During the early years of al Qaeda’s existence, the group did not take credit for attacks it conducted. In fact, it explicitly denied involvement. In interviews with the press, bin Laden often praised the attackers while, with a bit of a wink and a nod, he denied any connection to the attacks. Bin Laden issued public statements after the August 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks flatly denying any involvement. In fact, bin Laden and al Qaeda continued to publicly deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks until after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

First, the Yemeni franchise of al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has already claimed responsibility for the attack, and evidence strongly suggests that AQAP is the organization with which Abdulmutallab had direct contact. Indeed, while some members of AQAP have had prior contact with bin Laden, there is little to suggest that bin Laden himself or what remains of al Qaeda’s core leadership has any direct role in planning any of the operations conducted by AQAP. The core group does not exercise that type of control over the activities of any of its regional groups. These groups are more like independent franchises that operate under the same brand name rather than parts of a single hierarchical organization. Each franchise has local leadership and is self-funding, and the franchises frequently diverge from global al Qaeda “corporate policies” in areas like target selection.

Claiming credit for failed attacks orchestrated by others and trying to latch on to the fight against Israel are just the latest signs that al Qaeda is trying almost too hard to remain relevant.



http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100127_taking_credit_failure



Great article detailing how al-Qaeda, in the traditional form, hasn't existed since 2002. Every group claims the name to try to gain legitimacy for their cause although it is failing miserably.

Yes, the war in Afghanistan has greatly diminished what we called al Qaeda before 9/11. Also, what has arisen is now splinter, smaller groups who can still execute attacks (London, Madrid, Christmas bomber) but do not have the capability to conduct large ones. That does not mean we are out of the woods, it just means we have weakened the larger, more coordinated group, but are at risk from the multiple little groups.

I think we can see the shift in this in the fighting in Yemen with drones, SPECOPS training and Yemen forces conducting operations. We can also see it in how we are dealing with Somalia and the deteriorating situation in Algeria.

The coordinated al-Qaeda the government scares people with only existed from 1998-2002. They haven't had a functioning group for the last 6 years and nothing is going to change in the near future.

The individual cells could still carry out attacks, but I think the point to realize is there is no al-Qaeda. Just a bunch of splinter groups taking the name to gain legitimacy for their cause.

eersandbeers wrote: The coordinated al-Qaeda the government scares people with only existed from 1998-2002. They haven't had a functioning group for the last 6 years and nothing is going to change in the near future.

The individual cells could still carry out attacks, but I think the point to realize is there is no al-Qaeda. Just a bunch of splinter groups taking the name to gain legitimacy for their cause.

I'd largely agree with you there, but will not accept that al Qaeda is dead quite yet. They still have influence, just not the capability. I'd also not let the guard down and relax in that it was relaxation that was partly to blame for 9/11.

Still, the diminished ability of al Qaeda must be kept in context. It is not a large threat, but a threat to maintain on the radar.

Also, there is a danger of having so many small groups to watch and try and defend. It simply becomes nearly impossible to stop or contain them all. It is the wack-a-mole really and stuff gets through, ala Christmas day bomber. We are now trying to shift the defenses to compensate. But, attacks like it will probably persist.

It would be foolish and arrogant beyond reason to assume they cannot reorganize enough to pull off yet another major attack on US soil.

And with an administration that is stumbling all over itself trying to figure out how it wants to treat these animals, the likelihood of that happening grows, in my opinion.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:I'd largely agree with you there, but will not accept that al Qaeda is dead quite yet. They still have influence, just not the capability. I'd also not let the guard down and relax in that it was relaxation that was partly to blame for 9/11.

Still, the diminished ability of al Qaeda must be kept in context. It is not a large threat, but a threat to maintain on the radar.

Also, there is a danger of having so many small groups to watch and try and defend. It simply becomes nearly impossible to stop or contain them all. It is the wack-a-mole really and stuff gets through, ala Christmas day bomber. We are now trying to shift the defenses to compensate. But, attacks like it will probably persist.

Which in a sense makes these al Qaeda splinter groups more dangerous than the original parent organization. You can bet the ranch that some of these groups are led by extremists that make Bin Laden seem like a saint.

The moment we let down our guard, these splinter groups will re-organize. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.

Islam has been hijacked by its minority fundamentalist radical element and this element is very, very dangerous. It is foolish to view them through a Western-style secular rationalist lens. You can be certain that radical Islam and its more insidious off-shoot hate groups like al Qaeda are hardly irrelevant.

The administration isn't that much different than Bush so I don't see why many on the right attack Obama. Rendition is still going on and with it torture. Gitmo is still open. The unPatriot Act is still in effect. The only noticeable difference is some of the alleged terrorists are bringing put on trail which should happen. I'm not against a military tribunal but war has to be declared for that and the Congress has repeatedly pussied out for decades on declaring war for military tribunals.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'd largely agree with you there, but will not accept that al Qaeda is dead quite yet. They still have influence, just not the capability. I'd also not let the guard down and relax in that it was relaxation that was partly to blame for 9/11.

Still, the diminished ability of al Qaeda must be kept in context. It is not a large threat, but a threat to maintain on the radar.

Also, there is a danger of having so many small groups to watch and try and defend. It simply becomes nearly impossible to stop or contain them all. It is the wack-a-mole really and stuff gets through, ala Christmas day bomber. We are now trying to shift the defenses to compensate. But, attacks like it will probably persist.

I'd argue al-Qaeda is not a threat. These individual groups, who aren't really al-Qaeda but claiming affiliation, are the real threats.

It is definitely more difficult to track groups who operate in cells like these loosely affiliate al-Qaeda splinters.

Writerbuckeye wrote: It would be foolish and arrogant beyond reason to assume they cannot reorganize enough to pull off yet another major attack on US soil.

Al-Qaeda, as it existed from 1998-2002, is dead. The group cannot and will not reorganize to its former self.

They also don't need to reorganize to pull off an attack.

eersandbeers wrote: During the early years of al Qaeda’s existence, the group did not take credit for attacks it conducted. In fact, it explicitly denied involvement. In interviews with the press, bin Laden often praised the attackers while, with a bit of a wink and a nod, he denied any connection to the attacks. Bin Laden issued public statements after the August 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks flatly denying any involvement. In fact, bin Laden and al Qaeda continued to publicly deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks until after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

First, the Yemeni franchise of al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has already claimed responsibility for the attack, and evidence strongly suggests that AQAP is the organization with which Abdulmutallab had direct contact. Indeed, while some members of AQAP have had prior contact with bin Laden, there is little to suggest that bin Laden himself or what remains of al Qaeda’s core leadership has any direct role in planning any of the operations conducted by AQAP. The core group does not exercise that type of control over the activities of any of its regional groups. These groups are more like independent franchises that operate under the same brand name rather than parts of a single hierarchical organization. Each franchise has local leadership and is self-funding, and the franchises frequently diverge from global al Qaeda “corporate policies” in areas like target selection.

Claiming credit for failed attacks orchestrated by others and trying to latch on to the fight against Israel are just the latest signs that al Qaeda is trying almost too hard to remain relevant.



http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100127_taking_credit_failure



Great article detailing how al-Qaeda, in the traditional form, hasn't existed since 2002. Every group claims the name to try to gain legitimacy for their cause although it is failing miserably.

You must be kidding around, Terrorists are soldiers and terrorism is war. They are many well organized armies that threatens the USA and if we do not stop them the USA will crumble to pieces.

The existence of Al-Qaeda is only important politically. The Christmas day bombing attempt proves that no matter how hard we try and how good our military and intelligence is, there will be another attack on U.S. interests. Simply put, we have to be right every time, and they only have to be right once.

Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible. But we shouldn't compromise our American principles to do so.

To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: The existence of Al-Qaeda is only important politically. The Christmas day bombing attempt proves that no matter how hard we try and how good our military and intelligence is, there will be another attack on U.S. interests. Simply put, we have to be right every time, and they only have to be right once.

Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible. But we shouldn't compromise our American principles to do so.

To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

Applaud!!! The chances of being hit by a terrorist attack are slimmer than being hit by lightning. Now you know the strength of the repubican party.

BCSbunk wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: The existence of Al-Qaeda is only important politically. The Christmas day bombing attempt proves that no matter how hard we try and how good our military and intelligence is, there will be another attack on U.S. interests. Simply put, we have to be right every time, and they only have to be right once.

Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible. But we shouldn't compromise our American principles to do so.

To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

Applaud!!! The chances of being hit by a terrorist attack are slimmer than being hit by lightning. Now you know the strength of the repubican party.

you are right, but they still teach people to avoid tall trees, metal objects and the high ground during a storm.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: The existence of Al-Qaeda is only important politically. The Christmas day bombing attempt proves that no matter how hard we try and how good our military and intelligence is, there will be another attack on U.S. interests. Simply put, we have to be right every time, and they only have to be right once.

Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible. But we shouldn't compromise our American principles to do so.

To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

Actually, I think our government wants you to be afraid of the scary terrorists to push their agendas. The terrorists just want you to die because you're a filthy infidel.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible.

Did anyone notice that you can replace the word "terrorists" above with "Democrats" and it still makes sense?

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

believer wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible.

Did anyone notice that you can replace the word "terrorists" above with"Democrats" and it still makes sense?

I'll take the cartoon face as an attempt at light-hearted banter, so I'll just leave it at that. If you really believe that, you are part of the problem in our political discourse.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

[/quote]

Keep being afraid, Believer...keep thinking that every time you go up in a tall building, terrorists might crash a plane into it. Keep thinking that every time you board a plane, someone who looks different than you might blow it up. Keep on living by their terms. Go ahead.

You are proving my point, and you don't even realize it.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:Keep being afraid, Believer...keep thinking that every time you go up in a tall building, terrorists might crash a plane into it. Keep thinking that every time you board a plane, someone who looks different than you might blow it up. Keep on living by their terms. Go ahead.

You are proving my point, and you don't even realize it.

Oh I understand your point.

I personally DON'T fear going into tall buildings or boarding planes. Nor do I think that everyone who "looks different than me" is capable of blowing the plane with explosive scrotum underwear.

But the next time these bastards are successful (and they will be) I want you "can't we all just get along" types to explain to me again why we shouldn't profile, or why we shouldn't be very wary of radical Islam, or why al Qaeda is irrelevant, etc., etc.

Until then keep your head in the sand and singing Kumbaya.

eersandbeers wrote: I'd argue al-Qaeda is not a threat. These individual groups, who aren't really al-Qaeda but claiming affiliation, are the real threats.

It is definitely more difficult to track groups who operate in cells like these loosely affiliate al-Qaeda splinters.

Al-Qaeda, as it existed from 1998-2002, is dead. The group cannot and will not reorganize to its former self.

They also don't need to reorganize to pull off an attack.

al Qaeda is still a threat, just the effects of a large attack has gone down, but al Qaeda"light" or splinter groups who are still under the name of al Qaeda can still launch attacks in the U.S. and other parts of the world. Yes, the al Qaeda from 1989-2002 is dead, but that does mean it is still a threat. It has just shifted. No longer are they capable of large attacks, but it looks like they are capable of smaller attacks that can still kill.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: The existence of Al-Qaeda is only important politically. The Christmas day bombing attempt proves that no matter how hard we try and how good our military and intelligence is, there will be another attack on U.S. interests. Simply put, we have to be right every time, and they only have to be right once.

Terrorists want me to be afraid of them and change my way of life because of them. Because they want me to do these things, I'm not going to do either one. They want us to give up our basic liberties in the name of security and fear, and some people are more than willing to do this. Of course we should make every reasonable attempt to stop terrorists and bring them to justice whenever possible. But we shouldn't compromise our American principles to do so.

To those who choose to be afraid of the scary terrorists: Keep on being afraid...you are playing right into their hands...

I'd largely agree with this. They still are a threat, but need to put them in the proper context. In terms of threat, we were more threatened by the Soviets in the Cold War and really we did not radically change our lives for that.

believer wrote:

Really? You resort to showing that image to prove a point? Come on man. That is a little much. As John Mueller would say, you are playing right into the hands of the terrorists by glorifying one of their attacks and playing it up.

believer wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:Keep being afraid, Believer...keep thinking that every time you go up in a tall building, terrorists might crash a plane into it. Keep thinking that every time you board a plane, someone who looks different than you might blow it up. Keep on living by their terms. Go ahead.

You are proving my point, and you don't even realize it.

Oh I understand your point.

I personally DON'T fear going into tall buildings or boarding planes. Nor do I think that everyone who "looks different than me" is capable of blowing the plane with explosive scrotum underwear.

But the next time these bastards are successful (and they will be) I want you "can't we all just get along" types to explain to me again why we shouldn't profile, or why we shouldn't be very wary of radical Islam, or why al Qaeda is irrelevant, etc., etc.

Until then keep your head in the sand and singing Kumbaya.

Profiling is not the answer, nor is sacrificing are main liberties. But, there is a balance. The balance is we put these guys in the proper context and develop a strategy that perhaps gives up some liberties, but still keeps the core of what America is. Now that is hard (Just ask the previous and current President) and it is something we are not used to. But, we have to shift and adapt to the changing times.

Well, I haven't seen any of our "main liberties" sacrificed by either administration (regardless of the howling from the left over the Patriot Act and other measures) -- and profiling should be used because it's a valuable (and accurate) tool for both the military and law enforcement.

On topic: the whole idea that these folks have all of a sudden become irrelevant is too foolish for words. Those who believe it would have done very well in pre-Churchill England.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:That is a little much.

And so were the 3,000 infidel lives lost in the name of Allah.

Writerbuckeye wrote:On topic: the whole idea that these folks have all of a sudden become irrelevant is too foolish for words. Those who believe it would have done very well in pre-Churchill England.

'"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - Chamberlain

That worked out quite well for the appeasers.

believer wrote:
But the next time these bastards are successful (and they will be) I want you "can't we all just get along" types to explain to me again why we shouldn't profile, or why we shouldn't be very wary of radical Islam, or why al Qaeda is irrelevant, etc., etc.

You response has absolutely nothing to do with his post. He didn't say "lets all get along." He said the chances of being killed by a terrorist are extremely small and really no point in worrying about it. Which is 100% true. Historically, I probably have a better chance of being killed by a vending machine than by a terrorist.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Well, I haven't seen any of our "main liberties" sacrificed by either administration (regardless of the howling from the left over the Patriot Act and other measures) -- and profiling should be used because it's a valuable (and accurate) tool for both the military and law enforcement.

There is no such thing as main liberties. There are only liberties which some Americans have sacrificed because they are cowards.

Writerbuckeye wrote:On topic: the whole idea that these folks have all of a sudden become irrelevant is too foolish for words. Those who believe it would have done very well in pre-Churchill England.

There is connection to the topic and this statement.

eersandbeers wrote:You response has absolutely nothing to do with his post. He didn't say "lets all get along." He said the chances of being killed by a terrorist are extremely small and really no point in worrying about it. Which is 100% true. Historically, I probably have a better chance of being killed by a vending machine than by a terrorist.

Speaking of history: Major al Qaeda terrorist attacks All also 100% true.

I realize, of course, that these didn't directly effect you nor were these all directed at Americans, but to claim that al Qaeda is irrelevant (or at least acts of terror from any radical Islamic group) is absurd.

When one of these groups finally gets their hands on - say - an operational nuke, for example, you can bet your ass they will not hesitate to use it in the name of Allah.

Whether they use it on you or any other American (or anyone else for that matter) is apparently what's irrelevant to you.

After all what are the chances, right?

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya.

believer wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:You response has absolutely nothing to do with his post. He didn't say "lets all get along." He said the chances of being killed by a terrorist are extremely small and really no point in worrying about it. Which is 100% true. Historically, I probably have a better chance of being killed by a vending machine than by a terrorist.

Speaking of history: Major al Qaeda terrorist attacks

I realize, of course, that these didn't directly effect you nor were these all directed at Americans, but to claim that al Qaeda is irrelevant (or at least acts of terror from any radical Islamic group) is absurd.

When one of these groups finally get their hands on - say - an operational nuke, for example, you can bet your ass they will not hesitate to use it in the name of Allah.

Whether they use it on you or any other American (or anyone else for that matter) is apparently what's irrelevant to you.

After all what are the chances, right?

Yes I'm talking about the chances of me, as an American, being killed in the United States from a terrorist attack.

Where did I say it was irrelevant to me or are you being dramatic trying to make a point?

And no, I do not worry about a terrorist group obtaining a nuke and detonating it inside the United States. The chances are extremely minimal and not a real threat to my life.

I'm more worried about being plowed into by a drunk driver at night.

eersandbeers wrote:And no, I do not worry about a terrorist group obtaining a nuke and detonating it inside the United States. The chances are extremely minimal and not a real threat to my life.

I'm more worried about being plowed into by a drunk driver at night.

That's fine if it makes you sleep better at night.

But when these over-the-top fanaticals do manage to do the alleged unlikely and unthinkable, I reserve the right to say "I told you so."

believer wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:And no, I do not worry about a terrorist group obtaining a nuke and detonating it inside the United States. The chances are extremely minimal and not a real threat to my life.

I'm more worried about being plowed into by a drunk driver at night.

That's fine if it makes you sleep better at night.

But when these over-the-top fanaticals do manage to do the alleged unlikely and unthinkable, I reserve the right to say "I told you so."

That's like worrying about a comet smashing into Earth. Probably the same chances of a terrorist group obtaining a nuke and detonating it in the US.

All these scary things need to be put into perspective rather than believing all the government fear mongering.

And if they do manage to do one of those scenario that doesn't chance the odds of them happening.

So would you rather the government not talk about terrorism? you know for a fact if the goverenment came out and said "well the odds of being attacked here is about the same as getting killed falling down stairs in a one story house, so dont worry about it" and then an attack happens, people would be calling for the administration's head on a stick.