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.

 

Al-Qaeda Weakened Over Last Decade: Western Officials

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Al-Qaeda Weakened Over Last Decade: Western Officials


www.globalsecuritynewswire.org

Al-Qaeda's central control structure is significantly weakened and probably lacks the capability to stage sophisticated strikes similar to those of Sept. 11, 2001, Reuters on Friday quoted Western counterterrorism officials as saying (see GSN, Aug. 1).

he organization's attenuation is believed to have markedly lowered the short-term likelihood of extremists obtaining weapons of mass destruction, but related terror entities as well as single, independently operating extremists are increasing....
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
So Al-Qaeda was very weak then before. Heck the last time we ignored Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda was stronger and attacked us at 9/11/01.If we just ignored 9/11....how many more BIG attacks do you think the terrorists would have launched on the United States in the last ten years? How many thousands (or tens of thousands...or hundreds of thousands...or millions) of Americans should lose their lives to these lunatics because it is just to expensive to pin them down and prevent them from coming here and killing more of us?

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15


So Al-Qaeda was very weak then before. Heck the last time we ignored Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda was stronger and attacked us at 9/11/01.If we just ignored 9/11....how many more BIG attacks do you think the terrorists would have launched on the United States in the last ten years? How many thousands (or tens of thousands...or hundreds of thousands...or millions) of Americans should lose their lives to these lunatics because it is just to expensive to pin them down and prevent them from coming here and killing more of us?

www.globalsecuritynewswire.org
(visit the link for the full news article)


and how many innocent civilians in Iraq and afghanastan would still be alive today? possibly millions.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by auraelium
 


Mah i guess. But the Taliban inflicted more civilian casualties than NATO.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 





how many more BIG attacks do you think the terrorists would have launched on the United States in the last ten years?


I would guess none. First they blamed the Taliban then it was Al Qaeda. Both of them denied having anything to do with it. Seeing how most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia then shouldn't we have gone after them? And frankly I'm fed up with my money being wasted on the war on terror. Trillions of dollars down the drain.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I doubt it. I really do.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by auraelium
 


Mah i guess. But the Taliban inflicted more civilian casualties than NATO.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


Theres an estimated 1.2 million people dead in Iraq, and when you add in those sick and elderly who have died from lack of access to medical services and the children who have died from lack of basic services and malnutrition. Also the deaths from exposure to depleted uranium which will kill many more in the future.Add in the fact that many suspect that 911 was orchastrated by the government or at the very least was allowed to happen, i realy dont know how people in the US can sleep at night.
Enjoy your phony freedom and feelings of safety, because hundreds of thousands of women and children have been slaughtered to bring it to you.
edit on 11-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


I guess after the trillions of dollars of tax payer money going to "fight the war on terror"While the nation falls into economic chaos and all the "oppresive laws" been passed in the US, becasue of "national security", you think the govenrment is going to tell us that they are losing and the Al-Qaida is winining, propganda nothing but propganda.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by auraelium

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by auraelium
 


Mah i guess. But the Taliban inflicted more civilian casualties than NATO.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


Theres an estimated 1.2 million people dead in Iraq, and when you add in those sick and elderly who have died from lack of access to medical services and the children who have died from lack of basic services and malnutrition. Also the deaths from exposure to depleted uranium which will kill many more in the future.Add in the fact that many suspect that 911 was orchastrated by the government or at the very least was allowed to happen, i realy dont know how people in the US can sleep at night.
Enjoy your phony freedom and feelings of safety, because hundreds of thousands of women and children have been slaughtered to bring it to you.
edit on 11-9-2011 by auraelium because: (no reason given)


IDK about this. I know it is rough in the middle east, but what you describe sounds like the 12 million in Africa



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
How many thousands (or tens of thousands...or hundreds of thousands...or millions) of Americans should lose their lives to these lunatics because it is just to expensive to pin them down and prevent them from coming here and killing more of us?


I've said this before here on ATS, and I'll say it again. THAT is the cost of freedom. American lives lost because of a terrorist attack. The cost of freedom isn't monetary, it isn't the number of wars. It's the fact that you are NOT safe, because you (ideally) live in a FREE society where things like this CAN and WILL happen.

Unfortunately, there are too many cowards living in this country that will gladly surrender their freedom to feel more secure. Such people disgust me. The government's job is to keep this country safe, but when that job infringes upon the freedoms of the American people, that is where it should stop. Oh how I wish I could hear a president say "No, I won't attempt to make you safer at the cost of your countrymen's freedom, you may not value liberty, but others do, so stop being a damn coward cry baby, suck it up, and get on with your life while you still have it"

The goal of safety should NEVER EVER override the idea of freedom. And because of this, people will die. As I said, THAT is the cost of freedom. You want to be free? Pay for it. Pay for it by not being a coward who runs to mommy government to keep them safe. By saying "I will gladly accept that I'm not as safe as I could be, because I am a free man"

This was not directed at you, but at whoever holds the idea that the illusion of safety is more important than freedom. It's not.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
How many thousands (or tens of thousands...or hundreds of thousands...or millions) of Americans should lose their lives to these lunatics because it is just to expensive to pin them down and prevent them from coming here and killing more of us?


I've said this before here on ATS, and I'll say it again. THAT is the cost of freedom. American lives lost because of a terrorist attack. The cost of freedom isn't monetary, it isn't the number of wars. It's the fact that you are NOT safe, because you (ideally) live in a FREE society where things like this CAN and WILL happen.

Unfortunately, there are too many cowards living in this country that will gladly surrender their freedom to feel more secure. Such people disgust me. The government's job is to keep this country safe, but when that job infringes upon the freedoms of the American people, that is where it should stop. Oh how I wish I could hear a president say "No, I won't attempt to make you safer at the cost of your countrymen's freedom, you may not value liberty, but others do, so stop being a damn coward cry baby, suck it up, and get on with your life while you still have it"

The goal of safety should NEVER EVER override the idea of freedom. And because of this, people will die. As I said, THAT is the cost of freedom. You want to be free? Pay for it. Pay for it by not being a coward who runs to mommy government to keep them safe. By saying "I will gladly accept that I'm not as safe as I could be, because I am a free man"

This was not directed at you, but at whoever holds the idea that the illusion of safety is more important than freedom. It's not.


I agree no one was safe though although it's better to go back to pro-active foreign policy so slam down Al-Qaeda terrorists.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
And it's ex-leader Osama died a decade ago too........so yep.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Preposterous...

The CIA is more powerful than ever.




posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by auraelium
 


Mah i guess. But the Taliban inflicted more civilian casualties than NATO.
edit on 11-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)


Some one has never looked past what their government shows them of the war on terror. More innocent lives have been taken by those hunting terrorists than the terrorists took their or in America. It's absolutely horrific what's considered acceptable for the military to do, in looking for the " Bad Guys." 9/11 was horrific but the soldiers that have killed innocent civilians are equally as bad if not worse in my eyes.



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Al-Qaeda: One step forward, two steps back over the past decade.

USA: One step forward, ten steps back over the past decade.




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
thats a very fair assessment too...

2008 Bush and Cheney were removed from Power, that put a big dent in the terrorists hold on things
2011 a lot of western puppets were kicked out of power in the middle east... that lost a stranglehold there too

yep.. its fair to say the terrorists arent as powerful as they were... but.. it doesnt matter.

The wests mindless bombing of families, friends and foreign lands means we're creathing thousands of evil terrorists anyways.


so, in the ends kinda levelled out.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
What's really sad is the potential not only America, but every country has. The potential to help their people and other people. We wouldn't have lasted thousands of years ago if we didn't cooperate. We did that by hunting and foraging and living together as one. Now we do it by storming a building with guns ablaze or by flattening cities. Any true American, and more importantly human, should be ashamed of what we've become. We cling to the media for survival. We watch T.V. like it's gonna disappear tomorrow. All the while our troops are killing and getting killed back. Entire populations are dying because of no food or no water. Yet we say our war is justified. Hardly. If we need a war that is justified we would commit it on the very idea of starting one.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Se7enex because: Additional

edit on 12-9-2011 by Se7enex because: Information



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Was wondering if the blast in that French nuclear facility was terrorism? Any thoughts?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TegReturns
 


According to officials it wasn't to big of a deal. No leakage or anything.



new topics




 
1

log in

join