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.
Have a nice day.
- signed, A proud AMERICAN!
I'm sorry Texas, but I don't see it like that at all. The South had an agrarian economy that depended on slave labor for it's existence, the North never had a demand for slaves. It was very easy to be an abolitionist in the North. They did however have a long history of indentured servitude and near slavery in manufacturing.
The nation was originally designed for the States to have the bulk of the power. That changed over time. Slavery was not the only point of contention either. Tariffs on imports hurt the South while helping the manufacturing North.
The leaders of the South plainly told the NOrth what would happen if they did not change course. They took the legal step of leaving the Union when they refused to abide by the Constitution.
The South did not start the war, had no intention of war. The first ground action was initiated by the North.
like i said sunshine read Rawle's book
Who fired the first shots? Why should the Union be accused of starting it by moving munitions, but the Confederates not be accused of starting it for actually taking the first shots? And the bottom line is, the south was actively engaged in seceding from the United States, a violation of the Constituton, beacuse the South wasn't getting their way, and saw the chips being stacked against them in future Senate seat counts. That's the bottom line. Lincoln wasn't in the process of splitting the union or violating the Constitution. The Confederates were. I can't believe there are conservatives here defending the Southern Confederates who split the union and almost destroyed the counry, primarily because of slavery, a disgusting revolting practice thrust on the Americas by Spain, England, and France. The south was wrong, and both sides made mistakes, but it was a war started by the south, by both what they did and what they didn't do. Fort Sumpter being resupplied is far less an act of war as the Confederates actually firing on the Fort. There is no comparrison. Someone making you think they're going to shoot at you is not as threatening as if they actually do it. It's just not the same thing. This isn't complicated. :)
They won't listen to the truth the so called Conservatives belive everything they hear out of leftest hitstory books people like me and you our nothing david Duke's too them
Rawle's book is virtually the bible of state right's and strict construction and consitiuational theory his book cleary says Secessions was the right of states
Yep, my folks go back a ways also Raster. My folks fought for independence.
Preserving the Union was an empty slogan, they split the nation in half and raped the South. They took our banks, railroads, and everything that wasn't nailed down and left us nothing but subsistence farming.
Not much to be proud of there.
If StoneWall can't take advice, have at it
That's it for me on this debate.
The Supreme Court of that day also didn't see a problem with Slavery. Just like the Supreme Court today thinks it's okay to take land and people's homes from private land owners to give it to businesses for profit, and tell states they can't execute 17 year olds that slaughter people in their homes or schools, and told the President that he couldn't impose Military tribunals against terrorists who attack the country. These aren't the first times the Supreme Court is wrong, and they won't be the last. The SC ruling on Dred Scott doesn't make them right be dafault just because they're the Supreme Court. The South was not willing to give up slavery. Period. If Lincoln had made no military response against the South pre-emptive strike on the Union, the status-quo would have continued for a few more years and then when the new states were admitted to the Union and they were non-slave States, the South would have rebelled then when the vote in the Senate came around abolishing slavery, and Lincoln signing it. The result would have been the same, just a few years later. I really can't believe you guys are taking the side of the racist Democrat black hating Confederacy in this. C'mon. :)
You will let them talk such things about us here in the south?
KMA huckleberry!
you won't read what Rawle wrote will you huh? by the way Rawle was a Yankee
His Book on Secession was a legal text book used at West Point (:
What, a DUmocrat-appeasing yankee?
Sucession was not Constitutional no matter what anyone says or how they CHOOSE to interpret the Constitution. Texas is the only State that has ever had the express right to sucede from the Union as put in the agreement allowing Texas to join the United States. NO OTHER of the 49 States has that right in the Constitution. Never have. The presumed right to secede is based soley on the slave owning Confederate States interpreting the Constitution as lining out a Confederacy form of government where the people answer to their state Government, and those State governments answer to each other and the Federal Governemnt as a courtesy not a requirement, with the belief that the State Senates of any given State can vote to break away from the Federal Government and the United States if they feel that the United States has "breeched" the contract of the Constitution. That assumption is NO WHERE in the 1860s incarnation of the U.S. Constitution. They considered the fast approaching Senate vote which would vote down slavery as justification for breaking away. There are other excuses but that's the bottom line. There was no legal basis in the Constituton for that act of treason executed by the Confederate States in breaking away from the United States. It was unfounded, illegal, and had no justification.
Let me ask you something Sunshine lets say Mccain gets the Nom in 08 and its him and Mrs Slick Willy who will you vote for?
DUmocrat vs. DUmocrat? Neither would make it through the primaries.
Exactly right. This is such a stupid argument. The Civil War is over. The southern Democrats that so LOVED slavery, LOST. Blacks are equal to all other races as they should be, period, end of discussion. The Democrats were wrong then and are wrong now. All that's changed is that the Southern states the past 25 years are on the RIGHT side of the major issues facing the country and the liberal blue states are on the wrong side of the major issues. The past is over, November is NOW, and November is what matters.
well tell that to Rawle who wrote a book on the matter a book that was used at West Point.
Thank you.
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.