Interesting intelligence information known before Sept. 11...

[GL]

I've been trying to find out what the intelligence community already knew about Bin Laden prior to these attacks. Of course, what they know and what they admit to knowing are two separate things. But assuming that what they will admit to knowing is only the tip of the iceberg, I think the intelligence services around the world had a very good idea of what was building - they just didn't have info precise enough to warn them of when.

Terrorist version of NATO - Bin Laden's Al Qaeda (Feb 16, 2001)

Israel warns of Bin Laden threat on American and European targets (June 25, 2001)

Structure of Al Qaeda - present in countries from China to Ethiopia (July 26, 2001)

Al Qaeda trained on how to destroy large buildings and other extensive operational information (May 31, 2001)

Corporate backing of Al Qaeda (February 13, 2001)

If anyone has any other good information, please post links. I think what becomes extremely obvious is that George W. Bush is correctly holding back a knee-jerk reaction because this terrorist group is heavily embedded in the world as a cancer. It's actually frightening how they operate and frightening how impossible it seems to successfully fight them.

 

[GL]

From one of the links that I'm reading...



<< Finally, this trial shows that trials alone are not enough. In conceptualizing the Al-Qaeda problem only in terms of law enforcement, the U.S. government misses the larger point: Yes, the operatives engage in crimes, but they are better thought of as soldiers, not criminals. To fight Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups requires an understanding that they (along with some states) have silently declared war on the U.S.; in turn, we must fight them as we would in a war.

Seeing acts of terror as battles, not crimes, improves the U.S. approach to this problem. It means that, as in a conventional war, America's armed forces, not its policemen and lawyers, are primarily deployed to protect Americans. Rather than drag low-level operatives into American courtrooms, the military will defend us overseas. If a perpetrator is not precisely known, then those who are known to harbor terrorists will be punished. This way, governments and organizations that support terrorism will pay the price, not just the individuals who carry it out. This way, too, Americans will gain a safety that presently eludes them, no matter how many high-profile courtroom victories prosecutors win. >>



Does this sound eerily familiar?

 

[Phuz]

We can't comprehend the amounts of information they know, that we don't..

 

[GL]

<< We can't comprehend the amounts of information they know, that we don't.. >>



I guess hindsight is 20/20 but had I know the information I posted above, I might have had a greater understanding of the threat potential of Bin Laden. I don't think the common Joe really has an appreciation (if you can call it that) for just how well-established Al Qaeda is. It seems to be the Napster or P2P of terrorist groups...how the heck can you stop them?

 

[LocutusX]

it's interesting.

what's also interesting is an article in a pakistani newspaper an associate at work showed to me the other day. it was dated aug 30, and yet it speaks about the possibility of US troops landing in various places in pakistan to use as a staging ground for some sort of muslim fundamentalist "hunt" -- implicitly meaning certain elements in a neighbouring country... eerily foreshadowing the american retaliation plans made last week... weird

 

[tcsenter]

They knew that fundamentalist groups were preparing for an attack on the U.S., and they had a good idea that it was going to be big (but I don't think anyone would have guessed this big). There was lots of evidence, but it was all too vague to really do anything about.

Its like if I told you, "Something bad is going to happen to you very, very, soon." What are you supposed to do?