I was reading this about the alleged attack by AQ on two synagogues in Turkey and thinking that they seem to be really spreading out. Perhaps they are biting off more than they can chew? Didn’t anyone every explain to them about multi-front wars? (J/k btw, I realize there is a big difference between traditional set piece wars with fronts and battle lines and this kind of terrorist activity…have to caviot even jokes on this board :)).
It seems that they are systematically attacking everyone in the region, and pissing off those that have no love for the US…to their own detriment perhaps. My thoughts are, if they simply held back and didn’t attack anyone but the US, wouldn’t this be a smarter strategy for them? Why piss off Turkey and Saudi, the Italians, etc right now. If they basically left the more neutral countries alone (I realize btw that Italy probably doesn’t fall in that catagory…as far as THEY are concerned anyway) wouldn’t those countries either apathetic or even hostil towards the US (like Turkey and Saudi) basically stay clear? Does this make sense?
As for the OP, I’d like some thoughts on Turkey’s response to this, if it turns out to be AQ that did the attack. Will this change anything at all? I’m not thinking it will bring Turkey into the US camp, far from it…but will it make them also start hunting AQ more vigorously? Or have they been doing so all along, and pissign them off really doesn’t effect the equation from AQ perspective? Also, what are everyones thoughts on if AQ is basically biting off more than they can chew, or if they are stiring a hornets nest which they don’t have too.
One thing from the article that really struck me was this:
From BBC News
I know we are always hearing that every death of a muslim in Iraq will breed more insurgents. Won’t such attacks by AQ that kill muslims ALSO breed some serious hate against them? Will this eventually seriously piss off the average muslim in the area, if such attacks persist? Or will they write it off as the cost of doing business in gettng rid of the ‘west’ from their area?
What would it take to go to an Internet café and send them a mail claiming the ‘al-Qaeda division called Brigades of the SDMB GD community’ planted the bomb?
Well London_Calling, I thought of that…thats why I said ‘alleged’. What I’m asking is, IF they did it, or, maybe more importantly, IF they are percieved to have done this by the people of Turkey and the ME in general, what, if anything will be the consequences? Certainly the Turks are spinning this as an AQ attack:
From BBC News
God(s) only know how credible he is, but whoever Al-Quds’ editor, Abdel-Bari Atwan, is claiming it was AQ:
From BBC News
So, for the sake of arguement, lets assume for a second it IS AQ. Does this attack make any sense at all? What will be Turkey’s response? If it was AQ, are they biting off more than they can chew, or is Turkey already firmly in their enemy camp? Or can AQ afford to piss off as many folks as they want/need due to their organization structure, etc?
Somewhere, on an undisclosed location, a computer set the alarm on; if I were you LC I´d put on my tinfoil hat and watch out for those silent black choppers.
Your OP doesn’t say “for the sake of arguement”. It implies fact.
Why not “for the sake of arguement” assume the emial was sent by the CIA, MI6, Turkish security services or Mossad as all of those organisations would seem to have a greater interest in manipulating Turkish public opinion against al-Qaeda than al-Qaeda might have in whatever this is supposed to have done for them in Turkey ?
I think they can take the risk of killing a few Muslim Turks. Most Turks are pretty secular, and therefore I think are probably looked down upon by the real recruiting targets of al Qaeda – the students in the madrassas, the upset and repressed youth in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, etc. All IMHO. I don’t think al Qaeda is recruiting too heavily from Turkey, though.
So an attack against the mostly pro-US Turkey, especially one targeting the Jews, I think will be a victory for al Qaeda. Remember, attacking the WTC and the Pentagon was mostly about the symbolism, not about the deaths. Attacking synagogues in a secular US-leaning country is perhaps similarly symbolic.
Maybe the way you speak English is different than me…words like ‘alleged’ and ‘seems’ to me are not stating fact. Perhaps there is a disconnect here.
Why not assume it was the CIA, etc? Because that wasn’t my OP. If you would like to start an OP based on that, you can. I wanted to explore WHAT IF from the perspective of, what if AQ was responsible…what would be the ramifications in the ME, in Turkey, etc. WHAT IF its AQ, are they biting off more than they can chew. You see now? What are your objections…I’m truely puzzled here. Do you think that this is some convoluted way for me to be singing Bush’s praises or something?? Perhaps you should realize that not EVERYONE is so wrapped up in your little world that everything they do or say revolves around either Bush or Iraq. From my perspective, Bush has nothing to do with this OP (though I’m guessing that, as a codicile to Godwins Law, he will be brought up within 15 posts, if it goes that long), and Iraq is tangential. This OP is about Turkey, AQ, and the ME in general. There are no hidden meanings here…just what I wrote. Next time I’ll give warnings that my OP has no hidden agenda, so you can be more comfortable.
BTW, I’m not ASKING who did it…just to continue to beat this dead horse. Thats NOT the OP. Please actually read what I wrote, and if there is some confusion in my wording (Engish isn’t my first language, so I conceed there certainly could be), ask about THAT and I will clarify for you.
Maybe the way you speak English is different than me…words like ‘alleged’ and ‘seems’ to me are not stating fact. Perhaps there is a disconnect here.
Why not assume it was the CIA, etc? Because that wasn’t my OP. If you would like to start an OP based on that, you can. I wanted to explore WHAT IF from the perspective of, what if AQ was responsible…what would be the ramifications in the ME, in Turkey, etc. WHAT IF its AQ, are they biting off more than they can chew. You see now? What are your objections…I’m truely puzzled here. Do you think that this is some convoluted way for me to be singing Bush’s praises or something?? Perhaps you should realize that not EVERYONE is so wrapped up in your little world that everything they do or say revolves around either Bush or Iraq. From my perspective, Bush has nothing to do with this OP (though I’m guessing that, as a codicile to Godwins Law, he will be brought up within 15 posts, if it goes that long), and Iraq is tangential. This OP is about Turkey, AQ, and the ME in general. There are no hidden meanings here…just what I wrote. Next time I’ll give warnings that my OP has no hidden agenda, so you can be more comfortable.
BTW, I’m not ASKING who did it…just to continue to beat this dead horse. Thats NOT the OP. Please actually read what I wrote, and if there is some confusion in my wording (Engish isn’t my first language, so I conceed there certainly could be), ask about THAT and I will clarify for you.
You shouldn’t think of AQ as a single co-ordinated organism like, say, the CIA
It is more a bunch of like-minded people in various regions with a (reasonably) common goal. The individual groups in various places run fairly autonomously. The only resource they have that might get satretched in a multi-front war, as you put it, is money. Recruits they have no trouble getting.
The other point is, they are using the tactic of attacking where the enemy’s attention is not. The more the West defend various institutions and facilities, the more they will seek targets of opportunity elsewhere.
So what you are telling me, London_calling, is that you read the title, and nothing more after that. lol, I’ve notice that about you lately. Next time try reading the WHOLE OP, ok?
AndrewT, thats an intersting observation. I never thought of that. The perception is that they are fairly unified (at least thats been my perception anyway). Do you have any cites about that? I’d be very interested in reading about that aspect.
If they are just a loose organization, then I suppose it makes sense that the right hand might not know what the left is doing. However, do you think that their tactic of hitting where its easiest might win them some enemies they wouldn’t have otherwise had if they continue that trend? Will it hurt them in the ME? Do you think that in Turkey, this will stiffen their resolve to combat AQ directly, or have they been pretty much doing so already, so it won’t change their minds.
From edwino
Well, I wasn’t really thinking of it from the perspective of recruitment, edwino. More from the perspective of letting sleeping dogs lie so to speak. If Turkey hasn’t really been moving against AQ before (an assumption on my part…perhaps they have been?), then does it make sense to kick them in the snout? Also, are you saying that muslims don’t really care if other muslims kill them off? I understand that Turkey is fairly secular, but the still ARE muslims. Does this make a huge difference on their perceptions in the ME?
I don’t think so. Al-qaida seems to be more of a social movement than a military operation. The full name (or one of them) is World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. I’m of the opinion that the goal, and their business, is to spread their version of radical, politicized Islam as far and wide as possible. They don’t seem to be too fond of non-radical Muslims either. Attacks in places like Turkey are crude formulaic ones, possible with little to no help from some “base” or heirarchy. How complicated is a truck bomb really. The geographical location where the attack originated is imo less important an indicator than the fact that it was synagogues targeted. That’s kinda their whole point.
Tee, do you think such a stategy (or maybe lack there of) will hurt them in the long run? I’m starting to get a different feel for AQ as an organization, as more of a very loose organization, instead of a tight nit group with a heirarchy. What will be the perceptions of the muslims that live in the region if muslims die in the attacks (as they did in Turkey and Saudi)? Will they blame the US for those death, or will they blame AQ, even if they ARE a loose organization? Or will they blame no one, just figure its part of their lives over there? What I’m trying to get a feel for is how the folks over there view such things. Ok, it was against a synagogue, but muslims were killed doing it…do they care about that aspect? If so, whats their reaction do you think?
BTW, just so you guys know, I’m shamelessly using this board to educate myself on the region, on the conflict and the attitudes over there, and trying to form in my mind a picture of whats happening. Some of the stuff I THOUGHT I knew has turned out to be either wrong or skewed. I know London_calling doesn’t understand this, but I HAVE no position on this stuff…yet. I’m trying to learn and to me, this is the best place to do it.
Re, Muslims killing Muslims.
I take it on authority that it is the stated goal of bin Laden to replace the Muslim House of Saud. Presumably that would not be bloodless. Secular states like Turkey stand in the way of his ultimate goal (so I have been led to believe) of establishing a caliphate from Malaysia to Morocco. So I think that bin Laden is willing to break a few eggs to make the proverbial omelette. So he strikes with highly symbolic but largely ineffective attacks, mostly to send a message to potential recruits that they are striking at Westerners and Zionist pigs everywhere.
Beyond that, al Qaeda aims to start a regional conflagration here, and I think eagerly awaits the ire of more Western and Western-allied governments. They would be only too happy to see something like increased Turkish presence in Iraq, leading to revolt amongst the Kurds, leading to more American problems.
I betcha that the average Saudi still sympathizes with al Qaeda tons more than with Westerners, even if they kill a few hundred Muslims. They are targeting the elite, the oppressive regime, and most of all their Western puppetmasters.
Turkey is in the U.S. camp and has been from the get go. In fact after Sept. 11th, Turkish officials were saying that maybe this would bring world opinion around more to their side vis-a-vis their harsh tactics against militants, which have been widely criticized. Turkey is sensitive about Iraq because of the Kurdish issue, but they are otherwise a pretty dedicated enemy of radical Islamists ( which the current governing party doesn’t qualify as - they’re very much “Islamist light” and don’t represent an absolute majority of the Turkish electorate anyway, which remains largely secular ). Turkey has their own internal Islamist terrorists like Turkish Hezbollah ( a Kurdish group, like Ansar al-Islam ) and the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders-Front.
The latter - they’ve pretty much been enemies of al Qaeda folks from the get go.
Not completely unified, no. There is al Qaeda per se, which has a particular structure. But al Qaeda is also an umbrella organization that started out as a financial and training clearing house - essentially providing logistic support for other like-minded groups. Only later did they start to take on operational activities of their own, but it still functions in that same logistic support role. You’ll note that the group that has claimed responsibility is a group called ‘The Brigades of the Martyr Abu Hafz al-Masri’, described as a “division” of al Qaeda. Which means it is part of the same network, but likely has its own command structure. In fact what you’ll find is that members of one group grade into the other, being simultaneously part of the command structure of al Qaeda, yet running their own ( but linked ) operations under a different name. One might make the comparison to the old PLO, which was dominated by one group ( Fatah ), but was actually composed of multiple factions. Here’s one brief write-up on AQ that briefly touches on this:
Thanks Tamerlane, I was hoping to lure you in here as you seem to be one of the resident experts on the region. I didn’t realize Turkey was so firmly with the US…I thought that popular opinion of the people was even worse than popular opinion towards AMerica in Europe. So I guess this attack killing Turkish muslims won’t have any effect at all then.
So, you think that in the muslim world outside of Turkey that this will be viewed as more an attack against an ally of America, and that the muslim deaths will be seen in that light?
The popular opinion isn’t great. Visions of American hegemony don’t necessarily play any better in Turkey than in Europe. However popular opinion isn’t the last word in Turkey. The Turkish military and intelligence apparatus, resolutely secular and having long been involved in significant counter-insurgency activities against quasi-Marxist, Islamist and overlapping tribal rebels ( including suicide bombings by the Kurdish PKK ), is much more inclined to back the U.S. and though Turkey is not an actual autocracy, they do have the biggest clout in these matters.
Moreover, although I don’t have hard data immediately on hand, I imagine there is a public opinion separation between the Iraq situation and al Qaeda-type terrorists, just as I’m sure there is in Europe. The Iraq venture is extremely unpopular, but truly radical Islamism doesn’t play terribly well in much of Turkey.
Oh, I imagine it will impact public opinion, which might cause some political shifting. However just how much difference that will make operationally, if any, is hard to say. Again, my impression is that the Turkish military is already pretty much on board with the war on terror, providing you exclude Iraq from that equation.
Well, I think al Qaeda ( in the broad sense ) is shooting itself in the foot. But then fanatics often do. This is just one with the Moroccan and Saudi bombings - the more attacks with largely Muslim victims, the less sympathy the Muslim street is giving to have with these groups. How exactly this will play is going to depend on the audience. But in general I would say it doesn’t look good - to the Jihadist fanatics the Turks may be secularist collaborators, but I suspect most of the Muslim world isn’t likely to look favorably on Muslim civilians being butchered so blatantly.
xtisme, I have no opinion as to whether AlQaeda may have done it or not but I agree with London_Calling that your OP is less than consistent. You could ask the same question about anyone. What if the Pope did it? What if the CIA did it? It makes no sense to me. The OP does not argue who did it one way or anothr, it just asks us to assume it was AQ and go from there. . . and then denies it is assuming it was AQ.
Well then, let us assume it was the CIA but without assuming it was the CIA, what conclusions can we draw from that?
One thing I do know: George W. Bush has definitely bitten more than he can chew. And I do not even need to assume he is the President of the US to know that.
(J/k btw, I realize there is a big difference between traditional set piece wars with fronts and battle lines and this kind of terrorist activity…have to caviot even jokes on this board :)).