Announcement

**MOBIUS** · February 1, 2007, 11:15

BTW,

I in no way condone the actions of Al-qaeda, before some useless **** tries to twist things around. But you have to admit, they've played the US govt for the biggest suckers on the planet!

**Geronimo** · February 1, 2007, 11:16

Re: Al-qaeda, the World's foremost Masters of Force Multiplication

Originally posted by MOBIUS
A thought occurred to me replying in a thread about Afghanistan...

We invaded Afghanistan because Al-qaeda attacked on '9/11'

Who are we actually fighting in Afghanistan? Seems to me that probably 90% of military effort is vs the Taliban, and it is the Taliban who are attacking us there now.

We invaded Iraq because of Saddam's 'links' to Al-qaeda (apparently), and the fear that Iraq's huge stockpile of WMDs (apparently) would reach their hands...

Who are we actually fighting in Iraq? Seems to me that probably 99% of military effort is/was vs Saddam's forces/Sunni/Shi'a insurgents/Iranian agents and it is them that are attacking us there now. As for Al-qaeda, they weren't even in the country to begin with and most of their activities involve kidnapping and beheading westerners...

How is it that so few individuals have caused the death and injury to tens of thousands of Americans and other Westerners, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in the process!?

It's amazing the way a relatively small number of people have effortlessly been able turn tens of thousands of people into our sworn enemies to fight their battles for them... Pure Genius I'd say!

Truly, if we were to measure the effectiveness of every member of Al-qaeda in terms of lives ruined and money spent it must be HUGE!

So much for the war on terror against Al-qaeda...

on the other hand, prior to the wtc attack the policy against al quaida had just been to pursue normal law enforcement options and the result had been al quaida constantly raising the ante with one attack after another each designed to upstage the last in spectacularity.

The invasion of iraq isn't really connected to AQ. that was just stupidity.

I still think the decision to invade afghanistan was necessary however. If we hadn't invaded AQ likely would have followed up with several spectacular attacks by now.

**Cort Haus** · February 1, 2007, 11:21

The Iraq war had nothing whatever to do with AQ.

I don't know if there's any way of measuring the effect of the Afghan war in terms of either preventing terror or realistically avenging the 9/11 attacks, other than as a therepeutic effect for a stung superpower.

I never did see how dusty camp sites in Afghanistan could facilitate the plans of a bunch of Saudis with boxcutters.

**Geronimo** · February 1, 2007, 11:25

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The Iraq war had nothing whatever to do with AQ.

I don't know if there's any way of measuring the effect of the Afghan war in terms of either preventing terror or realistically avenging the 9/11 attacks, other than as a therepeutic effect for a stung superpower.

I never did see how dusty camp sites in Afghanistan could facilitate the plans of a bunch of Saudis with boxcutters.

You can't see how secure locations to plan and operate from are necessary for complex operations?

Operating anywhere else suddenly makes them vulnerable to the disruption of sting operations. Having the protection of the local government is a huge boon.

**Lorizael** · February 1, 2007, 11:25

Brilliant!

**Geronimo** · February 1, 2007, 11:26

Originally posted by Lorizael
Brilliant!

I guess we don't need a smilely to interpret this post.

**Cort Haus** · February 1, 2007, 11:31

Originally posted by Geronimo

You can't see how secure locations to plan and operate from are necessary for complex operations?

Operating anywhere else suddenly makes them vulnerable to the disruption of sting operations. Having the protection of the local government is a huge boon.

So how come they've been able to launch operations since?

Or, maybe the ability to launch such operations doesn't depend on a 'central HQ', and the decentralised, free-franchise is a key characteristic of terrorist cells.

**Cort Haus** · February 1, 2007, 11:32

Originally posted by Lorizael
Brilliant!

Your posts have gone into decline recently.

**Geronimo** · February 1, 2007, 11:33

Originally posted by Cort Haus

So how come they've been able to launch operations since?

Or, maybe the ability to launch such operations doesn't depend on a 'central HQ', and the decentralised, free-franchise is a key characteristic of terrorist cells.

Their operations have gone from ever increasing size and complexity to ever decreasing size and complexity.

**Cort Haus** · February 1, 2007, 11:35

Someone's been plotting size and complexity graphs?

**Geronimo** · February 1, 2007, 11:37

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Someone's been plotting size and complexity graphs?

You think that would help you understand?

**One_more_turn** · February 1, 2007, 11:37

Al Qaeda hasn't really accomplished much since 9/11.

Bali Bombing was their last "brilliant" operation.

If that idiot Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, we would already have Zawahiri's head on a pike. (It would make a perfect lord of the flies)

**Cort Haus** · February 1, 2007, 11:41

Originally posted by Geronimo
You think that would help you understand?

Don't you understand that Iraq has given them a whole new playground?

**Lorizael** · February 1, 2007, 11:41

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Your posts have gone into decline recently.

Ah, but at least that means you're noticing my posts.

Announcement

Al-qaeda, the World's foremost Masters of Force Multiplication

Al-qaeda, the World's foremost Masters of Force Multiplication

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment