AQ's strategic error

[Idaho]

Not that I think that AQ are really one entity.. but it recently occurred to me that those following the general call to arms by AQ affiliated people are missing a trick. They are fundamentally weak so therefore they reason that they should hit weak targets and cause maximum carnage as opposed to bothering with infrastructure.

I think it is here that they are much mistaken in their strategy. They think that by terrorising the people of a democracy that those people will in turn pressurise their leaders to negotiate. What they don't realise is that the people with the power to bring governments round the negotiating table are the economic elites. The swift progress of talks with the IRA happened after they started targetting the city - with big infrastructure. A few big bombs in the city and the government were releasing republican prisoners and shaking hands with Gerry Adams. The government will sit by and watch busloads of civillians get blown up for decades before doing anything. In fact all the better for them as they can use it as a platform to push aside all those pesky civil liberties.

Am I right? Do I even need to ask :book:

[Franconicus]

Maybe you are right, I do not know. Maybe they try to hit 'soft targets' not to manipulate western leaders but to mobilze new recruitments?

[A.Saturnus]

Well, I think in fact AQ cannot attack 'hard targets'. I noted that just after the bombings in London. At the same time they bombed London´s civilians, the most powerful men in the world were meeting not so far away. If AQ had any real power, they would have attacked the G8, but they didn´t because they knew they wouldn´t have the slightest chance. Their problem is that all they have is terror, which is a psychological reaction. If you refuse to be scarred, they have no power at all.

[bmolsson]

They want us all to be afraid. And they seems to do a pretty good job at that.....

[Sjakihata]

I think what they want now is publicity, and they've got that.

[Mount Suribachi]

The swift progress of talks with the IRA happened after they started targetting the city - with big infrastructure. A few big bombs in the city and the government were releasing republican prisoners and shaking hands with Gerry Adams.

Actually it had more to do with the IRA being thoroughly infiltrated by British Intelligence (read UK Eyes Alpha by Newsnight producer Mark Urban), but don't let that get in the way of your anti-capitalism ~;)

[KukriKhan]

So, I think Idaho is saying that more attacks ala 9-11, where 'big expensive buildings go boom!' is more likely to bring the poli's (pressed by the capitalistas) to a bargaining table, than transport systems (dispite the number of dead bodies)? Are you pretty sure a bargaining table exists? Or are we dealing with duelling ultimatums?

And Madrid seems to disprove the theory. Spain changed direction almost immediately after their rail system took the big hit - perhaps emboldening autonomous AQ operatives and wannabe's to copycat.

[sharrukin]

Al Qaeda is more of a movement than a single group.

Al Qaeda is in fact going after economic targets such as egypts tourist industry, the twin towers, the Pentagon, etc.

One problem regarding negotiations is what the heck do they want?
What are their demands? Does anyone know?
What exactly are we supposed to negotiate?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One problem regarding negotiations is what the heck do they want?

Thats simple. The whole world to surrender to Islam. Its the very meaning of the word. Nothing short of that will suffice.

[Idaho]

One problem regarding negotiations is what the heck do they want?
What are their demands? Does anyone know?
What exactly are we supposed to negotiate?
Actually Bin Laden and many others have made the demands known many times - it's just the western media which seems to ignore it.

Originally the demands were: US troops out of Arabia and US to stop funding Israel. That was it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally the demands were: US troops out of Arabia and US to stop funding Israel. That was it.

WRONG again. Do I have to post his demands again?

[Idaho]

Actually it had more to do with the IRA being thoroughly infiltrated by British Intelligence (read UK Eyes Alpha by Newsnight producer Mark Urban), but don't let that get in the way of your anti-capitalism ~;)

I thought you were the major bible basher? You should be the anti-capitalist. Jesus railed against the marketplace. He smashed the stalls of the usurers and traders. He said the meek shall inherit. He said it was easy for a camel to pass through etc...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I thought you were the major bible basher? You should be the anti-capitalist. Jesus railed against the marketplace. He smashed the stalls of the usurers and traders. He said the meek shall inherit. He said it was easy for a camel to pass through etc...

Lets not start this silly argument over whether he was a liberal or a conservative. He smashed the stalls of the usurers and traders because they were in the temple of God not because he opposed capitalism.

[KukriKhan]

Well, according to the purported #2 AQ guy
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9389
they want:

"Our message is clear: you will not be safe until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and wealth and stop supporting the corrupt rulers,"

What 'our land', etc, is, is the question.

[Idaho]

Saying whether he was 'liberal' or 'conservative' would indeed be a silly arguement - seeing as they are political terms unique to late 20th C USA.

However he clearly stated his intent on socialism many times.

Not that I care. I don't think he even existed.

[Spetulhu]

And Madrid seems to disprove the theory. Spain changed direction almost immediately after their rail system took the big hit - perhaps emboldening autonomous AQ operatives and wannabe's to copycat.

Actually the leftists promised to pull out if they won the elections, and that was well before the bombings.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

However he clearly stated his intent on socialism many times.

Not that I care. I don't think he even existed.

You mean like render unto Ceasar that witch is Ceasars and unto god that which is gods? ~;) How can he have clearly stated his intent on socialism many times if he didnt exist?

[Mount Suribachi]

I thought you were the major bible basher? You should be the anti-capitalist. Jesus railed against the marketplace. He smashed the stalls of the usurers and traders. He said the meek shall inherit. He said it was easy for a camel to pass through etc...

Maybe I am anti-capitalist ~;)

I was just saying that the actual reason the IRA came to the bargaining table was because British Intelligence had so thoroughly compromised their operations. And I quoted a book by someone who works on Newsnight as that would be a "left wing" source, as I didn't want to be accused of right-wingism ~;)

Like Gawain said, this isn't the place for a discussion on whether Jesus Christ was a liberal or conservative. You can pick, choose and place out of context quotes on all kinds of issues to "prove" either.

However, for the record I am a centrist, economically speaking. Don't believe in Thatcherite unfettered free marketism. Don't believe in high tax state ownership socialism. I would say Gordon Browns first term as chancellor would be about my ideal.

[KukriKhan]

Actually the leftists promised to pull out if they won the elections, and that was well before the bombings.

Good point, although I thought I remembered reading news stories before the bombings that the leftists were far behind in polling - then: !Kaboom! - and voters flocked to the 'get us out of there' party.

[Idaho]

You mean like render unto Ceasar that witch is Ceasars and unto god that which is gods? ~;) How can he have clearly stated his intent on socialism many times if he didnt exist?

Exactly. Presumably the 3rd century greeks and romans who cobbled together the new testament together from half stories and borrowed myths had some lefty jag going on.

[Don Corleone]

If Jesus was a socialist, He would have explicity told people they had no right to personal property. It's not like He was shy about telling people what they ought to be doing. Excuse me Idaho, the junta of socialist Greek & Romans writing in 250AD about a mythical figure from a backwater province were never shy. God, Idaho, you need to check in here more often. When you get on these anti-Western rants, you're really quite comical. You almost sound disappointed that the TransAmerica Tower and the Hancock Building are still standing. ~:)

[Spetulhu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Actually the leftists promised to pull out if they won the elections, and that was well before the bombings.


Good point, although I thought I remembered reading news stories before the bombings that the leftists were far behind in polling - then: !Kaboom! - and voters flocked to the 'get us out of there' party.

There was also the matter of the rightist government trying to pin it solidly on ETA, even if that kind of carnage is far from their usual operations. The govt was even accused of trying to hide evidence that pointed at AQ.

[Idaho]

If Jesus was a socialist, He would have explicity told people they had no right to personal property. It's not like He was shy about telling people what they ought to be doing. Excuse me Idaho, the junta of socialist Greek & Romans writing in 250AD about a mythical figure from a backwater province were never shy. God, Idaho, you need to check in here more often. When you get on these anti-Western rants, you're really quite comical. You almost sound disappointed that the TransAmerica Tower and the Hancock Building are still standing. ~:)
Sorry Don - the whole 'enemy within' 'self-loathing' Mcarthy-style crap doesn't transfer over the Atlantic. It just doesn't have any impact here ~:cool:

[Es Arkajae]

Terrorism is overrated.

How many people die each year in car accidents?, how many are murdered by just joe blow murderers with no political or religious motivations?, how many are killed by falling coconuts? How many deaths does the illict drug trade cause each year?, how much crime and vice is it responsible for funding? (it also funds terrorism too).

Who here is seriously actually worried about being hurt in a terrorist attack?

For any who are, are you MORE afraid of car travel and cholesterol?, you should be as they have a hell of lot more chance of killing you than some fanatic Muslim twit with delusions of martyrdom.

I'm rather sick of hearing types in the media going on about the 'war on terror', what war?, theres no 'war on terror' anymore than there is a 'war' on rapists. Any 'war' is a front really to pursue Western interests in Muslim areas. I have no problem with such, I'm all for Western imperialism, but I also dislike having my intelligence insulted.

The terrorists themselves are morons, since that idiot Bin Laden pulled that golden BB terrorist act in 2001, the Hawks in the West have used him as an excuse to focus more of their power on the Middle East and get around the objections of the Doves, the Middle East and other Islamic areas are seen as important not only for their oil but also as an area of potential conflict for the likely upcoming cold war with China.

Afghanistan and Iraq are now under Western control or allied with the West, Pakistan is seeking more raproach than ever, democracy and such related movements have spread to Lebanon, and the West no longer gives a toss what the Russians do in Chechnya giving Putin an unhindered hand in the area. Bin Laden has been a disaster for militant Islam.

The only thing that seriously ticks me off about 'terrorism' (aside from hearing about it all the bloody time) is how some Western politicians and do gooder idiots are also using this terrorism guff to infringe on the rights or privildeges of Western citizens, all trying to look good for the media and be seen to be doing 'something'. For instance 'national ID cards', because as we all know someone who could forge passports and licenses convincingly sure couldn't forge a 'national ID card'

[Papewaio]

The War On Terror (TWOT ~D sums it up rather accurately).

[Del Arroyo]

Yes, at the time the analysis was that it really was specific aspects of the Spanish government's reaction which swayed public opinion enough during that critical moment and turned the election. Such as trying to pin it on ETA and not being totally forthcoming etc.

So it seems to me that there are a lot of variables as to the real political effects of such attacks, and the only guarantee is a certain measure of chaos.

As far as What Al-Qaeda Wants, I would wager that they want us to pull out of Saudi and Iraq and the rest of the region, militarily, politically and economically.

They feel that this would pave the way for Wahabist revolutions, which they feel would bring a pure, native form of government and justice to the oppressed masses of the Arab and Near Eastern world.

The followers of a blossomed, vigorous Wahabism would strive to spread its teachings and way of life around the world. They would have a pretty good chance at supplanting the current tenuous cultural/political order in Europe. Russia doesn't have enough economic opportunity to be really desirable for or vulnerable to such conquest. The US would not really be vulnerable, for a variety of reasons (neither would China or India, for various reasons).

A new unified Caliphate seems like a long-shot in this scenario, though this is probably what many Wahabists dream of. But I can see the potential for a landmark social and political movement under the right conditions.

After engulfing Europe, any such movement would probably have reached maturity, and already begun a process of moderation.

..

Keep in mind that while all of the above events are totally theoretical, there is for many of them no reason they couldn't come true over the long run even if we keep a stiff neck in this "war on terror" in the short run. The earth is shifting under our feet now more than ever and the geo-political-economical landscape will look drastically different 20 years from now than it does today.

DA

[Productivity]

And Madrid seems to disprove the theory. Spain changed direction almost immediately after their rail system took the big hit - perhaps emboldening autonomous AQ operatives and wannabe's to copycat.

Uh, no it didn't. It was in response to the government at the time lying and blaming it on ETA. If the government hadn't tried to be too clever, the people wouldn't have reacted so harshly. Basically the government, at the time when it's people needed it to be most open tried to be devious, and it was rightly punished for it.

[Navaros]

What 'our land', etc, is, is the question.


seems logical that "our land" means lands in which the population is predominantly Muslim

[Sjakihata]

Israel as well?

[Dâriûsh]

seems logical that "our land" means lands in which the population is predominantly Muslim

What is not holy land to those munafiqeen? If the US abandoned the Middle East today, Al-Qaeda would immediately make claims to Al-Andalus. ~:rolleyes:

[KukriKhan]

Uh, no it didn't. It was in response to the government at the time lying and blaming it on ETA. If the government hadn't tried to be too clever, the people wouldn't have reacted so harshly. Basically the government, at the time when it's people needed it to be most open tried to be devious, and it was rightly punished for it.

Yes, OK...no argument. But, per the starter post of this thread, I'm trying to look at these events as seen strategically through the eyes of Mister bin Laden and his minions. If I am Osama, and I ultimately want the restoration of the Caliphate, how best can I achieve that with the resources at my disposal?

And I think that there is reason to believe that he believes that "our" land is more than land currently containing Muslim populations, but also land having ever been under Muslim control or influence, including Spain, Portugal, the Balkans, etc.

[KukriKhan]

So the concept of "Know thine Enemy" has no value for you?