It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

State Dept counterterrorism official admits to losing war on Terror?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.


Link


There are two sides mentioned in this article, I just mentioned this side as I feel the Bush administration has lost all credibility...Too many holes, yet little effort for explantion, denial of records to the 911 commission for example, from all state departments including but not limited to
the president's chief of staff, and to the leaders of the Pentagon, the State Department, the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the other agencies with responsibility for counterterrorism programs.


The letters requested interviews and updated information on the agencies' efforts to deal with terrorism, asking that all of the information be provided by Aug. 15. But Mr. Kean said Mr. Card and the others had failed to respond to the letters or even to acknowledge their receipt.


See




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Of course their losing the war on terrorism, there has been more terrorist attacks around the world since the war on terror began than there were prior. Iraq alone probably surpasses the world in the number of terror attacks those poor people have to endure. I think the name change to the global struggle against extremism is another sign that the govt feels that war on terror is currently a losing battle.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
thats almost like saying we are losing the Cold War because the Soviets were ahead in technology like the launch of Sputnik.

just cause the terrorists are attacking more dont mean they won.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Perhaps i can refer you to the man caught at an airport eith IED thread.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
If we're losing the war, its due to lack of resolve and piss-poor-planning by Bush and his staff. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to control it.

Y'all wanna win?? Heres how Max would do it:

1) Increase troop strength to 500,000 soldiers...even if it means stripping them from Japan, South Korea and Germany. Go on a 1 year offensive that will knock these Militants and kidnappers into the afterlife.

2) Start using heavier firepower and quit worrying about "world opinion" The cut-throats we're fighting only understand superior firepower....why do we force our soldiers to fight them on their terms?

3) Kill all prisoners that are caught red-handed with bomb making materials or are caught shooting at coalition forces....Kill them on the spot and be done with it.

4) Start making Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria pay a toll for allowing these terrorists into Iraq. Heres how it works.....if a terror attack kills 14 American soldiers....than US B-2 Bombers should hit Irans #1 oil pipeline....hit that shiney new Frigate sitting in their harbor....hit that nuclear plant in Iran....go after the Royal Saudi family members that are proven to finance terrorism.......Hit the Syrian security forces buildings.....etc etc etc. You see, only when it starts getting expensive for them will they start changing....until than they will continue to finance and support terror.

Let me finnish with this remark....to win a war you have to be more violent than the people your fighting. In WW II, we gave the Japanese so much violence...they finally gave up!! They had their fill of it. ....the Nazis gave up after almost ALL their cities were destroyed and their armies wiped out.

Thats how you win the war on Terror....hit them so hard, they don't dare attack you again. We have not delivered the knock-out punch...yet.

Maxi

One More...5) Lock up all the ACLU leadership and have a Grand Jury investigate where their getting their money from. Lock up or DEPORT ANYONE who openly supports the Islamic terrorists until this war is over with. Lock up any newspaper or TV reporter that purposly reports a story that can cause harm to our soldiers in the field (Grab-an-Arab prison scandal and the Koran in the toilet scandal from newsweek etc etc).

[edit on 013131p://444 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Damn Max, that first point was spot on, exactly what is needed.

Then you went and laid out a scheme to convert America into a Fascist state, giving up on all those little freedoms that the terrorists supposedly want to stop. Youre not going to win the war by locking up reporters and journalists.


You still see this in terms of a conventional war.

It isnt. We are fighting a small group of misled and highly motivated fools who use fear and cowardice to hide amoung innocent populations. Killing everyone in sight will make the problems worse, making the war longer and costing more lives and money.

Why? Because most muslims dont support terror (look at Britain, they command virtually no support) Upsetting the innocent majority will simply push them into the arms of the terrorists. Proof of this: Iraq, before the invasion, no Al- Quiada, now they organise massive bombings, slaughtering civilioans and troops alike.

Your plan simply pushes this screw up onto a global scale, not a good plan.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Why? Because most muslims dont support terror (look at Britain, they command virtually no support) Upsetting the innocent majority will simply push them into the arms of the terrorists. Proof of this: Iraq, before the invasion, no Al- Quiada, now they organise massive bombings, slaughtering civilioans and troops alike.

Your plan simply pushes this screw up onto a global scale, not a good plan.



wrong, before the invasion of Iraq, Al Qaida has been training almost a hundred thousand followers and to go back to their countries to commit terror and to make demands and claim an Islamic state out of those states. the war on terror made the terrorists opened up, instead of taking their time as they usually do, now they respond to our attacks wen we responded to 9/11. since 96, Osama and his group trained for global jihad as Osama has mentioned. Iraq may be a swamp for the terrorists but if u drain the swamp those terrorists will look somewhere else to terrorize.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Any proof about the hundered thousand soldiers?

And beyond that you ignored that fact that Al Quida is inly operative i Iraq because we blew the country apart



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   
This report has been discussed before here.

As I said before, a rising short term rate of terror attacks doesn't necessarily mean we're losing the larger War on Terror. It's like going after a wasp nest or snake den on your property. While your attacking it, you have a higher risk of getting bitten, but in the end when the threat is gone, you're much better off.

[edit on 8/11/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Any proof about the hundered thousand soldiers?

And beyond that you ignored that fact that Al Quida is inly operative i Iraq because we blew the country apart


www.sfgate.com.../news/archive/2003/07/13/national1531EDT0505.DTL



A congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks has concluded that between 70,000 and 120,000 terrorists were trained by al-Qaida and some are still in the United States, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., said Sunday.

"We have to assume that as those people were placed around the world, some were placed inside the United States. Some of them are in the United States today," Graham said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

After months of investigation and a series of congressional hearings last year, the House and Senate Intelligence panels wrapped up their report Dec. 20 and released a summary.

The full classified report is still under review at the FBI and CIA, which are trying to determine whether any disclosure of information might pose a risk to national security and should remain secret.


i was wrong, it wasnt 100,000, its more than that. in anicase they all spread out. maybe u like to know more?

en.wikipedia.org...


Taking advantage of an invitation from some Afghan warlords, al-Qaeda returned to Afghanistan. There, bin Laden quickly established ties with the fledgling Taliban group, led by Mohammed Omar, and by providing funds and weapons at a crucial time helped the group rise to power. Thereafter al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense.

Al-Qaeda training camps trained militant Muslims from around the world, some of whom later applied their training in various conflicts in places such as India, Algeria, Chechnya, the Philippines, Egypt, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, Kosovo, and Bosnia. Other terrorists came from Pakistan, parts of Africa, the People's Republic of China (Uighurs), and, in at least one case, the United Kingdom. These terrorists intermingled at their camps, causing all of those causes to become one. Despite the perception of some people, al-Qaeda members are ethnically diverse and are connected by their fundamentalist version of Islam. They are also connected by their common pledge of loyalty to Bin Ladin.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
This report has been discussed before here.

As I said before, a rising short term rate of terror attacks doesn't necessarily mean we're losing the larger War on Terror. It's like going after a wasp nest or snake den on your property. While your attacking it, you have a higher risk of getting bitten, but in the end when the threat is gone, you're much better off.

[edit on 8/11/2005 by djohnsto77]

For starters I find it pretty much an exercise in futility to try to even COMPARE
creatures without the ability to reason like snakes (only instinctual actions).
Secondly a Den of Snakes or a Wasps nest has a finite region and you know exactly the enemy youre fighting.
So you have known to you a) the exact borders of area to eliminate, and b) know exactly who/what
they are. The "War on Terror" is radically different.
However, I still have yet to determine who exactly the terrorists are...hence the quotes.
I agree that we are in fact losing this "war" because..why? Because were not really fighting anyone
in a "War against Terror" .. are we? The "War" is simply the ability to PREVENT terrorism,
and because we seem to be facilitating more terror than eliminating, whether or not the
"term" is short or long is pretty much irrevelant, would dictate that AT THE MOMENT
we could well in fact be losing the "War Against Terror"



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Thanks for the links, thats a scary number.

Still nothing on the boost the Iraq war has given terrorists.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Still nothing on the boost the Iraq war has given terrorists.



Regardless, they would have come after us anyway...Damed if we do and Damed if we don't. Their coming after America, because of who and what we are. If we ignored 9/11...there would have been several more Im sure.

In regards to losing journalistic freedom, in a time of war I think its common-sense to lock up people who put our troops in danger.....I think we can both agree that some of the news stories released have fueled Islamic rage against America and endangered soldiers. Even when they were found to be untrue...it was too late, the damage had already been done.

In WW II, a NYT's editor would not even THINK of releasing a story that attacked American foreign policy while the lead was still flying, because back than they were AMERICAN reporters and they cared about our boys in the field.

Lets not even talk about the ACLU, here they are suing on behalf of the terrorists we have captured.

Maximu§



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I still think that the Iraq war has given Al quida decent recruitment proaganda, encouraging those who wouldnt have been tempted by the idea of terrorism to take up arms, how many people in the Iraqi resistance/insurgency would have ever tried to kill Americans if Iraq had been left alone?

I think that journalists have a duty to report stories, even when not in the coalitions best interest simply because it seperates us from those regimes we try to beat.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join