|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Ultimately, all is fair in love and war. And this is a truism with terrible consequences.
Once wars start, they spiral out of control. The longer they go on, the more barbaric they become.
If you don't like that, then don't ask for war. And I would say that destroying the twin towers, attacking Mardrid and London's mass transportation systems, chanting "death to America!", and/or aiding or abeting or harboring those who are doing such things and planning to do even more are all good ways of getting the United States to notice you and/or bring war to you.
And war with the United States is no trivial thing. I read somewhere that if you kick a tiger in his ass you had better be prepared to deal with his teeth. Sounds reasonable to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
OTOH wrote:
| Quote: |
| do you think that's what the US is trying to do to the people of Pakistan? Traumatize and terrorize them? |
Bucheon Bum replied:
| Quote: |
not pakistan because that would open up a whole new can of worms.
|
Well, BB, I hate to break it to you, but when civilians die as a result of a bombing raid by a foreign power, that pretty much traumatizes and terrorizes the population.
The question then becomes...is the resulting alienation of Pakistan's population a justifiable price to pay(in strategic terms) for the prize of knocking off a few Al Qaeda bigwigs? And this brings us to another question that I've been wondering about for awhile:
What sort of organization is Al Qaeda? More precisely, is Al Qaeda the type of organization whose ability to function is dependant on having a functioning leadership? I have to say, nothing I've heard about Al Qaeda leads me to conclude that its foot soldiers are the kind of people who are gonna cease their activites just because a few of the top dogs get taken out("damn, bin laden got offed yesterday, guess we bought these box-cutters for nothing"). But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Are the AQ bigwigs paymasters, ie. if you kill the leaders, you cut off the money source? Are they strategic pivots, ie. you kill them, and there's no one left to plan the operations?
Because the hunch I have is that the US wants these guys dead simply because it gives the APPEARANCE of winning the war on terror("how can you say we're losing, we just bagged Zawahiri himself!"), but that such high-profile "busts" have will have little if any impact on what the boys in the ranks decide to do. As I say, I'm open to counterarguments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
O
Well, BB, I hate to break it to you, but when civilians die as a result of a bombing raid by a foreign power, that pretty much traumatizes and terrorizes the population.
The question then becomes...is the resulting alienation of Pakistan's population a justifiable price to pay(in strategic terms) for the prize of knocking off a few Al Qaeda bigwigs? And this brings us to another question that I've been wondering about for awhile:
What sort of organization is Al Qaeda? More precisely, is Al Qaeda the type of organization whose ability to function is dependant on having a functioning leadership? I have to say, nothing I've heard about Al Qaeda leads me to conclude that its foot soldiers are the kind of people who are gonna cease their activites just because a few of the top dogs get taken out("damn, bin laden got offed yesterday, guess we bought these box-cutters for nothing"). But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Are the AQ bigwigs paymasters, ie. if you kill the leaders, you cut off the money source? Are they strategic pivots, ie. you kill them, and there's no one left to plan the operations?
Because the hunch I have is that the US wants these guys dead simply because it gives the APPEARANCE of winning the war on terror("how can you say we're losing, we just bagged Zawahiri himself!"), but that such high-profile "busts" have will have little if any impact on what the boys in the ranks decide to do. As I say, I'm open to counterarguments. |
1. The area that we 'traumatized" already was anti-US. I doubt our actions changed the minds of the locals.
2. It disrupts AQ's actions. While terrorist attacks still will occur, eliminating top guys makes it harder for AQ to launch something similar to 9/11. I'm just speculating however. I do get what you're saying, and agree, that in the long-term, it does little. That being said, if we had this type of success more often, then I think it would have a bigger impact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I once read a quote from General Sherman about the Burning Of Atlanta, March To The Sea, etc. It went something along the lines of: "we will make war such a horrifying and traumatic experience for these people that they will never think of resorting to it again". |
| Quote: |
| So, basically, the point of torching Atlanta was to punish the South, by traumatizing and terrorizing them. All well and good, but do you think that's what the US is trying to do to the people of Pakistan? Traumatize and terrorize them? |
No , I don't think that is the objective.
I was just pointing out that the US govt was willing to use ruthless tactics in order to win a war. What was done in Atlanta was a lot more than just bombing civilian areas where Klansmen were hiding.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
2. It disrupts AQ's actions. While terrorist attacks still will occur, eliminating top guys makes it harder for AQ to launch something similar to 9/11. I'm just speculating however. I do get what you're saying, and agree, that in the long-term, it does little. That being said, if we had this type of success more often, then I think it would have a bigger impact. |
Though I agree, it may hinder the operational ability and structure of that particular cell, as they call it, it may only cause a ripple in the overall ability of the organization.... Many describe Al Qaeda as a "hydra" type entity chopping off one head brings up two more...something Mossad has found out during its hits on PLO sympathizers.....
In the article Responding to Terrorism as a Kinetic and Ideological Threat Rohan Gunaratna Director, International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research notes:
| Quote: |
| In March and August 2004, British authorities were able to detect and neutralize cells in the United Kingdom planning attacks against British and American targets. For instance, the U.K. Al Qaeda leader, Dhiren Barot, alias Issa al Brittani, was developing a fully transferable template for attacking any target county. Despite intermittent operational success against terrorist cells planning, preparing, and executing attacks, the worldwide threat of terrorism has not diminished. |
To me this seems to be the AQ leadership's way of countering international counter-terrorism practices...they are becoming craftier and smarter, and they are using their resources to evade detection, streamline their chain of command, in short they are becoming better terrorists because they have to if their organization is to survive. He also points to the fact that those organizations which AQ supports and funds are also appealing to this sort of infrastructure, thus solidifying a more Global Islamic jihad movement.
| Quote: |
Three years on, both the strategy and the effectiveness of the global campaign to combat terrorism is being questioned. The Western strategy of building a coalition to combat the tools of terror has proven flawed in conception. The Rumsfeld model of fighting operational capabilities and not the ideological message of terrorists is limited. Although the tactical successes of targeting operational cells have reduced the immediate threat, the failure to target terrorist ideology and motivations is ensuring the continuity of the threat. In spite of the detentions in 102 countries, Al Qaeda-led Islamist groups continue to survive and fight back. As the terrorist operational infrastructures are becoming more compartmentalized and clandestine, their execution cells have become harder to detect.
By using the current strategy, the threat posed by the Al Qaeda movement to the West, its allies and friends can be managed but not ended. By not fighting the icons, and socio-economic and political drivers of terrorism, as well as changing the reality on the ground, the threat will persist. As long as the ideology remains robust, the terrorist group will recruit and draw support to continue the fight. Three years after, Bin Laden��s message, ��It is the duty of every good Muslim to wage jihad,�� still finds resonance among Muslims in the South and the North. Furthermore, the catalyst conflicts from Palestine to Iraq, and Chechnya to Kashmir, is fuelling the Muslim rage, helping to breed and sustain a global campaign of violence. |
| OTOH wrote: |
| What sort of organization is Al Qaeda? |
An interesting article about the reasoning behind the AQ movement, its evolution, and its place in the world...
Al-Qaida, globalisation and Islam: a response to Faisal Devji
| Quote: |
Conscious of this complicity, and fearful of criticism, western leaders have stressed that this is a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy. The current Washington approach – mirroring al-Qaida's – argues that the enemy only understands force, and that victory will in itself prove this right. Are neo-conservatism and jihadism then locked into a mutually-sustaining metaphysical alliance in which each requires the other in equal measure? Without a ferocious and unambiguously evil enemy who can strike anywhere and anytime, what need for Americans' fear of terrorist annihilation?
Equally, every misguided attempt to eradicate terrorism only strengthens bin Laden's authority. Each has an interest in sustaining the vicious circle, while other world leaders, in supporting roles, seize on this metaphysical "war on terror" as carte blanche to deepen ethno-political conflicts like Israel-Palestine and Chechnya.
But is this really a new kind of war, and is al-Qaida really a new kind of enemy? In some respects yes; in others, no. The conceptual models described above may be useful, but they all lack one crucial dimension: the transcendental. bin Laden is not just a financial resource for suicidal extremists, he is also a spiritual symbol for millions of alienated individuals, a fact reflected in his powerful video performances. Whilst being a new departure, therefore, he is also merely the latest charismatic leader to issue the historic call to jihad. Easily exploiting the structures of globalisation to tap into the discontent of vulnerable Muslims – and non-Muslims – everywhere, he has brought this jihad from the local to the universal level. |
I think these are very valid points. These two seemingly opposing ideologies terror vs the war on terror, basically contend their righteousness from their own context, and also come to the same conclusion, violence and more violence till victory proves it right....that in the end, the means of the victor will be justified. It is also worthy to note the globalization of the AQ movement, the message is spread beyond the tribal councils, beyond the local mosques.....across the world increasing its exposure and its support base.
| Quote: |
It is worth remembering here that an evolutionary process that took Europe five centuries has been compressed for Arab Muslims into a few generations, complicated all the while by the designs of external powers. Nowhere is this clearer than in the almost overnight transformation of sleepy Arabian villages to glassy, high-rise metropolises: pre-modern to postmodern with precious little inbetween. In such a context the psychological disconnections of bin Laden's generation are hardly surprising.
At the apex of this hasty transition, the Arab individual often finds him/herself victim of a sharp sense of insecurity and anomie. Perhaps poor, part of a large family, recently migrant and lacking in prospects, or perhaps well-off but spiritually lost, this individual is acutely vulnerable to the instant comforts of religious ideology. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
[
1. The area that we 'traumatized" already was anti-US. |
Not just anti-US, anti-everybody. They don't recognize Islamabad's authority over them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Good point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The strike does damage to "Al Qaida prime".
While it doesn't do much to Al Qaida wannabes around the world, lets remember that Al Qaida wannabees around the world probably don't have the organization and abiltiy to conduct 9-11 style attacks.
If Al Qaida prime is destroyed , then probably attacks within the mideast and other 3rd world nations will continue, however these groups might very well lack the capablity to conduct major operations against the US or its allies.
As for Al Qaida wannabes just remember that most mideast nations are able to wipe them out if they choose to.
Anyone notice that there aren't any more Al Qaida attacks in Saudi Arabia? Why ? Cause Saudi Arabias' secret police pretty much wiped out any one in Al Qaida who had thoughts about disrupting the Saudi system.
If Al Qaida prime is destroyed then major Al Qadia attacks in the west will stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
OTOH wrote:
| Quote: |
| do you think that's what the US is trying to do to the people of Pakistan? Traumatize and terrorize them? |
Bucheon Bum replied:
| Quote: |
not pakistan because that would open up a whole new can of worms.
|
Well, BB, I hate to break it to you, but when civilians die as a result of a bombing raid by a foreign power, that pretty much traumatizes and terrorizes the population. |
Aren't you leaving out intent? Isn't intent an element worthy of consideration here?
Do you believe the U.S. intended or intends to terrorize these Pakistanis just as bin Laden intends to terrorize the U.S.?
| On the other hand wrote: |
What sort of organization is Al Qaeda? More precisely, is Al Qaeda the type of organization whose ability to function is dependant on having a functioning leadership? I have to say, nothing I've heard about Al Qaeda leads me to conclude that its foot soldiers are the kind of people who are gonna cease their activites just because a few of the top dogs get taken out("damn, bin laden got offed yesterday, guess we bought these box-cutters for nothing"). But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Are the AQ bigwigs paymasters, ie. if you kill the leaders, you cut off the money source? Are they strategic pivots, ie. you kill them, and there's no one left to plan the operations?
Because the hunch I have is that the US wants these guys dead simply because it gives the APPEARANCE of winning the war on terror("how can you say we're losing, we just bagged Zawahiri himself!"), but that such high-profile "busts" have will have little if any impact on what the boys in the ranks decide to do. As I say, I'm open to counterarguments. |
When Peruvian authorities captured and imprisoned Guzman, it effectively ended the Sendero insurgency (we think). When Bolivian Spec. Forces executed Guevara, that ended the Bolivian ELN insurgency. So I'd say that fanatical grunts are one thing, but masterminds and leaders are another. In any case, those are factual analogies that you might consider, for whatever they are worth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
OTOH wrote:
Quote:
do you think that's what the US is trying to do to the people of Pakistan? Traumatize and terrorize them?
Bucheon Bum replied:
Quote:
not pakistan because that would open up a whole new can of worms.
Well, BB, I hate to break it to you, but when civilians die as a result of a bombing raid by a foreign power, that pretty much traumatizes and terrorizes the population.
Aren't you leaving out intent? Isn't intent an element worthy of consideration here?
|
If we're speaking morally, yes, though I tried to make it clear that I was speaking strictly strategically.
Speaking morally, consider the following two statements:
A. We must blow up Hitler's car, even if it means killing his five year old niece in the backseat, because Hitler is about to authorize Operation Barbarossa. (assume for the sake of argument that Hitler's next-in-line would've called off Barbarossa)
B. We must blow up William Pierce's car, even if it means killing his five year old niece in the back seat, because Pierce's book THE TURNER DIARIES is an inpsiration to violent fascists everywhere.
I think most people who follow a utilitarian calculus would agree that statement A is defensible, whereas statement B is sociopathic. No one is going to stop bombing synagogues or lynching black people just because Pierce got blown up in a car. So the collateral death of his niece serves no purpose whatsoever. The question I've been trying to ask is whether the AQ leadership is closer to Hitler or to Pierce, in terms of their involvement in the day-to-day activities of their respective movements.
| Quote: |
| When Peruvian authorities captured and imprisoned Guzman, it effectively ended the Sendero insurgency (we think). When Bolivian Spec. Forces executed Guevara, that ended the Bolivian ELN insurgency. So I'd say that fanatical grunts are one thing, but masterminds and leaders are another. In any case, those are factual analogies that you might consider, for whatever they are worth. |
Yeah, I was in fact pondering the Guzman example when I wrote my last post. I do remember at the time being somewhat surprised that a whole guerilla movement would just collapse because one guy at the top got hauled off to jail. Of course, even to someone like me with little background in military history, it seems fairly obvious that Shining Path and AQ are pretty different organizations, structurally speaking. SP was conducting a highly co-ordinated land war in a limited geographical area, whereas AQ is conducting a series of attacks accross the globe. Plus, AQ is something of a death cult, so the average member is probably not vulnerable to the same demoralization that would effect most activists upon finding out that their leader was killed.
Gopher, do you happen to know how it was that the capture of Guzman ended up being the undoing of Shining Path? Did the group just get demoralized and decide to pack it in? Did Guzman co-operate with the authorities and turn over pivotal information? Or was it just that Guzman was so indispensible to the operations of SP that they couldn't go on fighting without him?
Last edited by On the other hand on Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo wrote:
| Quote: |
If Al Qaida prime is destroyed , then probably attacks within the mideast and other 3rd world nations will continue, however these groups might very well lack the capablity to conduct major operations against the US or its allies.
|
Joo, I think you still need to prove the causal link between the first part of this sentence("If Al Qaida prime is destroyed") and the second part("these groups might very well lack... etc"). How exactly does destroying Al Qaeda prime debilitate the rank-and-file? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sendero was compartmented into many cells, and only Guzman and his top lieutenants knew the details. (He also cultivated a cult of personality and the org was extremely hierarchichal in its outlook.)
So when he was taken down, the cells could no longer communicate with each other. They did not even know who the others were. See Sendero Luminoso and the Threat of Narcoterrorism, an exceptional and highly readable book on the org from a former Peruvian prosecutor.
AQ may be totally different, and I suspect it is. But I also suspect that without the top leadership, they're just another mediocre terrorist group that will lack what bin Laden and co. give them.
So I have to ask: who is handling the money that comes into AQ? Can someone easily replace them if they were gone? what about its probable relations with one state or another? Are there no internal tensions, rivalries, or hostile factions in AQ? And what would happen to them if bin Laden and his lieutenants were taken out of the picture?
My own feeling, based on not much more than intuition, is that once AQ's top leadership are taken down, the "movement" will continue to exist in many parts of the world, but it will be no more effective than the neo-Nazis who exist all over Europe, the U.S., and the southern cone of South America -- more a nuisance than anything else.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The strike does damage to "Al Qaida prime".
While it doesn't do much to Al Qaida wannabes around the world, lets remember that Al Qaida wannabees around the world probably don't have the organization and abiltiy to conduct 9-11 style attacks. |
Nor did the "real" Al Qaida 
Sympathy for al-Qaida Surges in Pakistan
By RIAZ KHAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jan 22, 3:37 PM ET
DAMADOLA, Pakistan - Sympathy for al-Qaida has surged after a U.S. airstrike devastated this remote mountain hamlet in a region sometimes as hostile toward the Pakistani government as it is to the United States.
A week after the attack, villagers insist no members of the terror network were anywhere near the border village when it was hit. But thousands of protesters flooded a nearby town chanting, "Long live Osama bin Laden!"
Pakistan's army, in charge of hunting militants, was nowhere to be seen.
The rally was the latest in a series of demonstrations across Pakistan against the Jan. 13 attack, which apparently targeted but missed al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack_140;_ylt=AmpFnZLuxwpQvDevMkPowqOek3QF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you really have to stretch the page everytime you post on a thread?
Sorry to complain, but it's annoying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Do you really have to stretch the page everytime you post on a thread?
Sorry to complain, but it's annoying. |
Gotta go along with Gopher here.
Nothing personal against IGTG, a lot of other posters do it too, though perhaps not as much. What's annoying is that 9 times out of 10, the added image contributes nothing to our understanding of a post, just serves as a nifty aesthetic adornment. But the aesthetic buzz is pretty much negated by the stretching of the thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
