I agree, Ranger - the way Al-Quaeda has been elevated from a small if well-organised and well-funded group of murderous zealots to a Super Ultra-Evil International Conspiracy makes one think that too many have spent too much time watching James Bond and Get Smart - what were the names of the super-evil organizations in those shows - Hydra? Chaos? Some nerd help me out.
War on Terror
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Re: Re: Al Qaeda and the War on Terror
Not to mention, of course, that the Bali bombing was most likely the act of a totally different Islamic terrorist organization, and quite possibly the Madrid bombing, as well.
But keep chasing Al Qaeda, by all means.
To say that Al Qaeda is a broken organization is NOT to say that they are now incapable of mounting any operations, or that all cells around the world have been found and neutralized - don't be foolish. This IS to say that their capacity to organize expensive, complex operations (like 9/11) has been SEVERELY inhibited. A car or train bomb here or there is not going to be evidence either way, even if you believe that Al Qaeda is behind every one of them.
EVERYONE'S opinion is share by many.papasmerf said:
Not to mention, of course, that the Bali bombing was most likely the act of a totally different Islamic terrorist organization, and quite possibly the Madrid bombing, as well.
But keep chasing Al Qaeda, by all means.
To say that Al Qaeda is a broken organization is NOT to say that they are now incapable of mounting any operations, or that all cells around the world have been found and neutralized - don't be foolish. This IS to say that their capacity to organize expensive, complex operations (like 9/11) has been SEVERELY inhibited. A car or train bomb here or there is not going to be evidence either way, even if you believe that Al Qaeda is behind every one of them.
Re: Re: Re: Al Qaeda and the War on Terror
Very well put
and unquestionably closer to the truth then those who claim there is not organized groups.
Ranger68 said:
Very well put
and unquestionably closer to the truth then those who claim there is not organized groups.
Right - SPECTRE. Don't you love how much energy these guys put into making up snappy acronyms?
I think HYDRA was a super-bad terrorist group in Marvel Comics, but I'm not sure...
I think HYDRA was a super-bad terrorist group in Marvel Comics, but I'm not sure...
Had Kaos been replaced with "Axis of Evil" in Get Smart, we would no doubt have thought it hilarious. It's really not all that far from the "Legion of Doom". Actually, it was originally conceived as the "Axis of Hatred", but "evil" is a much richer word.
Rhetoric - the weapon of choice for today's Neo-Conservatives.
Rhetoric - the weapon of choice for today's Neo-Conservatives.
Re: Re: Al Qaeda and the War on Terror
Ranger68, once again I agree with you, the "war on terror" is a fiction. The question then becomes if Al Qaeda is a broken organization then how come the United States has not declared victory on this front? To answer your question, it's the scale of civilian deaths that makes the bombings in Bali and Madrid or any other terrorist attack that targets innoncent people so "horrific". Just my 2 cents, DabblerRanger68 said:
To equate all Islamist terrorist organizations with Al Qaeda is foolish. [/B][/QUOTE]
I also agree with this statement, although it would be interesting to know where 'Islamist terrorist organizations financial support orginates.....Dabbler'
I also agree with this statement, although it would be interesting to know where 'Islamist terrorist organizations financial support orginates.....Dabbler'
Re: Re: Re: Al Qaeda and the War on Terror
To say that Al Qaeda is a broken organization is NOT to say that they are now incapable of mounting any operations, or that all cells around the world have been found and neutralized - don't be foolish. This IS to say that their capacity to organize expensive, complex operations (like 9/11) has been SEVERELY inhibited.
Once again point well taken. Any data on the financial cost to Al Qaeda to plan and launch September 11th?.......Dabbler
To say that Al Qaeda is a broken organization is NOT to say that they are now incapable of mounting any operations, or that all cells around the world have been found and neutralized - don't be foolish. This IS to say that their capacity to organize expensive, complex operations (like 9/11) has been SEVERELY inhibited.
Once again point well taken. Any data on the financial cost to Al Qaeda to plan and launch September 11th?.......Dabbler
Re: Re: Re: Al Qaeda and the War on Terror
I disagree with the premise that the terrorist attacks of the last four years, 9/11 excluded, are more disturbing, or of a larger scale, than those of the past.
The US has not declared victory on this front because they developed the fiction and it doesn't suit their purposes to end it yet. Also, after all that talk about Al Qaeda and OBL, it would be hard to do so without producing the devil himself.Dabbler said:
I disagree with the premise that the terrorist attacks of the last four years, 9/11 excluded, are more disturbing, or of a larger scale, than those of the past.
Might I remind you, that Iraq was safely contained, with weapons inspectors, no-fly zones etc, and as has been accepted by everybody now, no WMD and no links to Al Qaida.
And it is really cute to argue, that the US had to declare war on Iraq in self defense. Was the Iraqi navy going to land troops on Long Island, or was the Iraqi air force going to send its long range bombers?
And don't tell me that anybody in Washington gave a rats ass about the Iraqi people. In any event, there is a lot fewer of them now.
And it is really cute to argue, that the US had to declare war on Iraq in self defense. Was the Iraqi navy going to land troops on Long Island, or was the Iraqi air force going to send its long range bombers?
And don't tell me that anybody in Washington gave a rats ass about the Iraqi people. In any event, there is a lot fewer of them now.
What kinds of WMD are we talking about?
Please explain.
Oh, and by the way, there's not a lawyer on the planet who would defend the US invasion as legal. They weren't even claiming self-defence - they're claiming that *eventually* Iraq would have had WMD. This is not pre-emptive war, it's *preventive* war, and it's ENTIRELY illegal.
Please explain.
Oh, and by the way, there's not a lawyer on the planet who would defend the US invasion as legal. They weren't even claiming self-defence - they're claiming that *eventually* Iraq would have had WMD. This is not pre-emptive war, it's *preventive* war, and it's ENTIRELY illegal.
