JahManRed
wank
+646|7052|IRELAND

Bertster7 wrote:

Though I slightly disagree with your first point:

Id say al-Qaeda is more of group name for Islamic terrorism as apposed to an organized force. They can't be take out because of this.
Essentially true. Though I'd say there is some form of disjointed cohesion, even if there is no real communication, between different Al Qaeda factions.
Id say their was some kind of communication at a time.
Conspiracy theory/ Today though, with an NSA back door beaded in the code of windows and the kind of moneys and funding going to intelligence agencys globally, they would have to be all over them, wouldn't they? Or perhaps they are too busy watching us.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6530|eXtreme to the maX
You know, considering the Wahhabi influence in Saudi Arabia, maybe we should've invaded them instead of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given:
- Bin Laden is a Saudi
- Most of the hijackers were Saudi, not a single one was Iraqi or an Afghan.
I have no understanding at all of why Afghanistan and especially Iraq were invaded.
Fuck Israel
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7098|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:

You know, considering the Wahhabi influence in Saudi Arabia, maybe we should've invaded them instead of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given:
- Bin Laden is a Saudi
- Most of the hijackers were Saudi, not a single one was Iraqi or an Afghan.
I have no understanding at all of why Afghanistan and especially Iraq were invaded.
Financing?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6747|New Haven, CT

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You know, considering the Wahhabi influence in Saudi Arabia, maybe we should've invaded them instead of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given:
- Bin Laden is a Saudi
- Most of the hijackers were Saudi, not a single one was Iraqi or an Afghan.
I have no understanding at all of why Afghanistan and especially Iraq were invaded.
Financing?
A person's nationality does not imply that country's complicity in their actions.

That being said, we didn't attack Saudi Arabia because they have too much oil. I can't wait for us to wean ourselves from Saudi oil, because then we can eliminate the pathetic excuse for a government they have.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

Many here are operating under a flawed assumption that the GWOT is about AQ. AQ is one terrorist group that is being targeted. There are many others around the world...some tied to AQ in some way, others not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

You know, considering the Wahhabi influence in Saudi Arabia, maybe we should've invaded them instead of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given:
- Bin Laden is a Saudi
- Most of the hijackers were Saudi, not a single one was Iraqi or an Afghan.
I have no understanding at all of why Afghanistan and especially Iraq were invaded.
Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban (the governing authority of Afghanistan at the time) was openly and actively providing safe haven and a degree of protection for AQ.

Luckily, not everyone applies lazy logic, saying that someone's nationality implies that country's support of their actions.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6979

sergeriver wrote:

1-What's the deal with al-Qaeda?  I mean, how come they can't be taken out? 
2-Which countries do you think are supporting this organization? 
3-How strong do you think this organization actually is?
4-Who are its real leaders?  Which goals do al-Qaeda pursue?
1. Nigh on impossible to take out a clandestine organisation dressed in civilian clothing thinly spread across large swathes of the globe. To be honest the concept of 'Al Qaeda' as a single contiguous entity is bullshit to me. Open source terrorism.
2. 'Al Qaeda' doesn't need a country, it just needs a mindset. You can't shoot a mindset either.
3. Not very really. ALl it can do is gnaw at the heels of the west. It's the poor fuckers in the middle east I feel sorry about.
4. I think 'leadership' of Al Qaeda is losing relevance fast. I'm baffled as to their actual reasoning. Perhaps it is genuinely religious based but I struggle to believe that.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-05-12 12:00:45)

IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
My thoughts are that groups like Al Quaeda are best defeated fighting back with idealogical battles.  Combat is more a fuel to grow them, not stop them.  Sure it ends lives of bad guys.  But it's not like they'll stop recruiting and avenging their "million martyr militia" (that's right, i coined that term just now!!).

Just like psy-ops, propaganda, and other such tactical warfare is real and has been used successfully in the past, perhaps it's time to fight fire with fire, instead of gasoline.  Dropping leaflets over fundamentalist territory explaining that true Islam is meant to be respectful of other religions and only militant when it's a last resort, etc.  Infiltrate their ranks and cause discord and contention among their leaders...make their groups less appealing..and of course, do what America does best - PROPAGANDA!!  Change ME media by slowly and carefully seeding in anti-fundamentalist views..or make new heros out of the moderates, make people FEAR the fundamentalists and find security in the moderate or secular leaders.

ANyway, just a thought.  Ideas can't be killed, just changed.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard