| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:11 am Post subject: Al Queda in Iraq: Not so much? |
 |
|
An interesting article on AQI. Below is the final paragraph. It's a good read.
The Myth of AQI
| Quote: |
| Five years ago, the American public was asked to support the invasion of Iraq based on the false claim that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to al-Qaeda. Today, the erroneous belief that al-Qaeda's franchise in Iraq is a driving force behind the chaos in that country may be setting us up for a similar mistake. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It is one of the major players . The forces of Sadr are another major player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can someone please provide me with a definition of what exactly Al Qaeda is?
It's not like it's some large army, with deep ranging communication and a clear central command structure.
I see it as more of a extremely loose group of samll separte Jihadist organizations (often with their own names) who adhere to the Sunni radical vision.
Al Qaeda isn't an organization. It's an ideology.
Anyways...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is an AQ prime
Al Qaedia franchises
Al Qaeda sympathizer copy cats. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Can someone please provide me with a definition of what exactly Al Qaeda is? |
Sure!
| Quote: |
The bogeyman, boogyman, bogyman, or boogeyman, is a legendary ghostlike monster often believed in by children. The bogeyman has no specific appearance, and bogeyman can be used metaphorically to denote a person or thing of which someone has an irrational fear. The bogeyman legend may originate from Scotland, where such creatures are sometimes called bogles, boggarts, or bogies.[1]
The most common childhood conception of the bogeyman is that of someone (usually a monster) lurking in bedrooms (e.g., behind the door, in the closet, or under the bed), where he lies in wait before attacking the sleeper. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| They said AQ was the boogy man before 9-11 too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
There is an AQ prime
Al Qaedia franchises
Al Qaeda sympathizer copy cats. |
So isn't it kind of disingenuous for the American government and the Western media o lable Al Qauda like it does?
I mean I understand that the public is, well not very informed for the most part. As a result they need this complex argument to be made more simplistic, so they can see an us versus them in this War on Terror.
War on Terror?
A war on an ideology? With the Cold War it was based on two competing global ideologies, but at least we had visible countries which we could cleaning put into the two completing camps.
This is a clash of civilizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is a difficult organzation to classify. And a different war than the US has had. Then again WWII and the Cold War were different too.
There are many muslims who don't like AQ. It is war against fascism not a clash of civilizations.;
There are some better terms but none of them are perfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AQ is based on a cell structure.
A prime Cell structure would consist of 6 members with one leader.
The five remaining members would then recruit each five members for their own cell.
And so on like Amway.
Each cell is to a degree autonomous responsible for planning mission which are sent through the cell chain for approval and funding.
I believe the 911 attacks were compose of 5 different cells. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
endo wrote:
| Quote: |
| Al Qaeda isn't an organization. It's an ideology. |
Really? Come now, even you can't be this ignorant.
twg wrote:
How about taking a little trip to the Afghan border with Pakistan, if you really believe al-Qaeda is just another bogeyman. You'll have nothing to fear if you're correct. Give it a go.
keane:
I realize it's harder for you to tease out causes of a crisis than your own hair in rollers, but no one is claiming al-Qaeda is the most dominant force undermining the Iraqi government. To the contrary, it is Iran that is in the scope at the moment, and the factional fighting between Shi'a. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
endo wrote:
| Quote: |
| Al Qaeda isn't an organization. It's an ideology. |
Really? Come now, even you can't be this ignorant.
|
hmmm....interesting comment from a man who likely hasn't done much in terms of research of his own on the topic.
So tell me Stevie, where did the name Al Qaeda originate? Where did it first become public knowledge?
| Quote: |
| In the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares writer and journalist Jason Burke states that the name "al-Qaeda" was first brought to the attention of the public in the 2001 trial of Osama bin Laden and the four men accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. |
However....
| Quote: |
| There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term "al-Qaeda" to refer to the name of a group until after September the 11th, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#_note-4
So why would bin Ladin only began to refer to this supposed massive organization of terrorist after the 9/11 attacks and not before them?
Well there's a lot of different theories out there, but I believe that it suited the interests of bin Ladin (as well as the American government-although I'm not suggesting they worked together) to make is small group to appear larger than it was in order to greater spread its propoganda around the Muslim world.
Thus when the American military sought revenge for the 9/11 attacks, bin Ladin could draw more young Muslims to his jihadist cause.
And this has worked out very well.
Remember the famous fatwa bin Ladin issued against the Americans in 1998. Well he referred to his organization as the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders.
Al Qaeda is just a marketing tool.
Hell I don't even think bin Ladin was directly behind the 9/11 attacks. It was more likely first envision by Ramsi Yusef and later developed by his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohommed.
And while Khalid Sheik Mohammed did have a relationship with bin Ladin, it wasn't particulary close and even when the two were in Afghanistan, Mohommed had full autonomy over his own organization.
| Quote: |
| In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the United States government decided to respond militarily, and began to prepare its armed forces to overthrow the Taliban regime it believed was harboring al-Qaeda. Before the United States attacked, it offered Taliban leader Mullah Omar a chance to surrender bin Laden and his top associates. The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the United States would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over",[78] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#_note-4
Interesting if Mohammed, who was later captured and tortured, and admitted his direct involvement behind the attacks, why would the US government be so quick as to lable bin Ladin the mastermind?
Al Qaeda is just a blanket term used for a loose alliance of several jihadist organizations.
Al Qaeda is not an organization in the conventional sense.
| Quote: |
| Although the governments opposed to al-Qaeda claim that it has worldwide reach,[16] other analysts have suggested that those governments, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, exaggerate al-Qaeda's significance in Islamist terrorism. |
The Power of Nightmares. BBC. Retrieved on 2007-02-02.
I guess the exaggeration works for simple people like you Stevie who don't have a full grasp of the history and motivations behind all of this.
But really, I've already taken you to task on another terrorist related thread on this board. So quit it with the condesending tone. You're clearly out of your league once again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
what about the Bin Laden tape where he said he planned them.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape/
| Quote: |
here is at least one public reference to the name "al-Qaeda" that pre-dates the 2001 trial. The name appears with the spelling "al-Qaida" in an executive order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1998, less than two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Executive Order 13099, issued on August 20, 1998, lists the organization as one of several associated with Osama bin Laden, the others being the Islamic Army, Islamic Salvation Foundation, the Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places, The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, and The Group for the Preservation of the Holy Sites.[25] The name "al-Qaida" could have been introduced to U.S. intelligence by Jamal al-Fadl, who had been providing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with intelligence about bin Laden since 1996, before ultimately appearing as a witness in the February 2001 trial of those accused of the 1998 United States embassy bombings.
In this trial, Jamal al-Fadl testified[26] that al-Qaeda was established in either late 1989 or early 1990 to continue the jihad after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. He claimed that during the war against the Soviets, bin Laden had been funding a group called Maktab al-Khadamat, which was led by Abdallah Azzam. This organization was based in Pakistan and provided training, money and other support for Muslims who would cross the border into Afghanistan to fight. According to al-Fadl, the Maktab al-Khadamat was disbanded following the Soviet withdrawal, but bin Laden wanted to establish a new group to continue the jihadist cause on other fronts. Al-Fadl testified that al-Qaeda's leader was initially Abu Ayoub al-Iraqi, who was later replaced by Abu Ubaidah al-Banshiri, but that both of these leaders nevertheless "reported to" bin-Laden. Al-Fadl claims the group initially went by two different names "al-Qaeda" and "Islamic Army", before eventually settling on the former. A meeting was apparently held in Khost, Afghanistan to establish the new group, which al-Fadl claims to have attended. Al-Fadl's recollection was that this occurred in either late 1989 or early 1990, but CNN journalist Peter Bergen argues that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Illinois-based Benevolence International Foundation show that the organization was established in August, 1988. Both of these documents contain minutes of meetings held to establish a new military group and contain the term "al-qaeda". Despite this, no discussions are recorded in these documents about what the name of the new group will be and each instance of the term "al-qaeda" is consistent with it simply referring to an unnamed military base rather than it being a proper noun. At one point it is explicitly referred to as a military base ("al-qaeda al-askariya"). Jamal al-Fadl was not listed among the attendees at either meeting.[27] |
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:37 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
endo replied:
| Quote: |
| interesting comment from a man who likely hasn't done much in terms of research of his own on the topic. |
and then surmised:
| Quote: |
| Al Qaeda is just a marketing tool. Hell I don't even think bin Ladin was directly behind the 9/11 attacks. It was more likely first envision by Ramsi Yusef and later developed by his uncle Khalid Sheik Mohommed. |
Is this the kind of--er--research you were speaking of or--er--was this just a little conjecture you thought you'd throw out for the heck of it? 
and then this jewel:
| Quote: |
Well there's a lot of different theories out there, but I believe that it suited the interests of bin Ladin (
| Quote: |
| as well as the American government-although I'm not suggesting they worked together |
|
Oh, don't let any semblance of logic stop you. Throw caution to the wind and insinuate away, my little moonbat!
Last edited by stevemcgarrett on Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
What the hell was that? Is that your response?
First off all I never suggested that Al Qaeda and the American government worked together. Learn to read!
What I did say is that it fit both sides interests to make "Al Qaeda" appear to be a larger organization than it was.
I already explained bin Ladin's view point. As for the U.S. government, they were hit hard after 9/11 and they needed to quickly show its public that there was a clear and visible enemy.
A 6'6" Arab who had expressed a fatwa against America three years earlier was a good start.
On to my next point.
Most experts agree that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the brains behind the 9/11 attacks. If you look at his nephews history in New York and the Philippines this is easy to see. The thing is even after being captured and tortured in 2003, he never said he was an Al Qaeda member.
Osama bin Ladin may have provided some financing to Mohammed, but he wasn't ivolved in the operational plans.
It's already been clearly documented that Mohammed and bin Ladin weren't the closest of allies. They had clear autonomy from one another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keep using your big words like surmised and conjectured Stevie. It doesn't make you any smarter.
You're clearly out of your league once again.
Let Joo Rip make your arguments for you, because at least he has some knowledge of the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
