Posted on 09/27/2006 8:45:45 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708787/posts
Declassified Key Judgements from the April 2006 NIE Director of National Intellegence ^ | 09-26-06 | DNI
NOTE: The link is receiving many hits and is only available intermittently. This conversion from PDF to HTML is courtesy of PRND21 in #11. AM
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; 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. 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.
• 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.
• If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.
• 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. We assess that the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent global strategy, and is becoming more diffuse. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
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.
• 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. 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.
• 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. 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. •
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.
• 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.
• Countering the spread of the jihadist movement will require coordinated multilateral efforts that go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders. 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.
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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. 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.
• CBRN capabilities will continue to be sought by jihadist groups. 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.
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. 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.
• We judge that groups of all stripes will increasingly use the Internet to communicate, propagandize, recruit, train, and obtain logistical and financial support.
The 3/5s rule was a compromise. The South wanted to count slaves as people for the purpose of inflating their number of Represenative but deny they were people to justify their enslavement of them. It is nonsense to blame the North for the South's basic intellectual schitzophrena on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise The three-fifths clause was proposed by Pennsylvanian delegate James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a compromise between Southerners and Northerners over how to count slaves for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and for taxation. The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution
The Confederates where a Goverment you should Rawle's Book
Is this the one you want us to read?
http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm
I'LL SAY YANKEE ALL I WANT TOO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT GO CRY TO THE NAACP OR YOUR BIG HERO RUDY!
I stand corrected. The first incident was as you described, the second involved the flotilla and was the cause of the shelling of Fort Sumter.
Lincoln claimed the flotilla was food and provisions only, no ammunition or guns. That was a lie, Southern spies watched the ships being loaded IIRC.
That was the beginning of the war.
Can you show me where it says a state will be attacked if it secedes?
An UNRECOGNIZED illegitimate government was how they were thought of among many nations including ours.
We need to find a history thread! Catch you all tomorrow or in the lounge.
Both sides did things that shouldn't be done, but the bottom line is, the south brought it on themselves. If they hadn't pre-emptively attacked Fort Sumpter, and if they'd of trusted the Constitution and respected the Constitutional process and if that means being out numbered by abolitionist states as new non-slave States are admitted from the territories, then sobeit, but the Confederates weren't interrested in that. I'm a southerner to the core, and a Texan till death and am a conservative by binding belief in what I know to be right and true, and have nothing but contempt for the northern elitist liberal New-England/Left Coast mentality and hate all they stand for with all their socialistic intent to destroy this country and the Constitution. BUT I can't condone revisionist history that wants to assess most of the blame for the Civil War on the North and Lincoln. It is not accurate, it is not factual, and it is not fair. The slave owning southern Confederate States started the war. They picked the fight. They chunked the Constitution when they figured out they were going to lose the Senate vote with new non-slave states being admitted to the Union, so rather then respect the rule of law and Constitutional rules in action, they took their toys and went home and forced Lincoln's hand. What the South did was unconstitutional, and illegal, and their unprovoked attack on Fort Sumpter picked a fight that they weren't equipped to win. Tough. I have as much contempt and hate for what the liberal New England/Left Coast states are and stand for today as I do for the slave owning anti-Constitutional States as they were in the 1860s. No attempt to revise history after the fact can change that. The South picked the fight, the North finished it, and Lincoln happened to be the guy at the helm. Any good President who obeyed the Constitution and the intent of the founders would have done the same things. Mistakes were made on both sides, but the South wanted the fight and they got it. Just because they lost, is no reason to think that they didn't have it coming. And no one loves the south or what it stands for TODAY as I do. But while the South is DEAD RIGHT today in how this country should be, 145 years ago, it was DEAD WRONG. I'm not seeing how there is any argument about this among conservatives.
StoneWall, don't get in a fight like this. To many, Yankee is an insult.
Make your arguments plainly, and don't get angry.
Raster, you and Kerretarded need to remember StoneWall is a newbie. He is also apparently a proud Southerner like me, and we don't like our heritage being trashed anymore than the next guy.
ohhh
even while typing Mike .. I thought that doesn't sound right....
Chris Wallace ... Chris ... Chris .... never to make that mistake again!!!! thanks for being gentle!
how old are you...2?
GO TO WWW.GEOCITIES.COM/CONFEDERATE_CAUSE
I think he is out of Ridilin Pops.
We'll have to just disagree but don't tell me I'm wrong about what I've studied and researched my whole life. I know quite a few firmly conservative history Professors, one of which has a specific Doctorate in the Civil War, and they reflect the same things I have said. We just need to agree to disagree and leave the past in the past. The south is conservative now and reflects the spirit of the Constitution, and the liberals and RINOs in the minority of the country are not fit to lead the country. That is the reality of today, and the past is the past. The reality of today is what can destroy the country. Not what happened 145 years ago.
My parents were born in GA and KY....and much of my family is from Tennessee. My immigrant ancestor fought for GW in the Revolution for 8th VA (he's on the Valley Forge rolls), and two of his sons rode horses to Canada to fight British (and kill Techumseh).
They ALL fought for preserving the UNION too. I'm a proud Yankee (it was good enough for WW2 soldiers).
I like breaking in Newbies!
your not breaking me with your Yankee crap
Okay...GFY, noob.
I think your nothing but Yankee Gop Lap Dog!
ANd the GOP didn't throw out Newt or Tom DeLay. Newt did some pretty questionable things, and while I mostly like him, I don't approve of someone who dumps their wife due to illness because that doesn't serve his purposes, and then gets some trophy wife that looks good at press conferences. While mostly conservative, he is not as solidly conservative as most are on social issues. As for DeLay, I know him. Went to church with him for many years at Sugar Creek Baptist Chruch, lived in his district for over ten years, and volunteered for him on his campaigns. The GOP did not dump him. In an example of dignity and self sacrifice that I can't think of in recent history he fell on his sword and quit his House Seat so he couldn't be used as a weapon of misinformation by the liberal media and liberal Democrats to defeat the GOP with their "conservative culture of corruption" spew. Notice that's not used anymore since he stepped down? DeLay is a conservative hero and he took one for the team for the better of the conservative movement. And I've not seen anyone in the conservative movement, the majority of the GOP, dump or distance himself from them. You are not being accurate about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.