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

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Ah, but at least that means you're noticing my posts.

In the same way that one notices a gnat bite. I much preferred it when you actually said things rather than doing Lord Shiva impersonations.

[General Ludd]

Al-Qaeda didn't do it by themselves. The conspiracy theories of collaboration between bush and osama, or whatever, have some element of truth in them, in that both the american government, al-qaeda, and all other involved parties have a common interest in playing the same game. It doesn't really matter what side they're on - they are all warmongers and so, at the root of things, they all want the same thing.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


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

I don't think they are making much of a splash in iraq anymore. I think they were the early instigators certainly but these days the vast and overwhelming majority of violence there is home grown non AQ affiliated Iraqi violence. I don't think this makes for as good of an AQ coordinating and planning environment as Taliban protection in afghanistan did because the senior AQ leadership would be in great danger in Iraq due to the possibility of discovery by hostile iraqi factions and a hostile population but I *do* think it serves as an excellent training ground for AQ operatives for some kinds of operations.

For many types of operations a camp in a friendly afghanistan would still be preferable from an AQ pov even for training purposes.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Al-Qaeda didn't do it by themselves. The conspiracy theories of collaboration between bush and osama, or whatever, have some element of truth in them, in that both the american government, al-qaeda, and all other involved parties have a common interest in playing the same game. It doesn't really matter what side they're on - they are all warmongers and so, at the root of things, they all want the same thing.

BS

They all envision goals and those goals are totally incompatible.

The only thing they share is a preference for similar means of attaining their goals.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Al-Qaeda didn't do it by themselves. The conspiracy theories of collaboration between bush and osama, or whatever, have some element of truth in them, in that both the american government, al-qaeda, and all other involved parties have a common interest in playing the same game. It doesn't really matter what side they're on - they are all warmongers and so, at the root of things, they all want the same thing.

I can tell you that down here if Bush had not gone after AQ in afghanistan hed have been toast. The support for going into afghanistan, if not wall-to-wall, went way beyond the "warmongers" unless you want to call most Dems that.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
In the same way that one notices a gnat bite. I much preferred it when you actually said things rather than doing Lord Shiva impersonations.

See, the trouble is that I thought MOBIUS may have made a rather keen observation. I don't want to admit this, though, so instead I just post something inane that could be interpreted as either agreement or sarcastic dismissal (or a gnat bite, perhaps).

As far as my earlier posts possessing more substance... could you point me to them? I don't exactly recall making any...

It's also quite possible that the immense personal turmoil I'm enduring right now is seeping past my online facade. Guess I'll have to try harder.

And that concludes Lorizael's random and unnecessary personal threadjack.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The only thing they share is a preference for similar means of attaining their goals.

Hence the phrase "at the root of things". Don't be so obtuse. I didn't say they are all working together in some secret council striving for a common goal, I said that they are all interested in the same thing - war and so that's why we've got so much of it.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The support for going into afghanistan, if not wall-to-wall, went way beyond the "warmongers" unless you want to call most Dems that.

Of course I want to call democrats that, if that's what they supported. WHy do you assume that I wouldn't want to?


This democrat/republican crap that americans are so caught up in is really ****ing tedious.

[Pekka]

Well, Afghanistan was very legit IMO, and it can hold in history as a legit invasion. I don't think there's much moral problems with that one, where as Iraq is different in all aspects.

Taliban denied US the access to OBL. They said OBL is a guest of the country, and it is against their way to give up their guest like that.

US was had a LOT of patience, trying to negotiate them to give OBL to their hands, so they could maul that SOB. This is a legit request. If you have a known terrorist in your hands, and let's face it, he was wanted even before WTC, and there were great suspects that OBL is behind the attacks. It doesn't even matter if he was or wasn't, he was a wanted man, and had attacked before for sure.

So, they requested his ass, a request which Taliban _denied_. Taliban wasn't looking into any deals either, I bet my sweet balls, that they would have gotten a sweet deal turning him in. As in money, support, what ever.

Let's not forget they denied this request consistently, and never did they deny that OBL was in their lands. In fact, it was admitted he was there, and knowingly refused to give him up.

US made it very clear, that if they shouldn't turn him over, it's going to be a big problem. They tried surprisingly nice first, even though Taliban threw FUs in their face with great disrespect. US gave numerous opportunities for Taliban to get new outs. Taliban showed enemy mentality by not doing business.

This is not what a friend or neutral country does. This is enemy action. Believe in you are with us or against us is BS or what ever (I think it is BS rhetorics), this wasn't the play that was played. It wasn't just a reasonable request, it was a legit request.

Now, if you have a leadership that denies this, after efforts of negotiation, what can you do? YOu just got a building knocked down, a lot of people dead, what are you going to do? It was justified in my opinion, definitely justified, and maybe even the only option left after efforts of ending it the normal way.

I mean, there was just no other alternatives, if Taliban wasn't going to even let US guys to get in and hunt OBL without a fight.. ? That simply becomes their problem, and fuel the jets man.. of course it's also a fact and sad, that almost everyone that gets to suffer from this are innocent. But such is life.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Lord Shiva impersonations.

[Pekka]

I think the debate then was, that is it justified to attack a country because of one man, a man of criminal nature. However, to me this is a non issue because Taliban, the official leadership, as rogue as they may be, didn't want to help find the criminal, and not that, but denied any requests.

So it's not a question of attacking a country because some criminal happens to be there, their leadership chipped in later on by denying the requests, and becoming the enemy by default.

[Sandman]

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.

To be fair, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are now almost one and the same organisation, operating from their statelet within Pakistan.

My thoughts on this matter are that it's not so much Islamist competance as American incompetance that has led us to this point. Were it not Al Qaeda, it'd be something else. A string of mismanaged wars in Latin America, perhaps.

Al Qaeda are a bunch of jumped-up bandits, capable of terrorist outrages, but utterly unable to strike at the foundations of American society. Only Americans can do that. Or, more accurately, vote for that. And they voted in an ignorant, incompetant bumbler who has done more damage to the US than Osama could ever do.

[Barnabas]

After all these years 9/11 seems to have been a fluke

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo


You think that would help you understand?

I think an actual plot would be able to tell us if your previous statement was true or not.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I think an actual plot would be able to tell us if your previous statement was true or not.

you honestly think a graph is the best way to display data about plot complexity?