Feb 06 2008

al-Qaeda Retreating From Iraq To Set Up Cells Elsewhere – Now We Need The NSA Like Never Before

Published by at 8:50 pm under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA,Iraq,Pakistan

It looks like al-Qaeda is finally realizing their war against Iraqi Muslims is making them an enemy of Islam (at least in Iraq) and not positioning them to be the future of Islam. Apparently al-Qaeda forces are leaving Iraq to be trained in Pakistan and then deploy elsewhere in the world:

The US intelligence chief has said that the al Qaeda is leaving Iraq to establish its cells in other countries.

Mike went on to say that less that 100 Qaeda terrorists have left Iraq to establish their cells in other countries, and it may deploy resources to mount attacks outside the country.

Only top leaders would be reployed in this manner. And while the US and Iraqis may know of 100, I would bet this is just the tip of the iceberg. As usual my speculation can be validated in the coming months if we see more precipitous drops in al-Qaeda violence in Iraq. What is really disturbing is some fanatics in the US may be ready to become traitors to their own nation and join with al-Qaeda in attempting to destroy America:

U.S. intelligence officials on Wednesday told FOX News Al Qaeda has succeeded in strengthening its position in Pakistani tribal regions and is recruiting Western operatives who are better able to help carry out attacks on the United States.

McConnell said Al Qaeda — while being suppressed to a large extent in Iraq — is moving to other regions, including Pakistan, where it continues to try to launch attacks against the United States.

Tuesday, The New York Times reported that a senior intelligence official said there is new evidence Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan are training Westerners — most likely including U.S. citizens.

That official said there is no evidence the terror group has succeeded in placing operatives inside U.S. borders.

OK, but how will we gain evidence of operatives in the US if Congress and the fanatic left derail the changes to FISA? Those changes were put in place after 9-11 to remove paranoid barriers which stopped NSA leads on terrorist operatives in the US from being passed to the FBI and helped lead to 9-11? We need the NSA leads more than ever, and all the paranoia about the second coming of Nixon on the left is no excuse not to protect innocent Americans from blood thirsty Islamo Fascist hell bent on massacring us in large numbers.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “al-Qaeda Retreating From Iraq To Set Up Cells Elsewhere – Now We Need The NSA Like Never Before”

  1. crosspatch says:

    So over the past several days several undersea data communications cables have been cut or otherwise damaged. As a result, traffic for most of the middle east has be re-routed to routes passing through the US …

  2. dave m says:

    If Al-Qaeda does score a spectacular on our country,
    it will of course be Bush’s fault, as all bad things are.
    But if the attack comes in a Democrat Presidency, then,
    well, it will still be Bush’s fault.

  3. dave m says:

    But seriously, has al-qaeda decided to use the Madrid bombing
    model to try and influence our election?
    It’s not what I think, it’s what they think – and I certainly can’t know
    that, but in previous elections, 04, 06, the public mood seemed
    defiant, as if an attack would only harden our resolve,
    but now?
    Both democrat candidates have publicly expressed their desire
    to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as they can, and our ever helpful
    media fill the airwaves with stories of great public support for
    that position, so I’m guessing that the qaedas will, possibly
    wrongly, conclude that one final shove will make the Americans
    collapse, so unfortunately I’m thinking Yes, this time they will
    definitely try.
    One other question, why are there any training camps in the
    wilds of Pakistan for the qaedas to train in? Daisy cutters
    would be my recommendation, if we elect a Dem I fear
    Pervez Musharaff is a goner anyways.

  4. crosspatch says:

    But seriously, has al-qaeda decided to use the Madrid bombing model to try and influence our election?

    It is possible that they believe that “Western” culture is monolithic .. the same everywhere. It could be that they don’t fully appreciate differences between American and European attitudes to intimidation.

    Europe at the moment is pretty much a culture of cowardice.

  5. conman says:

    I’m confused. Conservatives have been saying for years that we have to stay in Iraq until we defeat Al Qaida and the ole “better to fight them over there than here”. Now that we have supposedly defeated Al Qaida in Iraq you are telling us what – that we should be really scared now that we defeated them in Iraq because they are coming over here to kill us? Are you serious?

    AJ, stop drinking the cool aid. This administration is always going to say that we should be afraid because fear-mongering is their way of getting what they want. Are you honestly surprised that McConnell emphasized the dangers of Al Qaida in his congressional testimony when coincidentally the Senate is debating the FISA bill? Last summer when Congress considered and extended FISA the White House told the senior congressional members of the intelligence committees that there was a specific threat against the Capital that turned out to be bogus. Rep. Jane Harman publicly stated in September of 2007 that the White House provided known bogus intelligence to scare Congress into its pre-recess approval of wire-tap expansions – the White House did not dispute the fact that it provided intel that turned out to be wrong. See her interview here. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/26/countdown-rep-harman-gives-more-details-on-bogus-terror-threat-on-capitol/. This is part of the same playbook – scare you enough to not care if it doesn’t all add up.

    For instance – what is so new about this information? We’ve known for years that the Taliban and Al Qaida are hiding out and training in Pakistan. It is obvious that if we routed Al Qaida out of Iraq some of them would likely go to the one place in the world where they have a network and safehaven – Pakistan. We couldn’t possibly expect to have killed/catched all of them, so this was to be expected. So, why should we be afraid now that Al Qaida leaders have been routed in Iraq and are running to Pakistan as expected? Simple – the White House wants to pressure Congress into passing its version of the FISA bill and is using the standard Al Qaida scare tactics (which have worked well in the past with the spineless Democrats) to get what it wants.

    As for your claims that the liberals and the Democrats are jeopardizing our national security by worrying about that pesky Fourth Amendment, please explain this point to me. The Democrats have agreed to almost all of the the principle components of the House FISA bill – the sticking point is the retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies. Why is that a national secruity concern that is so vital it is worth vetoing the entire bill and truely jeopardize our intelligence capabilities? That is what Bush is threatening to do -how is that responsible? If they claim that no laws were broken, then there is no need for it. If they broke the law, that is a legitimate concern. Don’t we want to discourage corporations with massive amounts of personal information on American citizens from breaking the law and just handing it over to the government because they demanded it? I thought you conservatives favored enforcing the law and distrusted the government – are you so paranoid about terrorist that you are willing to ignore these principles simply because someone “claims” that it is necessary to avoid being killed by terrorist (based on secret information that cannot be verified because it is secret).

  6. Whippet1 says:

    Conman,

    This isn’t a game. You want to believe the Democrats who have tried to secure defeat in Iraq at every turn? Believe the media and some of our own government officials who leak our national security secrets while aiding and abetting the enemy? Go right ahead at your own peril…but I’m not about to let you take me with you. This is the greatest threat to the world’s security since Hitler. This war will last for decades and it will move from Iraq and Afganistan to Europe and every continent because so many others are too afraid to confront it. But President Bush and our military are trying to contain it so that it can eventually be won and inflict the least amount of damage here. He said it would take long and be difficult but people like you either never listened or have already forgotten.

    It makes me physically ill to know that young men and women, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers are dying and sacrificing every day to protect people like you. After this long if you don’t get it you never will because to you it’s all some kind of plot by the evil George Bush.

    Disgusting.

  7. conman says:

    Whippet1,

    It may not be a game to you and I, but you are completely naive if you think our elected leaders (both Republicans and Democrats) don’t use terrorism as a political card. Bush used this same ploy last Summer, which I detailed above, and you couldn’t even refute that point. So get over your “Bush is too pure to use the terrorism card to his political advantage” and start acting like a grown up. Not all Democrats are evil and want to destroy this country and not all Republican’s are pure and only look out for the interest of the country. You sound just like the liberals when they accuse Republicans of enjoying war and killing people. Get off your paritsan soapbox and actually respond substantively to my comment and I’ll respect your opinion.

    I don’t question Bush’s intent/desire to do the right thing, but I question his strategy and methodology. Bush has made some huge mistakes in the GWOT. His biggest mistake was not finishing off Al Qaida or stabilizing Afghanastan before starting a war with Iraq – now Al Qaida has taken refuge in Pakistan and is as dangerous as it was pre 9-11 according to the latest NIE. Bush also completely muffed Iraq. While Republicans take all the credit for the last phase of it (the surge), you forget that things didn’t get better until Bush was forced to remove Rumsfeld and replace the military leadership in Iraq with someone who knew what he was doing. Just curious – does it make you physically ill that for three years Bush and the Republicans were telling us the war was going well and Rumsfeld was the right guy? Thank god the Democrats won in 2006 and put enough pressure on Bush to force him to propose a new strategy, new secretary of defense and commander for Iraq. So yes, as an American citizen, I think it is fair for me to question the wisdom of our President’s GWOT startegy when he has made some big mistakes in the past and to be suspicious enough not to take all government official public comments about terrorist activity at face value. I know it is easier to adopt your system (Republicans are pure and always tell the truth, Democrats are evil and always lie), but my system is called reality.

    And no, I don’t think that our country’s national security will be jeopardized if the telecommunication companies don’t get retroactive immunity. As I raised in my original post, maybe you can explain why Bush’s willingness to veto the entire FISA to protect the telecommunication companies is vital to our national security. I have yet to hear a rationale explanation.

    One more thing I have to respond to because it illustrates my point about fear-mongering well. You comment that Al Qaida/terrorist “is the greatest threat to the world’s security since Hitler” is laughably naive. The Soviet Union during the cold war period was a far greater threat than Al Qaida is today or will ever be. The Soviets were bent on converting the world to communism and was successful in certain parts of the world. They had a conventional army in Europe sufficient to take out the combined NATO forces and overrun western Europe. The Soviets had enough nuclear weapons to kill the world several times over. If you studied the Cuban missle crises, you would know that we came dangerously close to WWIII. While Al Qaida is certainly dangerous, I think it is a joke that you compare a loosely organized bunch of thugs hiding out in caves whom are starting to lose supporters because of their brutal tactics to the Soviet Union. It is proof positive to me that you have bought into the fear-mongering since 9-11. Have another glass of cool-aid!

  8. conman says:

    Whippet1,

    Here is proof of my point – a link to Redstate with a new RNC video criticizing the Democrats for not passing FISA repleat with gun totting terrorist, 9-11 footage and a ticking clock in the corner straight out of the TV show 24.

    http://www.redstate.com/stories/national_security/tell_me_where_the_fisa_bill_is

    Sure, Republicans would never stoop so low as to use scare tactics involving terrorism to score political points. What made me think otherwise in the first place?

  9. Whippet1 says:

    Conman,
    Someone needs to show the footage of what terrorism really is now don’t they. Of course that shows how brutal they really are and that they aren’t just a gang of thugs hiding out in caves but then we wouldn’t want to burst your naive bubble would we. People might get scared if they knew how really widespread terrorism is and we couldn’t have that now could we?

    The cold war was an awful time and I don’t dispute your facts but we were also capeable of inflicting the same amount of damage right back at them which was a huge deterrent. They were bent on speading communism throughout the world but they weren’t religious fanatics who believe they are rewarded for blowing themselves up while they kill thousands. They weren’t Hitler who killed millions because they happened to be Jews.

    11 thugs killed 3000 people on 9/11. They aren’t a conventional army which makes them that much more dangerous. And if they are capeable of bringing economic collapse, which is one of their primary goals, they will do it without a conventional army. Ask the Israeli’s whose entire way of life has changed because of attacks by these “thugs” as you call them. I wonder who they feel was more of a threat.

    The most recent NIE? I guess Crooks and Liars didn’t mention that it has already been revised did they? And I’m so glad that you are a Military General capeable of running a war. Maybe you could go tell Bush and Rumsfeld how to wage it perfectly. Because of course there can be no mistakes if the war is waged by a Republican. And I see that you have already gotten your talking points correct that it was the Dems being elected that forced Bush to change strategy. You get that from the Huffington Post or Daily Kos or The New York Times? As soon as even the media couldn’t bury the news any longer that the surge was successful Dems were coming out of the woodwork to take credit. That’s what they do since they have no clue how to do anything other than surrender.

    No, Republicans aren’t always pure and Democrats always lie. But when their political life depends on it (as has been the case with the Democrats inability to support the war on terror and the leaking or national security secrets in every attempt to lose it) I’d put the odds at the Dems lying on this one.

    Tin foil hat still on?

  10. Whippet1 says:

    Conman,
    And since when is real footage of actual terrorists committing actual murder on real human beings considered using scare tactics?

    It’s called reality and the only ones who don’t want it to be seen are the ones who are afraid of the political consequences if the public knows the truth.

  11. rrostrom says:

    The point of not immunizing telcos against lawsuits for cooperation with the authorities is intimidation. It’s an open secret now that just about everyone from CIA agents to military commanders to cops on the street are adjusting what they do out because they might be sued or indicted later. It doesn’t matter whether they have full legal authorization: the Democrats are quite capable of revising the law and creating retroactive liability. The only safe course is to do as little as possible – which is what they want.

    Of course this plays into the hands of the jihadis, who have become quite expert at “lawfare”. I don’t think the Democrats actually intend that; their immediate motive is protecting the interests of the plaintiff bar, which wants to sue anybody at anytime for anything.

    A similar case was the refusal to provide immunity from lawsuit to those who notify authorities about suspicious behavior on airplanes. The notorious “flying imams” tried to sue not only the airline but also the passengers that reported their behavior. Senate Democrats have blocked a clause providing immunity from the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007.