Terror's Next Stop (Newsweek 3/22 issue)

[huckleberry]

by Michael Hirsh

Are we any safer from attack? Probably not—and the threat is growing ever more diffuse and hard to fight. The changing nature of terror, and the groups who are targeting the innocent.

snip

The Qaeda organization that committed the horrors of 9/11 was, at the time, the only group that had declared global war on America. While it had widespread cells, it was anchored in Afghanistan as well. Al Qaeda also had a well-established history: bin Laden had emerged from the mujahedin movement against the Soviets and unit-ed with his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who had cut his teeth on the Islamist struggle against Egypt's secular leaders. Now, says Milt Bearden, a former CIA station chief in Pakistan, "I think the (terror threat) has metastasized to the point where we haven't got a clue where it will pop up next."

The last two weeks of mass killings—of celebrant Shiites in Iraq and Pakistan on the holy day of Ashura, followed a week later by the attacks on commuters in Madrid—may some day be viewed as the opening shots fired by this spectral second generation of terrorists. In both cases authorities remain fairly clueless as to which groups were involved and to whom they are linked, whether they take orders from Al Qaeda or merely coexist with it, and whether non-Islamist groups like the Basque ETA have grown new synapses connecting them with otherwise disparate movements. All that is known is that such groups seem to be fueled by ever more virulent anti-American sentiment, and that since the war in Iraq this has often manifested itself through attacks on U.S. allies such as Spain, and agencies like the Red Cross or United Nations that work with Washington. In a videotape last fall, bin Laden specifically named Spain as a potential target. Intelligence officials also tell NEWSWEEK that Zarqawi is viewed as a suspect in three major attacks in Iraq last year: on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, on a leading Shiite mosque in Najaf (in which a pro-U.S. ayatollah was killed) and on an Italian paramilitary post.

snip

The question now, though, is whether that giant American fist has effectively smashed down on a blob of mercury, sending it in myriad directions and making it all but untraceable. NEWSWEEK has learned that the last Orange terror alert in December—triggered by hijacking threats to foreign airliners heading to America—was based on what appears to be bad information. No arrests or detentions have been made, and no leads remain open. U.S. officials say that, even in the wake of Madrid, the level of intelligence "chatter" about an attack on the continental United States remains low; but if it was "high" in December, does today's lack of intel mean anything? A former senior counterterrorism official in the Bush administration points out that "there have been more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months before. I think we may have cut off Al Qaeda's head, but the rest of the body is working fine and has spawned 10 more smaller heads."


more at
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4524563/

[Kool Kitty]

1. "...more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11

than in the 30 months before." But I thought that we had them on the run, have arrested or nullified their leaders? Isn't that what Mr. Bush said? So what's going on here? I thought he said that we were all safer with Saddam in custody? I thought the war in Iraq was part of the greater war on terror? What has actually been accomplished, besides capturing Saddam (who deserves to be out of power, no argument there)?
The "chatter" that made our alert system go "orange" was bad intelligence? Why are we supposed to take anything this administration says seriously? Heaven help us if there really is a problem, no one will give a shit. How many times can they cry wolf and have us pay attention?

[bfusco]

2. That is what I try to point

out when people claim that shrub is protecting us and it is working because there have not been attacks on US soil since 9/11. Individuals forget that after 1993,it took over 8 years for another international terrorist attack to occur on US soil so two and half years without an attack on US soil doesn't mean we are safer. During Clinton's term over 6 years, I remember Al Qaeda attacks against Kobar towers, US embassies in Africa and the Cole. Since 9/11 it is hard to count but the attacks have increased and are more widespread with locations including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Spain, Moroco and scres of attacks in Iraq to name a few. The analage of hammering a ball of mercury is accurate. It would be interesting to compile a list of attacks and deaths that have occured undered shrub's admiinstration and compare to the previous to see just how effective this administration really is on this issue.

[xchrom]

3. but bush promised to make things better

sometimes i feel like the 00 selection sent us all through the looking glass.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. "The question now, though, is whether that giant American fist ...

has effectively smashed down on a blob of mercury, sending it in myriad directions and making it all but untraceable." I'm afraid the answer is yes, and frightening.

[mediaman007]

5. and so we continue to pay the penalty for the illegal war...

Rummy said that we could fight two wars at one time! But only the visionaries here at DU and those who marched in the streets could see this coming. Now we are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. I suppose we have the might to bomb Syria, but the people of the third world know how to defeat the United States. They will just evaporate their armies, let us in their countries and pick us off one at a time.

People in the United States think about finishing these occupations off in less than five years. To the poor people of the World five years is nothing. They aren't going anywhere, they know that they can win the 100 year war.

On the other hand, I suppose the only amount of time that we need is to get the natural resouces out of a country before we leave.

[izzie]

6. I do not think any country has stopped terror unless....

it found the reason.You just can not make everyone and thing safe. I understand DC is now a armed camp.Look at history, they killed the Queen uncle, kings and it is not something you can stop if one person wants to kill someone.

[radfringe]

7. what has me a bit perplexed

I've been tracking bush* poll numbers and terra-lerts/warnings since
Jan. 2002 ( http://radicalfringe.freeservers.com/custom2.html )

currently, his favorability numbers are at an average of 48.5%... according to talking-heads anything below 50% is trouble for an incumbent pResident running for re-Selection

we have a major attack in Madrid,and although there is some "confusion" as to blame ETA or Al-Qeada or some other terra-group - there was that "tape" claiming 90% readiness for attacks on USA

Within a week of the drop in numbers (and certainly in time for weekend news cycle) usually resultes in some sort of warning/alert or at the very least the media runing stories on how to prepare for an attack. Yet, we have homeland security stating that they will not raise the alert level? why?

:tinfoilhat: possibilities:

-- Fear factor in upping alert level doesn't work to boost bush* numbers and more likely will cause them to drop

-- Al-Qeada is NOT behind Madrid attack (Spain is spinning it to blame ETA, although ETA denies responsibility)

--- bush* team is scrambling on how to play this, and just isn't ready to scream "terra terra terra" yet, but it will happen at some point during the week

[teryang]

8. The wrong method and the wrong target

The truth is that this Administration made no efforts against terrorism before 911. Indeed, it is arguable that they did just the opposite, with their illegal covert infrastructure providing terrorists with visas, safe houses and flight training.

The "escape from Kunduz" demonstrated that our new relationship with Pakistan was more important than battling terrorism. Indeed, that fiasco (in which most of al qaeda and its Pakistani sponsors escaped) and the inadequate resources and half hearted effort to "capture bin Laden" revealed the war against terrorism to be little more than political theater. It was a classic bait and switch job as they immediately changed the focus to Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq has created thousands of new fighters who would do anything to get revenge on Americans for the bloodshed and hardships we have imposed on Iraq. Of course, their have been immense profits for the defense industry, the police state industry, the oil industry, and the other corporatist cronies who have been fattened themselves on the harvest of death.

[dbt]

9. The question remains.

If it WAS al-Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks, why in hell did we invade Iraq--a country with no proven ties to al-Qaeda??? (Yes, I know the real reason, but humor me here.)

If bu$h really wanted to "smoke bin Laden out of his cave," why the sudden Cakewalk Into Baghdad? Why did bin Laden become "irrelevant" in 2002? Why was Hussein suddenly the bad guy?

Why did the Regime turn its attention away from al-Qaeda to send 130,000 troops into Iraq, f'chrissakes??

Who has benefitted from the US ignoring al-Qaeda?

:freak:
dbt

[bfusco]

10. because

I'm sure you know this. There are many motivations for going into Iraq. It was because Bush and Co saw the need to capitalize on 9/11 and fear of attacks on US as a prime opportunity to launch the neo-cons wet dream, a mid-term election issue and diversion from the ailing economy, a prime opportunity to plunder the second most know oil reserves, hand out fat contracts to Bush's cronies and for the Bush Crime Family to settle personal scores with Hussein. Time was not on their side and if they did not act quickly public and congressional support would dissolve, the opportunity and momentum would be lost and it would have been proven what we now know; there were no WMD's.

[cpa]

11. david Dreir

Yes, but people like David Dreir and the RNC keep saying that Al Qaeda hasn't instigated any terrorist attacks on our shores since 9/11. That is stupid. Why do people think these guys are so good at protecting us from terrorists when they did not protect us on 9/11 and performed badly in the battle of Tora Bora? To top this off, people say another terrorist attack would ensure Bush's reelection. What is wrong with people? You fire the incompetents-you don't reelect them.

[trapper914]

12. I saw it on 9/11

When people are scared, they rally around the President...even if he did nothing to prevent the attack. Remember those 90% approval ratings after the attack?

Sadly, another attack would probably result in similar sentiment.

[truth2power]

13. And as I'm reading this thread...

As I'm reading this thread the TV is on in another room and I'm hearing the THIRD erectile dysfunction ad in the past hour.

I suppose there is a connection here somewhere. The monsters in this administration, because of their arrogance, greed and stupidity, are creating more terrorists by the minute. As their impotence becomes ever more apparent, so it seems, does the obsession with erectile dysfunction. Psychology imitates life....or something.

We are truly through the looking glass.