9/11 Report

[haggis]

I found this in Chapter 12, "What to Do? A Global Strategy," page 362 of the PDF copy of the report.(WARNING: I wouldn't open this link with a "dial up" service!) The emphasis is in the report.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this referred to by any of the "main stream media" since, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first U.S. Governmental bipartisan acknowledgement that global Islamic terrorism is our enemy.

...In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there” should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.” In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,” some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.


As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,” and it must be converted or destroyed."

It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.

<small>[ 07-23-2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Hi Haggis, thanks for the link to the report. I wanna read it, all of it, just don't know when I'll have the time for the next 22 years or so....

[haggis]

Flight 93

"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," according to the report, which seems to indicate that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane. "With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C," according to the report"

I also read the original transcript from the report and it's worse than the newspaper report.

Hands up everyone who still want to approach terrorism as a law enforcement problem.

"(Islamic terrorism) is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated."

<small>[ 07-23-2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Haggis ]</small>

[RC]

Hands up everyone who still want to approach terrorism as a law enforcement problem.

Did someone actually say that or is that your perception of someones views?

I totally agree regarding terrorism. We should really put a hammer down on terrorism starting with Al Qaieda - the self proclaimed responsible party.

Wonder what ever happened to bin Laden. Looks like he walked. What a crappy image that must make after we were so adamant about nailing him.

Wouldn't it be great if we found him...

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by RC:
I totally agree regarding terrorism. We should really put a hammer down on terrorism starting with Al Qaieda - the self proclaimed responsible party.

Wonder what ever happened to bin Laden. Looks like he walked. What a crappy image that must make after we were so adamant about nailing him.

Wouldn't it be great if we found him...

I totally agree. Whatever happened to "Global Enemy #1"? Instead, we're patting ourselves on the back for bringing down Saddam, and Al Qaeda is still conducting ops.

Brings me right back to greed over justice.



<small>[ 07-23-2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[haggis]

RC,
Mr. Kerry initially claimed that terrorism was a law enforcement issue and not one that can be solved by the military. Lately, he's moving more towards the middle of that argument but still claims that it is primarily a law enforcement issue.

He still maintains that homeland security will only get better if we have more police on the street. I personally would rather confront the enemy on main street, Teheran with the M-1A1s and infantry than better prepare our police to react to an attack on main street, New York.

We have an intractable foe in Islamic terrorism that is convinced that if they blow up enough Americans they will be able to destroy us or convert us to Islam; that’s our only choices and I don’t think option 2 is feasible.

As the commission stated, this particular foe “…can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.”

Color me skeptical but I don’t think another 5 – 20K policemen are what we need.

And don’t forget this is an enemy who believe they can control elections with bombs and threat, they did in Spain and they will try here.

Throughout American histories of conflict, we always try to demonize the opponent to make them seem less than human and humane. For the first time we have an enemy that I don’t think we could do anything to make them more demonized than they show themselves to be.

Regardless who is elected in fall (and I still stand by my prediction that it will be Geo. Bush and it won't even be close) that president is going to have to deal with Iran.

As more and more evidence of Iranian involvement with Al Quaeda and possibly even with the 9/11 attack comes out, any president is going to have to respond.


OT, Global terrorism.

We have almost a million men on three borders of Iran and the Russian on the fourth. I’ve believed from the beginning that Iran will eventually found to be somewhat complicit in 9/11, if for nothing else than as a “safe haven” or as a source of financing. I can’t imagine placing the U.S. military assets more effectively than where they are now.

[lliam]

When Islamic extremist terrorism hit European soil with the March 2004 Madrid rail bombings, a new sense of urgency prompted greater Europe-wide cooperative counterterrorism efforts.
The European Union in fact had already begun to tackle seriously the issue of international terrorism after the September 11th World Trade Centre attacks and passed several significant anti-terrorism measures. Many of these new provisions, however, were not implemented by individual EU nations. Meanwhile, the ongoing discovery of diffuse and multilayered Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-linked terror cells across Europe made enhanced intra-European and European-U.S. cooperation an increasing necessity.
The recently expanded 25-nation European Union faces formidable challenges on the counterterrorism front. The porous borders among EU member states, for example, impede law enforcement authorities trying terrorist goods across Europe. In addition, political issues and the practical problems of diverse legal and bureaucratic regulations and differing languages and cultures make it difficult for the EU to streamline the law enforcement and domestic and foreign intelligence agencies of all member states into an efficient, cohesive and effective counterterrorist instrument

[lliam]

The U.S. and Europe share a commitment to combating international terrorism. In recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs, State Department Counterterrorism coordinator Ambassador J. Cofer Black said, “Europeans have been reliable partners, both bilaterally and in multilateral organizations. Cooperation has been forthcoming, and rapid response to immediate threats the norm.” In the wake of both September 11th and March 11th, the U.S.-EU political dialogue on the issue of terrorism deepened with European and American officials meeting regularly to share intelligence and other information and find ways to enhance antiterrorist cooperation.
On the concrete level, the U.S. and Europol have concluded several cooperation agreements that enable the exchange of data on terrorism and terrorists between law enforcement authorities. In June 2003, at the U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements were signed, expanding law enforcement and judicial cooperation. In April 2004, the EU and the Department of Homeland Security signed an agreement calling for the prompt expansion of the Container Security Initiative (CSI) throughout Europe, thus enhancing efforts to prevent terrorists from exploiting the international trading system. The agreement will also intensify and broaden Customs cooperation and mutual assistance in customs matters between the two blocs.

[RC]

Lliam,

Thanks for the post.

Haggis,
is it possible, that what Kerry means when he says a "law enforcement" issue is what is communicated by Lliam's post?
i.e., not cops on the street, but CIA/FBI information cooperation with other nations versus an actual declaration of war on a nation.

I have to be honest in that I am looking forward to learning more about Kerry and what his policies would be in the DNC this week.

I find it hard to believe that if Kerry said what you purport, that he meant what you think... That was not what I thought I'd heard or at least how I interpreted it when I did hear something similar. Must be why I didn't understand your post.

If its handy, maybe you can post his quote in context. If not, I'm obliged to learn for myself so don't go to the trouble.

Cheers,
RC

[haggis]

From the Democratic debate in January this year.

"That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations."

emphasis added

[RC]

Thanks Haggis for saving me the trouble, you're great!

But that still doesn't look like he is talking about cops on the street. In fact, it looks like what Lliams post refered to.

Or were you being facetious about cops on the street?

[haggis]

Yeah, the cops-on-the-street remark was meant to be tongue in cheek. In my opinion viewing terrorism as a "primarily a law enforcement operation" is why we are where we are today.

Lliam’s comments really reflect what is already going on today. Despite our problems with France, et al, we have been sharing anti-terrorism intelligence with them and vice versa.

Current intelligence opinion is that there are thousands of anti-American terrorists in al Qaeda and its affiliated organizations. In the eight years from 1993 to 2001, when terrorism was regarded as a law-enforcement issue, we managed to prosecute about 40 terrorists in trials that generally took six months or more, and terrorist attacks nevertheless continued apace.

On the other hand, since October 2001, our military has killed or captured thousands of terrorists and there have been no domestic attacks. Why are trials thought to be better than military operations?

President Bush decided to take the fight to them and I’m glad to see it.

But frankly, I’m not encouraged by Mr. Kerry’s priorities and his attitude towards this war seems a little too ambivalent and that makes me nervous.

Re: Homeland Security, he has proposed to fund the purchase of more emergency equipment in order, presumably, to be prepared for the next 9/11. Personally, I’d rather our national policy be something like engaging the enemy away from our shores, not to adopt a defensive “bunker mentality.” But that’s just my opinion.

In fact, the only concrete thing he has said he would do if elected president would be to deliver to congress, “within hours,” a $635 BIL, 10-year health care plan; not reassuring to me.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Haggis:
OT, Global terrorism.

We have almost a million men on three borders of Iran and the Russian on the fourth. I’ve believed from the beginning that Iran will eventually found to be somewhat complicit in 9/11, if for nothing else than as a “safe haven” or as a source of financing. I can’t imagine placing the U.S. military assets more effectively than where they are now.

I fully support the pursuit and prosecution(including the ultimate prosecuttion) of terrorists, wherever they are in the world. Before we invaded Iraq, we were told by our leaders that OBL was the evilest bad guy of them all. Then came the Iraq phase of the war, and now OBL isn't even mentioned in the papers anymore, but we haven't caught him, and Al Qaeda still conducts ops(whereas the Iraqis don't do anything outside their own country these days). Regardless of whether or not Iran is or was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, why have we essentailly quit pursuing OBL? Is it not true these muslim fundamental extremists practically worship their leaders? Don't we get a lot of symbolic mileage by appropriately taking their leadership out of action? If a lay simpleton like me can connect those dots, how come our intelligence assets can't seem to?

The cynic in me believes it's because there's no money in it.

[RC]

I'll tell you something that worries me about the "taking it to them" tactic; It seems to me that MANY people view "Islamic terrorists" and "Arabs", and "Islamists", (them), as interchangable.

As if to say "them" could be any number of "ragheads", (god I hate that term), which may include several races, several religions, the entire middle east, and a good chunk of the African continent.

Middle easterners think we're really that ignorant and hate us for it. Some of us ACT like we hate them all or want to convert them all.

An awful lot of our citizens really are that ignorant. (I do mean in the literal sense - lack of knowledge). You would have to be a hermit not to have witnessed it.

We have a horrible image in the middle east. I don't care how bin Laden and his ilk see us but I DO care that our imags is so bad that the uneducated masses in the middle east are actually believing his propoganda...just like the uneducated masses over here are getting confused about who the enemy is.

And, contrary to repairing our image, I think Bush is actually promoting that ignorance because it works to his benefit in our country.

As long as the source of "terrorism" is a moving target, then any action/expense is a necessity for national security and yet definitive results are unattainable. Pretty slick.

I would be happy if we picked one target, proved it to be a real threat, and addressed it before moving on to something else that may or may not be a threat before we've lived up to our promises with the first target.

Hell, I'd vote for Bush in a heartbeat if I thought he would do that.

Its all about follow through, as my Dad would say, (and did about a thousand times).

Keep your eye on the ball and follow through.

[Shapley]

RE:<<I would be happy if we picked one target, proved it to be a real threat, and addressed it before moving on to something else that may or may not be a threat before we've lived up to our promises with the first target.>>

You mean, like, Iraq?

[barfle]

Originally posted by Shapley:
You mean, like, Iraq?

Unfortunately, the only threat we were able to prove in Iraq was Saddam's treatment of his own people. Everything else seems to have become dust in the wind.

And now, of course, there are endless kidnappings of people who are just trying to do a job, like truck drivers.

I've noted several times that I feel our presence in Iraq is shameful, but I can't put the genie back in the bottle. We're there, for better or worse.

However, the actions of the Philippine government, withdrawing their token force to appease some vile kidnappers, has sent the kidnap rate soaring. I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision, but it was not a good one.

[mmichaelson]

Well, I've said this before: I think that our government truly felt like there was a credible threat in Iraq (not just greed for oil). The Russian government has stated in the past month that they passed on intelligence to our country that stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that the was going to target the US in the future. Britain (whether real or imaginary) has also stated that they found intelligence to this effect (although you'd have to chat with Lliam about that moreso than me).

I feel that the administration is trying to protect our countr. Maybe they are going about it the wrong way (as you guys seem to think), but at least they're trying. I can't even begin to imagine what would be happening had Al Gore won the 2000 election, and I really don't want to. I think that he would have pushed a policy of isolationism similar to that we experienced before WWII. Honestly, I know a lot of Americans feel that this is the way to go. . .but look at what happened then. If it didn't work in the past, it is not going to work now. All it will do in the long run, is make us open to attack again.

I don't know how Kerry would do in office if he were elected. My vote will go for GWB, who is making amends with other countries and trying to correct mistakes. I do know that there are two groups of veterans out there who served with him. One group wants him to win, the other is adamantly against it. I think this pretty much describes our nation right now.

I feel that this will be a tightly run race, and I wish luck to whoever wins.

There, I said it. . .don't throw rocks at me!!!

[RC]

Shapley,

Pretend you're Bob's next door neighbor, you belong to the NRA and you have NRA stickers on your car and a sign in your front lawn that says "Beware of Owner" and "Keep Out".

Everyone thinks you're creepy.

Everyday when Bob collects his mail you yell "I hate you and wish you were dead!"

Pretend however, Bob's other neighbor actually shoots at him when he collects his mail.

Of course he calls the cops and tells them that you are threatening him and that the other guy is actually shooting at him.

Pretend that the next day, both of Bob's neighbors wake up dead. Turns out, you actually didn't even own a gun, you were just mean and senile.

Now, ALL Bob's neighbors, even the ones that used to have sympathy for him, want to see Bob in jail because he OBVIOUSLY has a gun and he isn't too particular about how he uses it.

After all, the hood wasn't too sure about Bob in the first place.

Is that a stretch?

[RC]

Saxy,
Far from deserving a stoning, I for one, appreciate your view and sentiments.
Well said.

[mmichaelson]

Thanks, I try to be open to everyone else's opinions too. . .it's only fair, right?