Assassination, the final sign that was to trigger the next round of AQ attacks. It started that way in 2001, with the death of the anti-Taliban warlord, it has been announced over the past couple of years by AQ mouthpieces. My question is “who would be the most vulnerable and high enough profile?”
The following is my speculation. One answer - Musharraf of Pakistan. I believe he knows it as well as the administration. It is likely that his current aggressive posture against the Waristan tribal leaders and radical imans is targeted to throw the assassination attempt off. His intelligence is good and he probably caught wind of the soon to be completed plot during the standoff. Clearly the jihadists have wanted him dead for a long time, so why act now? Because he showed weakness in agreeing to the truce with the tribal leaders, allowing the radicals to reinforce themselves to the point of openly challenging him. This same weakness has allowed AQ to reconstitute to a degree in Pakistani training camps - safe from US forces. Now that they are ready to strike again, they want to rid themselves of Musharraf so that there will be no Pakistani response to the attacks as the country’s leadership would be in chaos or possibly under the control of jihadists. This is a slightly similar plot to the anti-Taliban warlord - permit Taliban/AQ consolidation of Afghanistan to buffer them from the US response (which they grossly under judged). This time they are counting on a larger jihadist influenced public base for protection and buffering after the next attack, assuming that the US will be tied up elsewhere (which could well be the case if Iran/Syria/Hamas/Hezbolla use a chaos following a massive 9/11 level event to strike Israel).
My gut says “watch Musharraf”.
G, I have been thinking that for some time now. With Musharraf out of the way, the US would have little to no help in Pakistan, and we would have to risk an unauthorized incursion to chase AQ into the tribal regions. That would turn many muslims who are on the fence against us, as they see West invading their lands. It basically creates a no-win situation for us, since we show weakness if we don’t go after them, and we create more enemies if we do.
I would really like to not agree with you, but I can’t.
“Because he showed weakness in agreeing to the truce with the tribal leaders, allowing the radicals to reinforce themselves to the point of openly challenging him.”
Yep, that’s the moment in the spotlight, Godzilla.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=globaljihad
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=jihad
http://www.billroggio.com/cgi-bin/cms/mt-search.cgi?tag=Afghanistan&blog_id=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=afghanistan
http://www.billroggio.com/cgi-bin/cms/mt-search.cgi?tag=Pakistan&blog_id=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=pakistan
#
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29151
“The Coming War in Pakistan”
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 17, 2007
He as avoided many attempts and survived a few unscathed. We are one heartbeat away from an islamic bomb.
I’ll go with your ‘gut’ on that.
Yes, I agree with your assessment.