Report: Al-Qaida has 18,000 ready to strike Think tank says network boosted by U.S. conflict in Iraq The Associated Press Updated: 8:48 a.m. ET May 25, 2004 LONDON - Despite losses around the world, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists, and its ranks are growing because of the conflict in Iraq, a leading think tank warned Tuesday. Al-Qaida still has a functioning leadership despite the death or capture of key figures, and estimates suggest al-Qaida operates in more than 60 nations around the world, the International Institute of Strategic Studies said in its Strategic Survey 2003-4. The terrorist group poses a growing threat to Western interests and attacks are likely to increase, the institute said. “Al-Qaida must be expected to keep trying to develop more promising plans for terrorist operations in North America and Europe, potentially involving weapons of mass destruction,” institute director John Chipman told a news conference to launch the annual survey. At the same time, it will continue carrying out attacks on “soft targets encompassing Americans, Europeans and Israelis and aiding the insurgency in Iraq,” he added. The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al-Qaida trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said. The United States remains al-Qaida’s prime target, the report said. An al-Qaida leader has said 4 million Americans will have to be killed “as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory,” the survey said. New magnet Iraq has become the new magnet of al-Qaida’s war against the United States and up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi forces, the survey said. Al-Qaida appears to have successfully reconstituted its operations in dispersed groups and through local allies since being driven out of Afghanistan, the survey said. “The Madrid bombings in March 2004 suggested that al-Qaida had fully reconstituted, set its sights firmly on the U.S. and its closest Western allies in Europe, and established a new and effective modus operandi,” the survey said. The U.S.-led war in Iraq has increased the risk to Western interests in Arab countries, the survey said. The West and its allies must continue to mount a major offensive against al-Qaida and progress will be incremental, the report said. Any security offensive against al-Qaida must be accompanied with political developments, such as the democratization of Iraq and the resolution of conflict in Israel, it said. Progress against al-Qaida “is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation,” the report said. © 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
More liberal short-sighted analysis. The long term benefits of creating democracy in the Middle East will far outpace short term fluctuations in al Queda membership. Why do the liberals insist on displaying the War on Terror in the worst possible light? Why do they announce for all to see the successes of al Queda? Will someone please explain the motivations for doing so?
I hope you are right and they will actually manage to create democracy in the Middle East. I just don't see it happening right now .
But taking focus away from Afghanistan could easily offset any democracy that we may produce in Iraq. We should've focused the majority of our attention on Al-Qaeda instead of worrying about a murderous dictator who hadn't sponsored any terrorist threat to us, or more specifically one of us, since 1993.
Let me get this straight: 1) You're saying that the International Institute of Strategic Studies is liberal? 2) You're saying that the respected think tank devoted to international strategy failed to account for factors immediately obvious to our own Trader_Jorge? Question: Do you have anything to support either of these allegations? Or is it just a little possible that you are the one making partisan judgments?
BTW, here's a link to the report, if you still feel the ned to consult these liberal amateurs after T_J's scathing and well-founded rebuttle... http://www.iiss.org/showdocument.php?docID=364&PHPSESSID=47f2d75f9e785419040ac382cbd227c9
Hilarious! MacBeth, you just answered my question by answering my question with a question! Get it? Ho ho ho!! Once again I ask you MacBeth, what are your motivations for only posting negative news? What are your motivations, MacBeth, for attempting to display the work of the American troops in the worst possible light? MacBeth, surely you have motivations behind your actions, don't you? Yes, you do. So please share them, MacBeth. Many of us are interested. If you are the centrist that you claim you are, MacBeth, then something very fishy must be going on here. What are your motivations, MacBeth, for highlighting the successes of al Queda? Please share.
MacBeth, why bother arguing with him? TJ and company will simply say that any objective evidence is wrong, incomplete, biased, etc, and not present anything to the contrary other than their own ipse dixit assertions followed by the same formulaic personal attacks and unintentionally hilarious and ill-timed generic, unbacked characterizations of Kerry as the tool of the sinister UN. The earliest these guys will have to accept reality will be November, unless a terrorist attack interrupts their delusions prior.
"One who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be in danger in a hundred battles. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes win, sometimes lose. One who does not know the enemy and does not know himself will be in danger in every battle." -Sun Tzu, Art of War Admitting your mistakes only makes things worse. Only focus on what you've done right, especially in war. That's the way to win. And by no means look at how you've helped the enemy, because that might mean you could correct your mistakes, which means admitting them." -Anon, Ostrich Survival Guide
because MacBeth didn't write the article. the minute one posts an article from a respected world organization, he is a liberal I'm still trying to figure out why D&D has been hijacked by T_J, where we can't even post news articles anymore without being labeled.
Isn't it obvious? He's an Al Qaeda mole. As is everyone else who question's Bush Administration policies.
It doesn't have anything to do with Saddam. It has more to do with what they perceive as Americans attempting to take over an Arab state and making it a democracy rather than promoting any kind of support for Hussein.
Because they are not stupid and can recognize a strategic opportunity when it hits them up side the head.
But isn't that who we took out of power in Iraq? Why would they be getting upset and raising their numbers over the War in Iraq if they wanted that government out anyway?
You honestly haven't had this explained? Ok, I'll explain under the assumption that this is an honest question; Saddam's Iraq was the only region in the Middle East in which Al Qaida could not get a significant foothold, and Osama Bin Laden publicly stated that Saddam's opposition to Islam had made his overthrow one of AQ's highest priorities. At the same time, AQ had been opposing the US's presence in the Middle East, most particularly Saudi Arabia, as AQ felt that US presence, however benign it appeared, was actually an excercise in Imperialism, support for Israel, and an attack on Islam. So when the US invaded Iraq and displaced Saddam, his tyranical control which had kept AQ out was gone, and additionally AQ and other Islamic groups saw this as a realisation of the kind of things guys like OBL had been saying ( American imperialism, support for Israel, attack on Islam), and as such became a focus for recruiting terrorists, and a targer wherein to attack America.
