IMPORTANT! Al Qaeda textbook tells why we haven't been attacked since 9/11

[milkyway]

From abc's "The Blotter" blog:

Al Qaeda's strategic vision involves challenging the United States and its allies overseas using small- to medium-scale attacks, according to an online book available on extremist websites that has become the seminal jihadi textbook. The first English translation of the text is being circulated this week among DOD and government policy circles.

<snip>

Abu Bakr Naji, an al Qaeda insider and author of the book, "The Management of Savagery," believes that the 9/11 attacks accomplished what they needed to by forcing the U.S. to commit their military overseas. He says 9/11 forced the U.S. to fall into the "trap" of overextending their military and that "it began to become clear to the American administration that it was being drained."

<snip>

McCants believes that Naji is very concerned that a large-scale attack, such as the aborted chemical attack that would have targeted New York City subways in early 2003, would alienate al Qaeda's constituency. "Naji is wary of initiating that sort of attack because right now he feels al Qaeda has the upper-hand in the public relations battle," said McCants.

While written in 2004, Naji was already inferring that the war in Iraq was shaping up to be exactly what al Qaeda wanted.

<more>
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/al_qaeda_strate.html


The entire translation of the book is being made publicly available as a pdf from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point:
http://www.ctc.usma.edu/naji.asp

Just in reading the abc report on the book, it becomes apparent that the central arguments of the bush admin are refuted directly by al Qaeda. First, the Iraq invasion was Bush/Cheney's gift to al Qaeda. It has turned the U.S. into the bad guys in the eyes of many Muslims (certainly much more so than immediately after 9/11 and during the initial invasion of Afghanistan).

Also, Cheney, in reference to the spying scandals, keeps saying, "there's a reason why we haven't been hit again," meaning that if it weren't for the massive, illegal spying programs we would have been attacked again here in the U.S. But this book shows that al Qaeda does not want another 9/11 (at least right now) because it would lose the public support they have been builiding up in the Muslim world.

[MrModerate]

1. Certainly the Iraq war is the gift that keeps on giving . . .

To terrorists everywhere. How else would they have gotten us to set up history's largest recruiting and training facility, filling it with soft and hard targets, and paying for the whole thing ourselves? Brilliant.

However, I'm not sure I buy the notion that they'd lose support if they mounted another 9/11-scale attack now or at any time in the near future. Being able to smite the bully would probably play well all over the world. Not to mention, they want to keep wingnuts in control of the US government (and thereby ensure continuance of the US's disastrously stupid policies), and more terrorist hits could easily ensure 'Lican victories in November this year and also '08.

Hold onto your hats.

[AndyA]

2. So our dumbf*ck President, Bush, fell right into al Qaeda's trap...

Big surprise.

Bush couldn't vomit correctly if that function required his intelligence to process the procedure!

[Caoimhe]

3. hahahahha

"Bush couldn't vomit correctly if that function required his intelligence to process the procedure!"

Coffee... spit on keyboard... lol!!!

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Like I've said, bin Laden has played Bush for a candy-ass pansy.

n/t

[Bandit]

5. A bit of psychology in play here I would bet

Please don't throw me in that Briar Patch. Tell the US that they are doing what you wish in hopes they will change what they are doing...

[burythehatchet]

6. Read Imperial Hubris and the answer to your question

will become abundantly clear.

[nashville_brook]

8. yeah -- everything's fair in war -- BUTanother scenario of this

being a "psy-ops" is that they ARE planning something devasting on US soil.

"so what," if the US changes it's middle east strategy. we all know it's not about A/Q. it's about economic hegemony in a world run on oil. A/Q can publish white papers until the end of the world and it doesn't matter because the fight isn't with A/Q. it has never been with A/Q.

and look for the neo-cons to use the psy-op scenario above to justify more constitutional deconstruction.

[gully]

7. "it's no accident we haven't been attacked" another point -

Clinton protected our "homeland" from Al Qaida and they claim he didn't do enough.

[milkyway]

10. We were attacked at the WTC 38 days into Clinton's presidency, an attack

that meant to kill 50,000 Americans, yet Clinton didn't whine it was bush, sr.'s fault. Clinton then spent the next eight years making anti-terrorism a top priority, and we were not attacked again here at home. When Clinton tried to kill bin Laden, all the repugs screamed, "Wag the Dog! He's trying to distract us from what matters most to the American people--his penis!"

Bush was appointed President and immediately froze out Richard Clarke and cut back on fighting terrorism. 9/11 happens nine months into his presidency and he blames it on Clinton. Then he has the fucking nerve to parade around like he's a war hero.

[gully]

11. Well said.

MORE Democrats need to point out Clinton's record on terrorism, I fail to understand why Dean and others whom I admire fail so miserably at doing just that.

[gordianot]

9. Mass murder never plays well no matter who you are.

Violations of human rights, torture, be-headings, kidnapping, bombing civilians, killing non-combatants is not effective except for a truly radical and malicious fringe such as fundamentalist religious fanatics, Fascists, and Dictators.

Getting your opposition to violate human rights, kill non-combatants, torture, accumulate debt, sacrifice their own children, create suffering can further your own political agenda.

Looking at American history we have not figured out how to handle these situations well since World War II.

[nebenaube]

12. The art of war...

What does the book "The Art of War" say about arrogant enemies again? Suckers!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

13. As "arrogant enemies" go, the United States is unequaled. n/t

MKJ