This thread is really about two things;

1_ In the light of the recent audio message purported to be from Osama Bin Laden, is al qaeda still a credible threat?

2_ And, if al qaeda does strike again on November 13th, what will this mean for the war on terrorism?
For example; Will it matter at all if the attack is within the USA or not? Will it mean the war on terror is failing?


I saw an interview with a CIA analyst where al qaeda was described as having a 'thing' for numbers and related dates, and it seems likely that if this is true, then the next large attack may occur on Nov 13. (WTC-Sept 11, Bali-Oct 12)

Osama Bin Laden has just released an audio message, and that this message may in fact be a start signal for some terrorist cell somewhere. It may be that the next attack is already coming...

Al-Queda, who is weakened, may still be a credible threat but not as effective as it was in the past. They may be able to still wage a few soft target attacks on Americas and American interests but not a full scale attack 9/11 style

You always say this GA, but you never explain how you know that al qaeda is weakened. Are you so sure? or are just parroting the official line?

Myself, I have seen no indication that al qaeda is any where near a spent force.

You must remember that terrorism does not require a base of operations, nor in truth a single leader. The IRA has functioned for decades despite the overwhelming British military superiority, and always managed to carry on despite serious losses. Even when leaders of the IRA were killed or captured, or when their weapons shipments were stopped, or when their own people turned against them, they still managed to carry out their actions both in the province of Northern Ireland, and on main land Britain.

If Americans really think that al qeada, which has 800 million Muslims from which to find volunteers, and uses the entire world as its theatre of operations is some how 'weakened' because a few of its known leaders have been captured, then I fear America is sadly deluded.

The first rule of any war, is never underestimate your opponent!

Here's my view:

Al Qaeda certainly can't be any stronger. As you said, Moif, there's no reason to assume they're weaker though, and I agree with you on that.

Take into consideration though our post 9/11 security measures. Granted there are ways to slip through the hands of the government and hit certain targets, I doubt that Al Qaeda will be able to pull off any grand-scale attacks.

Al-Qeada is most definitely still a credible threat. I may be a pessimist, but there is virtually no way to stop a determined enemy from smuggling in conventional or non-conventional explosives through the border or by sea. Think of how utterly easy it would be to coordinate a series of attacks on targets around the country such as Mall of the Americas, Disney, state fairs.......
Although our state of security is fairly appalling, the flip side is that there is really no conceivable way to plug every potential gap against terrorism.

Still, I think the biggest threat though is outside of America. Its simply easier for them to strike at a western type target like they did in Bali.

Imagine for example if they destroyed an American or British cruise ship.

What I'm wondering if, no matter what the action taken, if such an action occurs on November 13th, what does it mean for the War on Terror?

I don't think that there's any question that Al Qeada is still a credible threat and will remain one for some time. I do think though that the civilized world has made some inroads against them though, primarily through intelligence gathering. We know far more about Al Qeada than we did 2 years ago and it seems to me that's a very significant thing. Sept 11 was first and foremost an intelligence failure and the recognition of that has led to a movement towards better intel operations and cooperation between the various entities involved. Still a long ways to go on that front, but it is better.

I made some calculations here. I'm quite sure most readers won't care but here goes anyway.

I tried to think as a muslim, with the moon calendar in mind. That means that I have 13 months in my year instead of 12 (the moon cycle is 28 days). Well, the dates of the 11th of September and the 12th of October don't match...

My questions are :

1. Aren't we trying to see TOO MUCH in the numbers?
2. After all, terrorists strike when they decide, not when we think they do, don't they?
3. What's their next possible target?

I would really pay no attention to this besides it being a scare tactic. Being if you were a terrorist i don’t really think you would broadcast how it was or when it was you were going to do something, really when so many intelligence groups are after them. As for the dates themselves going on the numbered day of the month, when we actually have some terrorist attacks, not one or two to compare, maybe then we could look for a correlation like that. Though if they could basically use that and get away with it, I could see where it would spread terror easily though. Really if it was open to any nation to receive an attack. Still at this time one can only speculate on it.

1. Aren't we trying to see TOO MUCH in the numbers?

Well I don't know one way or the other Horyok, but if they are terrorists, then their aim is to have the western world scared.

2. After all, terrorists strike when they decide, not when we think they do, don't they?

Yes. but, if they are using the date's of their attacks in sequence, then that by itself becomes a means by which to generate fear.

I don't know if they are using the dates like that, but it makes sense from a terrorists point of view.

3. What's their next possible target?

Take your pick, the world is full of them, hotels, oil rigs, water supplies, bridges, dams, holiday camps, towns, markets, cities...

1_ In the light of the recent audio message purported to be from Osama Bin Laden, is al qaeda still a credible threat?

OBL is in hiding. where? who really knows. some say he's being protected by the Pak's in the northern frontier of Pakistan, a stronghold of an isolated tribe even the Pakistani army cannot interfere with. Osama is apparently not free to wander about in public as there IS a price on his head. However, it's important to the cause that HE show his face or at least make his voice heard from time to time to rally the troops. It's been awhile since his last tape. This might just be another "hey I'm still alive, get busy!" type of reminder.

Al Qaeda has been hurt. Since the start of the war on terror, millions of dollars in working capital have been confiscated and frozen all over the world. Cash flow has been seriously curtailed due to the investigations into the many Muslims charities. Many of which were raising cash primarily to fund Al Aqaeda.

I do think Al Qaeda still presents a threat just not on the scale they were pre-911. If OBL could be either killed or captured it could go a long way to cutting the head off the snake.

2_ And, if al qaeda does strike again on November 13th, what will this mean for the war on terrorism?

I suppose it would depend on the severity of the strike. It the water supply of a major city were compromised by an attack, or a nuclear facility bombed, attacks such as these INSIDE the US would be devastating to the WOT. It would mean that HomeLand Security had failed dismally.

They aren't fully spent. I know that. It's just that they are not as stronger as they used to be because we have made them go on the run because we took their base in Afghanistan and we have frozen many assests but that does not mean they can't get money from other sources....same as a base of operations.

Also, everytime we arrest an operative, it results in more arrests, which prevents who knows how many attacks. When we captured the 9/11 mastermind, we may have prevented dozens of major attacks and were able to arrest many more members. To arrest a major al-queda operative weakens al-queda because that major operative may have loads of info including member whereabouts, attack plans, and financial info. One arrest could disrupt the operation status of the organization

All in all, i do think Al-Queda is still a threat, but not a MAJOR threat


SoCaliente_1:

As much as i would agree with you, jsut because OBL dies, doesn't mean the head is gone for good. Someone might take his place. But killing or capturing OBL would be a victory because he has the most brains than his successor might to run the group.

GA

America's advances against al qaeda have not been without consequences, true, and you may be right, but I suspect that your attitude mirrors the complacency which allowed the 11th of September attack...