Well, I agree to some extent with the above. Perhaps it is a waste of time to be looking for Tora Bora cave complexes, if that in fact is what is being done. If you were to ask the question 'Exactly WHERE is Al-quaeda?', rather than 'exactly WHAT is Al-quaeda', then I suppose it would have relevance to the real struggle at hand. But, is it relevant (for example) to debate if Bin Laden didn't use the term Al-quaeda before US officials did? How does that make a difference? Do you think it is relevant if Al Capone used the term 'Mafia' before US prosecutors did? Regardless of the answer, Capone still was public enemy number one in Chicago, and so where the members of his organization. We needed to capture them, regardless of how they were being defined. And the same is true of Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda. What I find relevant is that Bin Laden has called for a holy war against the US, and that he has also openly called for the killing of American and Jewish civilians. That he has set up Islamic training centers to prepare his followers to carry out terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. That a number of such attacks have been carried out by his followers and other terrorists who have been inspired by him. (I think what I say in the above paragraph is common knowledge, but if you want a source, I can tell you I get most of my news from the BBC, and that is likely where it can be found, doing a simple search about Bin Laden or Al-Quaeda) On that basis it is that I propose that our urgent need is to aggressively look for the people who call themselves members of this organization. That seems to be also the conclusion of the expert whom you quote on your first link, even after he speculates and overanalizes the true motives of Bin Laden. He talks about changing policies and about facing difficulties, but the only concrete advice he offers is that we should be willing to attack before making a case for it. 'We have to be willing to do it without evidence that can be presented in court', he says, and I agree with that. I don't think an extensive analysis of what Al-Quaeda is could possibly change that conclusion. As far as offering a better idea, well, I think our president is trying to do exactly that by attempting to build free and democratic nations in the Middle East, but I don't really see that as a solution to the present problem that we face in Al-Quaeda, at least in the short term. Perhaps working towards a solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem will also help by stabilizing the Middle East, and certainly I think that America should strive towards this. (Although it is difficult to do so when neither side seems eager to find a fair solution). But I don't think that even that will solve the problem of Al-quaeda. While we strive to find an answer for Palestine, we still need to continue to fight Al-Quaeda, both by searching for its members wherever they may be, and by taking defensive measures against their possible attacks. Mel, what I'd like to know is, in addition to getting to know them better, and understanding their motives, what exactly are you offering as a better idea for dealing with Al-quaeda?
asf, i am not sure if you have watched the power of nightmares (i presume that you have not), but in the documentary it claims that al queda is nothing more than a fantasy. the sleeper cells and the whole terrorist network being nothing more than a dream. the claim is that bin laden is not the head of an organization. rather, he is a rich man with a few compatriots that now acts as a figure head, after being empowered greatly by the media, of islamic terrorism. bin laden does not have the power to plan and oraganize attacks, on the contrary, other organizations plan the attacks and carry them out after asking bin laden to fund them. and so on. to get the main point that mel is getting out, the forces are fighting a phantom enemy. wasting resources in tora bora looking for very complex, high-tech cave systems that did/do not exist and also searching for the sleeper cells in the US that have not existed. again...and so on. the power of nightmares is a very good documentary imo and i believe you should watch the third entry so you could further discuss this topic. whether accurate or not, it is an interesting idea.
Al Queda is a group who made a big mistake attacking the wrong country with the right president. Bin Laden thought he could continue attacking the US after Clinton's tepid responses. Lo and behold, he received a response from Bush he never expected. Osama is hiding in a cave realizing he made a strategic mistake. It was all fun and games while it lasted Osama, but your gig is coming to an end.
A list of facts. - US military effort is almost entirely in Iraq - Iraq invasion had nothing to do with "war on terrorism" - Noone really cares or worries anymore about the fact that Bin Laden is still around somewhere. I mean he's supposedly the head and the mind of this incredible worldwide terrorist network. and others. What am I trying to say? That even by looking at US admin behavior one can understand a lot of things. That, for example, al qaeda menace has been used as a tool to prop up already existent agendas (Iraq). That there's no logical connection between wanting to fight at best this frightening network and divert all the military resources to invade Iraq. That ultimately neocons strategy makes no sense if what they told about al qaeda was true and not an useful exxageration. The already mentioned BBC documentary manages to explain all this. But now, they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us from nightmares...
Thanks for the funny, and for confirning my own search; no thread exploring this issue (what is AQ, and what is the veracity of the sources that tell us so?) at all. Your obsession with trying to engage me instead of the material does not serve you in good stead. If you find my posts so wearying, there's one surefire way to ensure you don't have to engage them, and we both know what it is; I look forward to you employing that method ASAP.
"And the proof of that lies in the fact that many of the most affluent Muslims --Osama bin Laden himself-- are among those that are the most hostile to the United States," said Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia. OBL has 50 brothers and sisters and only one of them has bankrolled a terrorist organisation. If this assclown had a poll showing that the afluent in the middle east are more anti-american than the average arab then he'd have a point but I don't think he does. This is a statement driven by ideology or more correctly hatred of the liberal belief that poverty helps cause terrorisim. Any article that uses a quote from OBL to back up its claim that the wealthy are the ones that commit terrorism should be disregarded. I have a feeling that if OBL saved a group of nuns from a burning bus the writer and Mr. Pipes would find a way to spin it negatively.
What is the real struggle, and where does it begin, if not with understanding the enemy? This part of your discussion is patently foolish; you don't need to come anywhere and advocate the irrelevance of knowing. Just stare at your navel, and everyone will know where you stand. It is one of the clues I posted in my initial post that encourage those that quite simply have no reason to believe anything any authority says to them upon first glance that those who attack the US may in fact be grouped and constituted wholly differently than the way we've been told they group themselves. In engaging and defeating the idea ans actions surrounding justifiable civilian murder, knowing what, where, when and how those ideas coalesce around action may be important. But you are right in that it is only relevant for citizens in a democracy, and for governments that really want to end the threat. For citizens and governments with other agendas, it makes no sense at all. This is a foolish comparison. First, Al Capone was created by unpopular and unsustainable law (Prohibition), not by the propagation of an idea. Second, an analysis of the TYPE of granisation Capone's gang was led to the method by which to defeat it...income tax evasion. You would advocate swinging blindly to just "get him," and not an authentic knowing that leads to advantage and victory. That's foolish to me. No, people in streets and alleys all over the world do that, everyday. What's relevant is that he MAY have a global organisation to act out his jihadist hate, OR he may inspire all kinds of varyingly disparate pockets of such hate to do so, or it may be some other dynamic entirely that, in part because it hasn't been reported, we may not have even considered. In addition, this is another thing we do not know. Part of habeus corpus and due process is that there is promoted a level of transparency into which the public, through public record can see, learn and understand. You've been TOLD by the Pentagon and by embedded media that other terrorists have been inspired by Bin Laden. You don't KNOW a damn thing. What if, in fact, an entirely different source is inspiring fundamentalist radicals around the world to act in hateful violence, but that information simply isn't reaching you? Doesn't that make the pursit of Bin Laden only part of the equation, and nothing like a solution? What do you personally know, in terms of information you are willing to bet yourself and you family on, that has sprung from a process of democratic transparency where we all can see, and critically engage sources, etc.? I know you don't think that that is important, but I do. Again, there's always the option to start a "Nothing matter but what we've been told" thread, but that thread is not this one. Also produced by the BBC is an entirely different analysis, referred to above in the first thread. Why, exactly, do you CHOOSE (and does distill down to a simple choice, to believe one source or another, or to continue to try and understand, or some gradient therein) to endorse one BBC source and particularly one BBC frame of events, and not the other? Your answer to that question I guarantee is different from mine, and produces the resultant different perspectives we bring to this issue, and to its ultimate resolution. On my basis I propose that we employ the quickest, most knowledge-based approach that springs from our idelas in best practice to defeat the ideational sources and practicioners of any types of terror, anywhere, regardless of what organization the members claim or do not claim. I thnik that you definition of what is concrete is foolish and debilitating. The mariginalisation by you of policy change and standing up to real obstacles is silly, and indicates that your approach to this thing, were you in charge, would likely get alot more people killed, IMO. I look forward to your expansion on this point, particularly regarding what you know about the democratic institutions being built in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not voting, they had that before we invaded, but the actual processes and institutional effects of the democratic structures built and being built in these nations, and how those institutions will reduce, in the long-term, as you insinuate, the fanaticism of those who have a problem with the Western model of being in the world. Take your time. !!!! First and foremost to understand what AQ is; part of that process is reconciling wholly different definitions of the term!!!!! Which is what this thread is about!!!! WOW!!!!!
Notions like a coalition of disaffected and applying for "membership" may or may not be accurate, and that is my point. Who exactly is al-Zawahiri referring to when he says "we," and how does his belief /claim of "we" jive with the actual reality of who he might be able to reach with anymurderous message, and how do we play a role in propagating that message beyond its natural application, if at all?
You are the material Mel. What you imagine as 'the issues' are no more than that, your imagination of your own self.