Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Declassified Key Judgments of the National
Intelligence Estimate .Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States. dated April 2006
Key Judgments
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of
al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations;
Okay, so the NIE report opens with... Bush is seriously eating their lunch!
however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to
pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist
organization.
No fucking shit? Get outta here? Really? You mean there isn't another greater threat by a terror organization? Who the hell didn't realize this?
We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-
Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is
spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
As do most movements when engaged in a war... again, nothing new.
• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body
of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,
although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and
geographic dispersion.
Okay... so we find out, since swatting the hornets nest after 9/11, more hornets are pissed off. Did someone actually expect the radical jihadists to not become more energized when we retaliated?
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become
more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
Again... this is more of an argument on why we need to defeat them, than why we need to run.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority
nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the
vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida,
could erode support for the jihadists.
Hmmm.... pluralism and responsive political systems? Like democratically elected governments, maybe? In other words, the NIE is saying that the Bush Administration is on the right track with their foreign policy approach. That implementing democracy and reforming the political structure is conducive with eventually eroding support for the jihadists.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global
strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.
Damn... Isn't this exactly the opposite of what pinhead democrats broke their necks to leak a few days ago? I thought they were getting stronger and increasing in intensity?
New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
Again, another reason we need to fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, or where we can find them... NOW! And sticking our head in the sand, pretending they are not a threat, and hoping they won't come hurt us again, is a flawed and incompetent strategy.
• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in
importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the
Homeland.
Duh? No shit? I figured we could all sleep at night after we kill OBL, but according to the NIE, this is a growing threat for the future, whether we get OBL or not.
• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests.
Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate
recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and
2005 London bombings.
Really? And I thought Tony Blair was just being Bush's puppet? I wonder if we withdrew from Iraq, would alQaeda withdraw from Europe?
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.
So, in other words... if alQaeda is convinced they are winning, it will inspire them to continue? I wonder just who the fuck is portraying the constant image of them winning and us losing? Hmmm?
• The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.
Read this carefully pinheads! It debunks your entire anti-Iraq argument! If they see Iraq as a failure, they will not be inspired, if they see a victory in Iraq, they will be inspired! What political party wants to convey the message that Iraq is a mistake and we can't win? Hmmmm?
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its
vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Considering they are vulnerable to the perception of losing, and that perception isn't being played by the media or pinheads, it's not surprising the NIE makes this estimate.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq .jihad;. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit.
Really? I thought it was because Bush was stealing Iraq's oil and wouldn't get the troops out of the Arab Holy land? It seems to me, establishing democracy takes care of many of these issues, the grievances, corruption, injustice, humiliation, as well as the slow economic, social, and political reforms. As opposed to leaving dictators in power to steal the wealth and continue the disparity, which has fueled the movement traditionally. It seems the NIE is endorsing the current policy of establishing stable democracies and political reform for the Muslim people.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed
and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include
dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the
jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and
criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
Well, let's see here... Continuing the pinhead rant in defense of these terrorist thugs, advocating less US involvement, portraying moderate leadership in Iraq as "American Puppets" and continual beating of the drum about every single Muslim conflict in the region, including defending Hezbollah... that is pretty much, the Democratic talking points in a nutshell!
• The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari.a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the
religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. propaganda
would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
So, the NIE refutes the pinhead assertion that we are fighting a losing battle against all Muslims, and confirms that most Muslims don't subscribe to the unpopular radical ideology.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few
notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a
constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also
could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim
communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on
passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the
most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
So, the NIE finds that speaking out against the radicals is the best approach, not advocating for them, as the Democrats continue doing.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated
multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist
leaders.
What? I though the most important thing in the whole wide world, was capturing OBL? I thought the only place we needed to fight the war on terror was in Afghanistan? The NIE doesn't seem to think so, although, this is all you hear coming from Democrats.
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years,
political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and
groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless,
attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit.
In other words, democracy is the best way to thwart the terrorists, but even then, they will find opportunities to exploit it. Destabilizing transitions, like withdrawing from Iraq before they can defend themselves, would be a prime exploitation opportunity. Jeesh... have you anti-war pinheads actually read any of this report? It pretty much sinks your swift boat.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the
situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
Really? I thought getting Zarqawi wasn't that big a deal?
• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and
al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into
smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the
mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.
We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less
serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa.ida.
So, when we kill alQaeda leaders, it does have a dramatic effect on them, and if we get lucky enough to croak a few of them in rapid succession, it would fracture their organization.... Does Murtha have any ideas of how we kill them from our safe bases we retreat to?
• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against
Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global
threat.
Aww... too bad he dayid!
• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa.ida in Iraq might
lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-
Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their
reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their
traditional areas of operation.
Really? You mean that we have other enemies besides alQaeda? And what is Nancy Pelosi's plan to "counter" these groups, as the NIE suggests we should do? Hmmmmmmm?
• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-
Qa.ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests
abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime
targets and regional or global ones.
In other words, the problem ain't going away soon.
We judge that most jihadist groups.both well-known and newly formed.will use
improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to
implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct
sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a
potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
Yet, the Democrats want us to leave Iraq, and allow these experienced fighters to continue leading the movement and pursuing these tactics.
• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.
Oh, but it's okay, no one likes them, so they would never give them these weapons!
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of
terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being
exploited by terrorists.
What about the ones who are capitulating to the terrorists, like France? Will alQaeda avoid exploiting them? I bet they will... they are such nice guys like that.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical
ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt
terrorist methods to attack US interests.
OMG... Pinheads are going to start blowing themselves up for the cause? Let me make some popcorn!
The radicalization process is occurring more
quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of
surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to
pinpoint.
Look for an obviously pointed cranium!
• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.
Well of course, look how well that works for the Democrats!
Intelligence Estimate .Trends in Global Terrorism:
Implications for the United States. dated April 2006
Key Judgments
United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of
al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations;
Okay, so the NIE report opens with... Bush is seriously eating their lunch!
however, we judge that al-Qa’ida will continue to
pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist
organization.
No fucking shit? Get outta here? Really? You mean there isn't another greater threat by a terror organization? Who the hell didn't realize this?
We also assess that the global jihadist movement—which includes al-
Qa’ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells—is
spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.
As do most movements when engaged in a war... again, nothing new.
• Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body
of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,
although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and
geographic dispersion.
Okay... so we find out, since swatting the hornets nest after 9/11, more hornets are pissed off. Did someone actually expect the radical jihadists to not become more energized when we retaliated?
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become
more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
Again... this is more of an argument on why we need to defeat them, than why we need to run.
• Greater pluralism and more responsive political systems in Muslim majority
nations would alleviate some of the grievances jihadists exploit. Over time, such progress, together with sustained, multifaceted programs targeting the
vulnerabilities of the jihadist movement and continued pressure on al-Qa’ida,
could erode support for the jihadists.
Hmmm.... pluralism and responsive political systems? Like democratically elected governments, maybe? In other words, the NIE is saying that the Bush Administration is on the right track with their foreign policy approach. That implementing democracy and reforming the political structure is conducive with eventually eroding support for the jihadists.
We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global
strategy, and is becoming more diffuse.
Damn... Isn't this exactly the opposite of what pinhead democrats broke their necks to leak a few days ago? I thought they were getting stronger and increasing in intensity?
New jihadist networks and cells, with anti-American agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge. The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.
Again, another reason we need to fight them in Iraq, Afghanistan, or where we can find them... NOW! And sticking our head in the sand, pretending they are not a threat, and hoping they won't come hurt us again, is a flawed and incompetent strategy.
• We assess that the operational threat from self-radicalized cells will grow in
importance to US counterterrorism efforts, particularly abroad but also in the
Homeland.
Duh? No shit? I figured we could all sleep at night after we kill OBL, but according to the NIE, this is a growing threat for the future, whether we get OBL or not.
• The jihadists regard Europe as an important venue for attacking Western interests.
Extremist networks inside the extensive Muslim diasporas in Europe facilitate
recruitment and staging for urban attacks, as illustrated by the 2004 Madrid and
2005 London bombings.
Really? And I thought Tony Blair was just being Bush's puppet? I wonder if we withdrew from Iraq, would alQaeda withdraw from Europe?
We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.
So, in other words... if alQaeda is convinced they are winning, it will inspire them to continue? I wonder just who the fuck is portraying the constant image of them winning and us losing? Hmmm?
• The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep
resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for
the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,
and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight.
Read this carefully pinheads! It debunks your entire anti-Iraq argument! If they see Iraq as a failure, they will not be inspired, if they see a victory in Iraq, they will be inspired! What political party wants to convey the message that Iraq is a mistake and we can't win? Hmmmm?
We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its
vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate.
Considering they are vulnerable to the perception of losing, and that perception isn't being played by the media or pinheads, it's not surprising the NIE makes this estimate.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq .jihad;. (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims.all of which jihadists exploit.
Really? I thought it was because Bush was stealing Iraq's oil and wouldn't get the troops out of the Arab Holy land? It seems to me, establishing democracy takes care of many of these issues, the grievances, corruption, injustice, humiliation, as well as the slow economic, social, and political reforms. As opposed to leaving dictators in power to steal the wealth and continue the disparity, which has fueled the movement traditionally. It seems the NIE is endorsing the current policy of establishing stable democracies and political reform for the Muslim people.
Concomitant vulnerabilities in the jihadist movement have emerged that, if fully exposed
and exploited, could begin to slow the spread of the movement. They include
dependence on the continuation of Muslim-related conflicts, the limited appeal of the
jihadists. radical ideology, the emergence of respected voices of moderation, and
criticism of the violent tactics employed against mostly Muslim citizens.
Well, let's see here... Continuing the pinhead rant in defense of these terrorist thugs, advocating less US involvement, portraying moderate leadership in Iraq as "American Puppets" and continual beating of the drum about every single Muslim conflict in the region, including defending Hezbollah... that is pretty much, the Democratic talking points in a nutshell!
• The jihadists. greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution.an
ultra-conservative interpretation of shari.a-based governance spanning the
Muslim world.is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims. Exposing the
religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists. propaganda
would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade.
So, the NIE refutes the pinhead assertion that we are fighting a losing battle against all Muslims, and confirms that most Muslims don't subscribe to the unpopular radical ideology.
• Recent condemnations of violence and extremist religious interpretations by a few
notable Muslim clerics signal a trend that could facilitate the growth of a
constructive alternative to jihadist ideology: peaceful political activism. This also
could lead to the consistent and dynamic participation of broader Muslim
communities in rejecting violence, reducing the ability of radicals to capitalize on
passive community support. In this way, the Muslim mainstream emerges as the
most powerful weapon in the war on terror.
So, the NIE finds that speaking out against the radicals is the best approach, not advocating for them, as the Democrats continue doing.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated
multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist
leaders.
What? I though the most important thing in the whole wide world, was capturing OBL? I thought the only place we needed to fight the war on terror was in Afghanistan? The NIE doesn't seem to think so, although, this is all you hear coming from Democrats.
If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years,
political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and
groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives. Nonetheless,
attendant reforms and potentially destabilizing transitions will create new opportunities
for jihadists to exploit.
In other words, democracy is the best way to thwart the terrorists, but even then, they will find opportunities to exploit it. Destabilizing transitions, like withdrawing from Iraq before they can defend themselves, would be a prime exploitation opportunity. Jeesh... have you anti-war pinheads actually read any of this report? It pretty much sinks your swift boat.
Al-Qa’ida, now merged with Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi’s network, is exploiting the
situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.
Really? I thought getting Zarqawi wasn't that big a deal?
• The loss of key leaders, particularly Usama Bin Ladin, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and
al-Zarqawi, in rapid succession, probably would cause the group to fracture into
smaller groups. Although like-minded individuals would endeavor to carry on the
mission, the loss of these key leaders would exacerbate strains and disagreements.
We assess that the resulting splinter groups would, at least for a time, pose a less
serious threat to US interests than does al-Qa.ida.
So, when we kill alQaeda leaders, it does have a dramatic effect on them, and if we get lucky enough to croak a few of them in rapid succession, it would fracture their organization.... Does Murtha have any ideas of how we kill them from our safe bases we retreat to?
• Should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against
Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global
threat.
Aww... too bad he dayid!
• The increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of al-Qa.ida in Iraq might
lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.
Other affiliated Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, Ansar al-
Sunnah, and several North African groups, unless countered, are likely to expand their
reach and become more capable of multiple and/or mass-casualty attacks outside their
traditional areas of operation.
Really? You mean that we have other enemies besides alQaeda? And what is Nancy Pelosi's plan to "counter" these groups, as the NIE suggests we should do? Hmmmmmmm?
• We assess that such groups pose less of a danger to the Homeland than does al-
Qa.ida but will pose varying degrees of threat to our allies and to US interests
abroad. The focus of their attacks is likely to ebb and flow between local regime
targets and regional or global ones.
In other words, the problem ain't going away soon.
We judge that most jihadist groups.both well-known and newly formed.will use
improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks focused primarily on soft targets to
implement their asymmetric warfare strategy, and that they will attempt to conduct
sustained terrorist attacks in urban environments. Fighters with experience in Iraq are a
potential source of leadership for jihadists pursuing these tactics.
Yet, the Democrats want us to leave Iraq, and allow these experienced fighters to continue leading the movement and pursuing these tactics.
• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups.
Oh, but it's okay, no one likes them, so they would never give them these weapons!
While Iran, and to a lesser extent Syria, remain the most active state sponsors of
terrorism, many other states will be unable to prevent territory or resources from being
exploited by terrorists.
What about the ones who are capitulating to the terrorists, like France? Will alQaeda avoid exploiting them? I bet they will... they are such nice guys like that.
Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical
ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt
terrorist methods to attack US interests.
OMG... Pinheads are going to start blowing themselves up for the cause? Let me make some popcorn!
The radicalization process is occurring more
quickly, more widely, and more anonymously in the Internet age, raising the likelihood of
surprise attacks by unknown groups whose members and supporters may be difficult to
pinpoint.
Look for an obviously pointed cranium!
• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to
communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial
support.
Well of course, look how well that works for the Democrats!
