Afghanistan and more CIA intelligence into shutting down other terrorist cells in Europe and elsewhere -- we'd have less al-Qaeda membership instead of more.

[Voltron]

One has to wonder if -- instead of invading Iraq, we'd spent the same amount of effort putting more soldiers into hunting al-Queda in Afghanistan and more CIA intelligence into shutting down other terrorist cells in Europe and elsewhere -- we'd have less al-Qaeda membership instead of more.
They would all move back to Iraq.

[numediaman]

Yes, the war has been quite a blessed event for those who support Al-Qaeda. Now comes the second part: will Iraq (or parts of it) be turned into an Islamic state similar to either Iran, or worse, Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Here is one of the first accounts I've seen of the conditions in Fallujah since the US let the militants retain control:

Fallujah slides toward Islamic state
'We shall only accept God's law,' cleric says

By HAMZA HENDAWI
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

FALLUJAH, Iraq - With U.S. Marines gone and central government authority virtually nonexistent, Fallujah resembles an Islamic mini-state. Anyone caught selling alcohol is flogged and paraded in the city. Men are encouraged to grow beards and barbers are warned against giving "Western" hair cuts.

"After all the blood that was shed, and the lives that were lost, we shall only accept God's law in Fallujah," said cleric Abdul-Qader al-Aloussi, offering a glimpse of what a future Iraq may look like as the U.S.-led occupation draws to a close. "We must capitalize on our victory over the Americans and implement Islamic sharia laws."

The departure of the Marines under an agreement that ended the three-week siege last month has enabled hard-line Islamic leaders to assert their power in this once-restive city 30 miles west of Baghdad.

Some were active in defending the city against the Marines and have profited by a perception - both here and elsewhere in Iraq - that the mujahedeen, or Islamic holy warriors, defeated a superpower.

Under the agreement, the Marines handed security in the city to a new Fallujah Brigade made up largely of local residents and commanded by officers of Saddam Hussein's former army.

With the departure of the Marines, the position of the U.S.-appointed civil administration has been weakened in favor of the clerics and the mujahedeen who resisted the U.S. occupation. That is a pattern that could be repeated elsewhere in Iraq after the occupation ends June 30, unless other legitimate leaders come forward to replace those tainted by association with the occupation.

Fallujah, which calls itself the "City of Mosques," provides the religious fundamentalists with fertile ground for wielding power. The city's estimated 300,000 residents are known for their religious piety.

Women rarely appear in public and when they do, they are covered from head to toe in accordance with Islam's strict dress code for women. The lives of men revolve around Islam's tradition of praying five times a day.

Unlike other Iraqi cities, Fallujah has never allowed liquor stores. Its famous kebab restaurants have prayer rooms, an unusual feature in most Muslim nations. Many of its adult male population wear beards, a hallmark of religious piety.

However, steps taken by the mujahedeen over the past month have gone beyond simply encouraging piety.

On Sunday, for example, scores of masked mujahedeen, shouting "Allahu Akbar," or "God is Great," paraded four men stripped down to their underpants atop the back of a pickup that drove through the city. Their bare backs were bleeding from 80 lashes they had received as punishment for selling alcohol. They were taken to a hospital where they were treated and released.

Residents said a man found intoxicated last week was flogged, held overnight and released the next day.

Fallujah's women hair stylists shut down their shops several months ago after repeated attacks blamed on Muslim militants . . .

[mactastic]

They would all move back to Iraq.

They wern't from Iraq. Haven't you been paying any attention? Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from? Were there any Iraqis on those airplanes? How about on the boat that bombed the USS Cole? Tanzania? The first WTC attack? Indonesia?

So the question is, are you really that ignorant, or are you just trolling?

[zimv20]

So the question is, are you really that ignorant, or are you just trolling?
which answer will lead to your use of the ignore feature?

[Sayhey]

gee, the war in iraq may have increased terrorism? who could have predicted it? besides me, pseudobrit et. al., of course.

Just wanted to note, so we don't forget, the President's own advisor on terrorism did predict precisely this outcome in the days following 9/11, when Rumsfeld and others were advocating launching the invasion of Iraq. Of course, ol' Georgie knew better. He knew this was a war against terrorism in his "guts" - obviously a more reliable indicator, because everyone who knew it from actual experience in the region or through long study told him differently.

[Backtothemac]

This is a Catch 22. Either we abandon all policies that they (terrorists) oppose, or we have to kill them. BUT, if we kill them, in the process we justify their existance. The only way is through overwhelming force. Make them affraid to do anything.

[screener]

It's already personal isn't it?
They aren't afraid of dying or haven't you noticed.
Fine mess the U.S. got itself led into.
And there's a chance the same bunch will get re-elected.
Bush still gets points for his leadership in the war on terror?
Strange.

[blackfox]

This is a Catch 22. Either we abandon all policies that they (terrorists) oppose, or we have to kill them. BUT, if we kill them, in the process we justify their existance. The only way is through overwhelming force. Make them affraid to do anything.
Hasn't Isreal been trying this policy for years...the problem with the overwhelming force/fear factor, is that when people are willing to die for their beliefs (suicide bombing etc), I think it is safe to say that they would not really be afraid of anything...extreme ideological positions (especially those promising eternal salvation) are remarkably resilient to whatever is thrown at them...the only hope it would seem is to discredit or provide a more attractive ideology to replace the current one. The ideology is the root of the problem, and no matter how many "terrorists" are killed, if the root is intact (and as an abstract ideology, it is impervious to weaponry), new ones will take their places...a lot like weeds in the garden.
Decent, patient intelligence (not our strong suit thus far), and surgical, precision strikes against small (or individual) targets, coupled with a more even-handed policy towards Isreal, support for a Palestianian State and the rights of self-determination of Iraq (and the rest of the ME) seems like a decent policy to me. The Iranian populace is already pro-American (in terms of wanting opportunity and the trappings of capitalism), and given time, much of the region may follow. Seems cynical to say, but for all its' faults, capitalism might be a fine ideology to take the wind out of the terrorists' sails and ideological foundation.

[screener]

Voltron

Aren't you mimicking the right wing pro war stuff that's been
discredited? The terrorists didn't come from Iraq. They were
based in Afghanistan, This was a good war, get them on home
turf. Don't get distracted by Iraq.
Don't say stuff that can be proven false.
And don't believe what you want to here because you may miss
something important like, Hannity, Coulter and the like have
an agenda as well as some left wingers.
The truth is somewhere in the middle and once you figure that out
you'll be thinking for yourself.

[Frohickey]

Hasn't Isreal been trying this policy for years...the problem with the overwhelming force/fear factor, is that when people are willing to die for their beliefs (suicide bombing etc), I think it is safe to say that they would not really be afraid of anything...extreme ideological positions (especially those promising eternal salvation) are remarkably resilient to whatever is thrown at them...the only hope it would seem is to discredit or provide a more attractive ideology to replace the current one.

There are others that think that Israel should 'take off the kid gloves' and really get to busting some terrorist heads. Off-ing the Egyptian-born Yassir Arafat, aka Abu Amar, failed civil engineer, whose wife and kid are *NOT* even living in the Gaza strip, might be a start. Okay, the Palestinians might go nuts and the entire area might turn into an angry hornets nest... oh wait, it already is. :eek:

Things were fairly quiet in Israel from the time Arafat was exiled in Tunisia to when Arafat got back into Gaza. Pretty illustrative, if you ask me.

[Frohickey]

Actually, the strategery :p here is to have countries/states be responsible for any terrorists within their borders, and to not allow the terrorists free reign.

If a country/state is willfully allowing terrorists to operate and exporting terrorism to other countries, then that country is open for invasion/use of military force.

This is actually a new strategy. The old strategy is to treat terrorism as a criminal case or intelligence case, but the results of that were mixed. It could take a lot of time and effort to bring the guilty parties to justice, and/or you end up with a lot of dead bodies and ongoing investigations after the dirty deed is done. Not the strategy you want if you or your loved ones are potentially the ones to be 6 feet under. Good strategy if you are a terrorist though. :eek:

[blackfox]

There are others that think that Israel should 'take off the kid gloves' and really get to busting some terrorist heads. Off-ing the Egyptian-born Yassir Arafat, aka Abu Amar, failed civil engineer, whose wife and kid are *NOT* even living in the Gaza strip, might be a start. Okay, the Palestinians might go nuts and the entire area might turn into an angry hornets nest... oh wait, it already is. :eek:

Things were fairly quiet in Israel from the time Arafat was exiled in Tunisia to when Arafat got back into Gaza. Pretty illustrative, if you ask me.
It can, of course, be argued both ways...there are many who feel that Sharon has severely set-back the stability and safety of Isreal in his hawkish zeal (remind you of anyone) and this coupled w/ the US fawning over Isreal have seriously de-railed any peace initiatives between Palestine/Isreal and much of the hard work the Clinton administration and the International community put into the region in the '90's...

Also, you did not address the route I advocated for dealing w/ the terrorist threat, unless what I quoted was a oblique reference to what the US should do...

[Frohickey]

It can, of course, be argued both ways...there are many who feel that Sharon has severely set-back the stability and safety of Isreal in his hawkish zeal (remind you of anyone) and this coupled w/ the US fawning over Isreal have seriously de-railed any peace initiatives between Palestine/Isreal and much of the hard work the Clinton administration and the International community put into the region in the '90's...

Also, you did not address the route I advocated for dealing w/ the terrorist threat, unless what I quoted was a oblique reference to what the US should do...

There is the interventionist route, and there is the isolationist route.

If *I* were President of the US, aside from staffing it with better looking interns :eek:, I would have done the isolationist route. Eliminate all foreign aid, *ALL*. No foreign aid to Israel, none to Egypt, none to Jordan. They can fight on their own dime. I'll gladly sell weapons systems to both sides though, but only for gold bullion, or perpetual territorial claim (akin to Lousiana purchase or Alaska purchase). The savings from not giving foreign aid, I will put into making Social Security solvent, and then privatize that in the next few decades. The gold bullion and lands could be funneled into Social Security as well, to make it solvent and privatized, and the lands could be traded or sold, maybe to Canada (the Middle East could be a winter vacation spot for Canucks), or to rich Hollywood celebrities like Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and Cher. :p

[mactastic]

It could take a lot of time and effort to bring the guilty parties to justice, and/or you end up with a lot of dead bodies and ongoing investigations after the dirty deed is done.

Yeah, this way we're relatively free of dead bodies aren't we? Oh that's right, Iraqi life is worth less than American life... Also we're relatively free of about $200B too huh?

[jefhatfield]

the world is a small place and even smaller when viewed in financial terms

where i live in monterey country, ca, a salinas defense firm builds scud missile components for iraq ...but we are talking about millions of dollars coming into our community and the powers that be will not just ignore that

bin laden himself (or his family...some say the same thing) has had many dollars invested into us interests to the point we, as a country, don't want to just suddenly "freeze" his assets if it will hurt jobs...especially in these tough economic times

we cannot just turn our back on all questionable arab investments in the us... too many jobs, even here, depend on that money...and vice versa

some say we would have attacked iraq sooner but we needed that steady supply of their oil at the time so much that an attack plan was thwarted several times in the past since the first gulf war

just look at a label on something that you wear if you wonder who we do business with...i bet you will see something made in the communist nation of china ;)

and last time i checked, china does not have a human rights record better than iraq or afganistan...funny how we mention how "bad" saddam was to his people while human rights abuses of nations "friendly" to us often get overlooked

call me cynical, but i believe money plays the biggest part in how we decide to exercise our foreign policy