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.
That wasn't directed to the posters here Texas. This group is a great bunch.
Nope not much. Other then I'm shocked and disappointed that conservative southerners will actually take up for racist slave owning Democrat Confederates against Conservatives who defend the Constitution and want a United America at ALL times from 1776 through 2006. That's really disappointing to me. I thought conservative southerners were immune to this and only racist Democrat liberals in the south still held this warped sense of reality. It really makes me a bit ashamed of the south. I'm just grateful that the clear majority of the Americans in the south agree with us on this and make no apologies for the racist Democrat slave owning Confederates. Thank God for that at least.
I found this link for a Civil War (fiction) book I read in high school:
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/afa/
Thanks for this discussion....I haven't thought about that book for 20 years! Now I need to find it and read it again.
The thing I come back to is a Professor friend of mine, the Civil War Professor, told me of a woman from Georgia in her 60s, who 20 some years ago, told him in a THICK Georgian accent (phoenetically trying to get it across because it's so neat sounding) "Professuh Wagee, afteh much thaaught, Aih doo buleeve, that iut's a GOOD thang, thaht we LOST the grate waruh" That says it all I think. He always says all he could think was, well, there is hope. :)
Later Everyone....catch you in the lounge!
I agree, and my southern roots go back to early 1700s. Slavery was evil. So glad our Republic got some sense and got rid of it.
Well, what makes me cringe is that when I see it, the thoughts of all those things is all I can see. I had to pass through Vidor Texas a few too many times and that flag just represents all the WORST things about it when I see it. It's just a personal thing. I wish I could look at it and not see the worst things it stood for at one point. :( And even though I'm a southern cracker, I can't help it. :) That's just what it brings to my mind.
Not all of them are on mine. The ones who have repented for that mistake aren't on that list of mine. There are a few FReepers I know who voted for Perot over Bush 41, voted for Bush 43 twice.
Thank goodness for "podcasts." What is Perot doing these days?
Who's trashing them? Disagreeing with them and why they did it is NOT trashing them personally. I think you're looking at this the wrong way. No one is calling Lee or Jackson names for pete's sake. Other then the Democrat racist slave owning politicians that created the whole problem in the first place. No one I've seen is trashing individuals. But with you saying that why do you think it's any more acceptable to actually call live breathing Americans like MNJohnnie a "Yankee", when you mean it in a really dirty insulting way, then it is if someone here did call Lee or Jackson a name? You should thing that it's just as unacceptable do do that then to personally attack someone here who is a liked and respected member. You're trying to run two seperate and simultansoue lines of acceptable conduct and that's not fair.
Retiring nicely. With no political aspirations in the near future. I hope.
Well okay you asked for this with your post. I have at least one member of my VERY distant family that fought for the Confederacy and I could not disagree with them and their stance on the war more. That is not disrespect. You are not viewing this properly.
That blacks in the Confederate Army were allowed to fight for the south because the Confederacy was desperate for man power, to the point that they'd actually allow blacks to be free, which if they'd of taken that tack before the war, there would have BEEN NO WAR. They didn't let those blacks fight out of the goodness of their heart, and many of them would have run to the north if they didn't think the Confederate officers would shoot them.
Yep. Understandable. A dear online friend of mine, who lives in middle Tennessee, like me, didn't like the fact that this country was divided by war, understands that the flag itself represents a part of this nation's history, whether we like that or not.
Insults? When did I insult Newt? His wife got sick (or severe car wreck injury, I can't remember which, McCain did the other) and Newt divorced her AFTER she was sick/injured for no other reason then she was a "burden" and then he remarried some trophy wife. Look it up. It's a fact. Newt lost a lot of hard core conservative support after he did that. I was really disappointed because I liked him so much for so many years. I wasn't insulting him. I was stating fact. I love the Cowboys, and always have, and back when Jimmy Johnson divorced his wife because she wasn't a good "NFL" wife and he didn't need her for his coaching career like he did in High School and NCAA coaching, and then married his current plastic bimbo, I stopped liking him totally too. It's not insulting to cite facts. Facts are facts. They're not personal. I still like Newt. But he's got that big personal short coming where he checked his vows at the door because she was politically inconvenient in his eyes. That's a horrible thing to do. Look it up. It's fact.
I brought up the issue with Newt divorcing his wife after she was very ill, then he remarried some hot little trophy wife, and he considered that to be in insult. It happened. I was citing that as fact because he said the GOP just dumped Newt and that's not true. There was that issue and some financial ones that didn't help his cause. some of it was unfair and hypocritical. But not all. I don't think bringing up facts is insulting someone.
Raster, hey, can I tell you something? Just between you and me? Can I whisper it to you? ;) Heheheh I wish I had that on tape. That was the end of Connie's career as a real journalist. :)
Exactly. Hobknobbing with Hillary, pushing socialized health care, didn't help matters much.
I am really tired of Rawle being the only guy you can cite. You don't even respond to things people say to you, you post right through them as though they weren't ever said. The Constitution does NOT afford states the RIGHT to secede! Read it! I have, cover to cover, hundreds of times. You are not correct in that opinion. If Rawle thinks that then he's interpreting the Constitution as he wants to have it read, not as it actually reads. Texas is and always has been the only state in the United States that has a legal right to secede and even then it has to be with the majority of the Texas Senate. No other State has EVER had that express right.
Wow do you have pics of that? That's awesome. The stories are priceless as well. :) That kind of stuff just gives me tingles. History is such an addictive drug. :)
Okay thanks for clarifying because I hadn't seen that anywhere and I couldn't understand where that came from. :) Yug I wish the last three hours of this thread could be unposted. :)
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.