al Qaeda chatter at pre-9/11/01 levels

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - al Qaeda chatter at pre-9/11/01 levels (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:38:26 AM EDT

The level of "chatter" by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.

There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.

Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi's operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.

One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said. The full blog is here.

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:42:07 AM EDT

[#1]

FUCK AL QEADA!!

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:42:27 AM EDT

[#2]

Well, it is a matter of when, not if. Everyone knows that. So when and how are the big questions..

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:43:28 AM EDT

[#3]

........blog report, of a blog posting, of an unsubstantiated rumor.

yawn.

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:44:24 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
........blog report, of a blog posting, of an unsubstantiated rumor.

yawn.

The "Chatter" before 9/11/01 was all "unsubstantiated rumors" too.

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:44:24 AM EDT

[#5]

Did they get a hold of the haliburton weather machine that Bush uses? I knew something was up with the tornado we had yesterday!

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:45:32 AM EDT

[#6]

Sounds like it's getting much closer...I think we're as prepared as we can be, but there're going to be some types of attacks that could wipe those plans out.

HH

ETA: Thanks for a great link, macman.

HH

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:47:43 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Did they get a hold of the haliburton weather machine that Bush uses? I knew something was up with the tornado we had yesterday!

Word has it that a friend of my cousins best friends sister bought the weather machine off eBay last week and uses it to dry her hair. She is in Florida so ity copuld not have been that!

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:49:35 AM EDT

[#8]

More, from Threatswatch

Posted: 3/13/2006 9:55:19 AM EDT

[#9]

according to stats ARFCOM chatter ia up WAY over pre9/11 levels.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:02:30 AM EDT

[#10]

BlackFive's on this one too (with links to other blogs)

I do note that no major media outlets are on this bit of news. In fact as of Friday (according to a link on Topix.net), the BBC was reporting that chatter was NOT increased of late.

Since the bad guys want to hurt us in many ways I wonder if the Dow hitting 11k as it's hovered at the last few days, was a "trigger"...

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:09:43 AM EDT

[#11]

well whatever happens it won't come from across the southern border. president bush has asssured us that it is safe.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:09:55 AM EDT

[#12]

aren't you making a new post about a new threat at least a few times a month?

no seriously, always watch your six. Hope my CHL comes back in time.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:10:31 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
well whatever happens it won't come from across the southern border. president bush has asssured us that it is safe.

how dare you question our administration...

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:10:44 AM EDT

[#14]

Let them hit something so that we can finally begin the extermination they so crave

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:12:38 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
aren't you making a new post about a new threat at least a few times a month?

no seriously, always watch your six. Hope my CHL comes back in time.

I just like to keep my ear to the ground is all.

If it bothers any of you guys I'll stop posting stuff like this or just post it in the Survival forum - I like Arfcom a lot and would like to use it as a clearinghouse of sorts to distribute information such as this, as well as other things obviously. LMK and I'll ask for a lock.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:13:49 AM EDT

[#16]

I think the worry based strictly on chatter is overblown. Not to say it is not something that needs to be looked at and analyzed but reading too much into it is not prudent. We need to be prepared and take the chatter figure out what it actually means not just anticipate an attack based on its volumn.

Sometimes I wonder about this chatter. These are my questions:

1. How many times has chatter been significantly increased yet nothing has happened?
2. How many times has chatter been significantly increased and something has happened?
3. How much is it that goes like this (T = terrorist):

T1-"You hear that new Osama tape/video?"
T2-"Yeah, that was good stuff."
T1- "Yeah, Allah be praised."
T2-"Alla be praised"
T1-"Well, I think it means we are supposed to attack."
T2-"Yeah, we need to attack....ummm...what do we attack?"
T2-"I'm not sure, just a second" (gets T3 and T4 on line)
T3&4- "What's up?"
T2- "Who should we attack?".....

4. Have we increased our listening capabilities so that we hear more chatter just because now we are able to?
5. Are there just more terrorists, or just more terrorists with better capability to communicate?
6. Is the chatter actual threats, talk about attacks, or couple terrorists using their cell phones to order a pizza?

Edit: Keep posting them macman, it is good to talk about and keep an ear to the ground.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:19:13 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
aren't you making a new post about a new threat at least a few times a month?

no seriously, always watch your six. Hope my CHL comes back in time.

I just like to keep my ear to the ground is all.

If it bothers any of you guys I'll stop posting stuff like this or just post it in the Survival forum - I like Arfcom a lot and would like to use it as a clearinghouse of sorts to distribute information such as this, as well as other things obviously. LMK and I'll ask for a lock.

I, along with probably gazillions of others, appreciate these posts immensely. Please keep them coming-we all need to be reminded.

HH

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:22:08 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

I, along with probably gazillions of others, appreciate these posts immensely. Please keep them coming-we all need to be reminded.

HH

+ a bunch. Thanks for the info.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:26:50 AM EDT

[#19]

Even if we were to have an attack today, you have to admit we must be doing something right for them to take 5 years to get off another big attack.

I hate talking like this but here it goes: We've still lost less soliders in the last 5 years then citizens that hour on 9/11/01.

Long live our troops.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:28:02 AM EDT

[#20]

I believe it. Al Qaeda are a bunch of pussies, hiding behind innocent women and children.

But also keep in mind al Qaeda is losing support in the Middle East thanks to the faggot pansy Zarqawi and his "al Qaeda in Iraq" murdering innocent Muslims. This new attack would be for PR for them more than anything, to get other Muslims back on their side.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:31:21 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I believe it. Al Qaeda are a bunch of pussies, hiding behind innocent women and children.

But also keep in mind al Qaeda is losing support in the Middle East thanks to the faggot pansy Zarqawi and his "al Qaeda in Iraq" murdering innocent Muslims. This new attack would be for PR for them more than anything, to get other Muslims back on their side.

The thing the analysts are saying though, is that if they don't strike soon, they will lose their credibility to be capable of striking. This I believe as well. They need another "big one" to keep their cred.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:31:44 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Even if we were to have an attack today, you have to admit we must be doing something right for them to take 5 years to get off another big attack.

I hate talking like this but here it goes: We've still lost less soliders in the last 5 years then citizens that hour on 9/11/01.

Long live our troops.

these terrorists have always been patient in their attacks. We the people are no more safe than pre 9/11.
the elites and such maybe, you and I , not even close.
That being said, fuck AQ.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:35:23 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I believe it. Al Qaeda are a bunch of pussies, hiding behind innocent women and children.

But also keep in mind al Qaeda is losing support in the Middle East thanks to the faggot pansy Zarqawi and his "al Qaeda in Iraq" murdering innocent Muslims. This new attack would be for PR for them more than anything, to get other Muslims back on their side.

Yes.
We need to keep hammering them overseas - keep them off balance.
Make them make mistakes (killing fellow muslims) and then call them out on it.
I am very worried about the Southern Border though - how can you talk about HS and not secure the border?

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:36:09 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Even if we were to have an attack today, you have to admit we must be doing something right for them to take 5 years to get off another big attack.

But it was eight years between the two Al-Queda WTC attacks....

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:37:15 AM EDT

[#25]

For those asking what chatter is, it is just that "chatter"
Just talk about different things.
For an idea about this, let's look at Arfcom - lots of ROP threads (chatter) is often a prelude to an account being locked because someone goes over the top.
When tangos are talking more, it means something may be up.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:38:59 AM EDT

[#26]

Whatever.

Posted: 3/13/2006 10:39:44 AM EDT

[#27]

remember the ultra secret code word..
it seems to be said alot.

"god willing"

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:00:04 AM EDT

[#28]

can we mail them a sun god already?

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:00:31 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if we were to have an attack today, you have to admit we must be doing something right for them to take 5 years to get off another big attack.

But it was eight years between the two Al-Queda WTC attacks....

It took them 8 years to kill less people than we lose in a year from auto accidents. If they're fighting a war, they're doing a pretty shitty job at it (or we're doing a very good one).
Marching around with signs,burning flags,blowing up mostly your own people with IEDs and making empty threats on videotape don't go very far to winning a war.
Al Qaeda's only hope at this point is for a "Tet" style victory in which they surprise us with an unexpected coordinated attack,and our asshole fellow citizens stab us in the back by giving up and ignoring the fact that we are decimating their ranks.

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:02:09 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
........blog report, of a blog posting, of an unsubstantiated rumor.
yawn.

The CT blog is a rather good source. I suggest you look at the bios of the guys who run and write for it. One guy's a VP at Corporate Risk International after 28 years in the FBI. Another ran the National Security Section of ICE in Florida. One guy was on the NSC under Clinton and Bush. Another was a senior advisor in the State Department's counter terror office. Another worked for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (who have a rather nice office and put on a decent lunch).

The people who run the CT blog know their shit and have the credentials.

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:18:27 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
........blog report, of a blog posting, of an unsubstantiated rumor.
yawn.

The CT blog is a rather good source. I suggest you look at the bios of the guys who run and write for it. One guy's a VP at Corporate Risk International after 28 years in the FBI. Another ran the National Security Section of ICE in Florida. One guy was on the NSC under Clinton and Bush. Another was a senior advisor in the State Department's counter terror office. Another worked for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (who have a rather nice office and put on a decent lunch).

The people who run the CT blog know their shit and have the credentials.

+1

Those guys know their stuff.

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:30:52 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
From the Counterterrorism blog

The level of "chatter" by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.

There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.

Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi's operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.

One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said. The full blog is here.

When they define "chatter" I'll start to give a fuck.

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:46:41 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
From the Counterterrorism blog

The level of "chatter" by al Qaeda operatives is currently as high or higher than in the months prior to 9-11, and the question in many parts of the U.S. and European intelligence communities is not if al Qaeda will strike again, but when. Much of the thinking centers on the near-term. This is also reflected in current corporate security alerts being circulated among elite business establishments.

There are several factors that point to al Qaeda at least having a plan for an imminent attack. The first is the January appearance of Osama bin Laden himself after months of silence. The second is the repeated warnings and boasts from bin Laden, Zawahiri and on al Qaeda web sites of impending action.

Several analysts I have spoken with believe the leadership of the historic al Qaeda would not raise expectations of an attack, especially at a time of intense competition with Zarqawi's operation for the mantle of carrying out international jihad, without something important afoot. The risk of losing credibility is too high. Zawahiri is already viewed as the person carrying out action, while bin Laden and Zawahiri have been left in the roles of elder statesmen, respected but no longer operational in the field of battle.

One corporate risk analysis group reported something else of interest: A March 10 posting on al-Hesbah website, known for posting al Qaeda messages, carried a message from the Global Islamic Media Front. The message gives a final warning to the United States before carrying out what it said would be two devastating attacks. The second attack would not be launched until after Washington had time to respond to the first one, the message said. The full blog is here.

When they define "chatter" I'll start to give a fuck.

You've had over four years to find the definition.

Posted: 3/13/2006 11:52:48 AM EDT

[#34]

== Edited by Sgt. Rock to be less offensive = =

Public support for killing all of you is wanning. Why I don't know. But please give us more reasons.

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:05:16 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
snip Public support for killing all of you is wanning. Why I don't know. But please give us more reasons.

I may agree with you but could you maybe not TRY to get the thread locked?

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:16:25 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
snip Public support for killing all of you is wanning. Why I don't know. But please give us more reasons.

I may agree with you but could you maybe not TRY to get the thread locked?

Done!

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:30:19 PM EDT

[#37]

Thanks Sarge.

...

Here is some info from Michael Scheuer (author of the excellent Imperial Hubris) from March of last year on the patterns of tapes surfacing and how they relate to al Qaeda terror attacks

The website it's from - the Jamestown Foundation - seems to be a solid place to get intel on al Qaeda

Another link from the same site discussing this "Rakan Ben Williams" character.

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:31:59 PM EDT

[#38]

Anyone think that Al Qeda is running a pretty cost-effective war? They've got a few aggitators running around in Iraq, put out an Osama video every year or so and generate "chatter" that causes widespread panic. We'll spend a few billion $$$ chasing it down and preparing for ... whatever it is, if anything.

If these guys were Hezbollah blowing up shopping centers every couple of days I'd be less jaded but Al Qeda's rapidly becoming a one hit wonder in my book. Chase 'em down and stomp 'em out but I wish folks would stop going weak in the knees about these folks. Man up and get back to business. Or is this one symptom of terrorism in the age of cover-your-ass?

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:34:08 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Anyone think that Al Qeda is running a pretty cost-effective war? They've got a few aggitators running around in Iraq, put out an Osama video every year or so and generate "chatter" that causes widespread panic. We'll spend a few billion $$$ chasing it down and preparing for ... whatever it is, if anything.

If these guys were Hezbollah blowing up shopping centers every couple of days I'd be less jaded but Al Qeda's rapidly becoming a one hit wonder in my book. Chase 'em down and stomp 'em out but I wish folks would stop going weak in the knees about these folks. Man up and get back to business. Or is this one symptom of terrorism in the age of cover-your-ass?

Don't forget they've hit other friendly nations - it's just over two years to the day that they hit Madrid... As well as being active in Iraq.

al Qaeda's been busy.

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:35:14 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
according to stats ARFCOM chatter ia up WAY over pre9/11 levels.

Beer, i think you are on to something here............

Posted: 3/13/2006 12:57:37 PM EDT

[#41]

This is just great...

Posted: 3/13/2006 1:04:56 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone think that Al Qeda is running a pretty cost-effective war? They've got a few aggitators running around in Iraq, put out an Osama video every year or so and generate "chatter" that causes widespread panic. We'll spend a few billion $$$ chasing it down and preparing for ... whatever it is, if anything.

If these guys were Hezbollah blowing up shopping centers every couple of days I'd be less jaded but Al Qeda's rapidly becoming a one hit wonder in my book. Chase 'em down and stomp 'em out but I wish folks would stop going weak in the knees about these folks. Man up and get back to business. Or is this one symptom of terrorism in the age of cover-your-ass?

Don't forget they've hit other friendly nations - it's just over two years to the day that they hit Madrid... As well as being active in Iraq.

al Qaeda's been busy.

Oh, I don't doubt they've been busy. But here it is going on five years and (A) they're still generating as much 'chatter' as ever and (B) they haven't been nearly as effective since the GWOT began but we still treat them like they're a threat on par with the the Soviets at the height of the Cold War. We've got to have different strategies for handling this death of a thousand duck bites or we'll go bankrupt fighting a group that isn't all that different from the Hell's Angels.

Posted: 3/13/2006 1:15:06 PM EDT

[#43]

EDITED: Read the ENTIRE thread. My post was old news.

Posted: 3/13/2006 1:25:15 PM EDT

[#44]

Rape, beat, mutilate, human flesh taste great! kill kill kill. that the chatter you'll hear over USMC lines........oooorah!

Posted: 3/13/2006 2:20:38 PM EDT

[#45]

+1 for the CT blog; it's actually my homepage and the first OS info I see in the morning.

Posted: 3/13/2006 2:28:18 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Rape, beat, mutilate, human flesh taste great! kill kill kill. that the chatter you'll hear over USMC lines........oooorah!

The rest I can take as overly gung ho ravings.

The first I don't tollerate, especially in relationship to an institution as honored as the US Marine Corps.

Posted: 3/13/2006 2:46:51 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Rape, beat, mutilate, human flesh taste great! kill kill kill. that the chatter you'll hear over USMC lines........oooorah!

The rest I can take as overly gung ho ravings.

The first I don't tollerate, especially in relationship to an institution as honored as the US Marine Corps.

+1million........talk all the shit you want, leave my Corps out of it....

oh yeah, IBTL

Posted: 3/13/2006 2:54:14 PM EDT

[#48]

March Madness is upon us.

Lots of oppotunities, LIVE on TV.

It's hard to imagine threat levels being useful. It's not like there's a season for terror or business hours or areas that are open for the season.

Posted: 3/13/2006 3:04:36 PM EDT

[#49]

Chatter doesn't even have to be understood. There's a whole domain of cryptanalysis called 'traffic analysis" that doesn't rely on the contents of the messages at all. The idea is to deduce something only from traffic patterns. If lots of message traffic is going to one place, the odds are pretty good that node is some sort of HQ or maybe a repeater. If overall traffic volume goes up that may mean they're preparing some sort of operation.

Personally, I think they'd time operations to coincide with US elections.

Posted: 3/13/2006 3:38:13 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
[I just like to keep my ear to the ground is all.

If it bothers any of you guys I'll stop posting stuff like this or just post it in the Survival forum - I like Arfcom a lot and would like to use it as a clearinghouse of sorts to distribute information such as this, as well as other things obviously. LMK and I'll ask for a lock.

For everyone who complains about your information, there are a bunch who appreciate it. I thought things had gotten quiet lately. At the very least, this is a reminder that there is an enemy out there who wants all Americans dead, and that's something that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Hell, put in the Survival Forums, too.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - al Qaeda chatter at pre-9/11/01 levels (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us