Is Al-Qaeda biting off more than they can chew? The attack in Turkey

Great Debates
21

From sailor

I’m missing something here obviously. From the article, they are putting forth the theory that AQ did it. So, I’m using that as a basis for the discussion. I’m not sure where you are seeing all this back and forth in my OP…where do I say assume AQ did it and then deny that I’m assuming AQ did it?

Afaik, no one is putting forth the possibility that the CIA did it. If they are, I’m unaware of it. Even if they ARE, its not part of THIS OP. Again, I’m not argueing who done it…thats not the OP. As I told London_calling, if he wants to start a who done it OP, he’s more than welcome to do so. I’ll even join in. :slight_smile:

This OP was asking, IF AQ did it (an ASSUMPTION), then, what are the ramifications? I’m not saying assume AQ did it without assuming AQ did it…I’m merely saying assume AQ did it, providing you with an article which to my mind at least makes that assumption at least PLAUSABLE, and then asking what the ramifications would be in Turkey, in the ME in general, etc.

Frankly I’m mystified why you and London_calling are having such problems with this. Could you go into detail why you are having so many problems even assuming AQ did this thing? Is there something I’m missing here as far as your thoughts that AQ DIDN’T do this thing? If you have some information to the contrary, please, by all means, bring it out. I’m always interested in more information on this subject. ALso, if you would detail what your objections are, that would be helpful to me in the future. I’m seriously at a loss as to why you guys are having such problems with my OP. /scratches his head

-XT

22

No, the OP says that for the sake of this argument that we’re discussing Al-Qaeda, who (unlike the pope) has claimed responsibility for this attack. Considering that AQ has previously claimed credit for the Bali nightclub blast, an Indonesian hotel blast, the attacks on the compound in Riyadh, a string of bombing attacks in the Phillipines, the bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Kenya, the synagogue bombing in Tunisia, (etc…), and considering that they’ve said:

it would look like AQ is by far the most likely suspect and that they don’t give a fuck about popular opinion. Or human life.

23

“unlike the pope”. LOL.

I think in the narrow sense of the US vs. al-Q with the goal being a democratic Iraq, attacks that harm the general citizenry more than the US aren’t helping them any. But that’s our goal. I can’t really say that they are going to lose anything in the long run because I think they especially want to encourage confrontations between secular Muslims and pious ones in places like Iraq, Morocco, Bali. A house divided against itself…etc.

I’m nowhere near this geographically but in other aspects…I do think that Muslims are as deeply troubled by it as Christians would be if extremists suddenly went on bombing rampages here. They might even agree with the sentiment behind it (as some would at the destruction of an abortion clinic) but the act itself is an anathema. It’s a police matter, they might think, let’s worry about finding the &%$# explosives here first and goverment policy and foreign imams later.

I think Iraqis in particular know more about this than anyone, and it’s no surprise that the Iraqi police have been targets so often lately.

24

George W. Bush has definitely not bitten off more than he can chew. If anybody can bring culture and civility into the middle east, it is the United States. And I refuse to believe that a race of people cannot civilize. It’ll just take a little time and effort. Bush has already accomplished his goal. Saddam is out of power, and terrorists are killing terrorists and civilians and basically making a bloody mess of themselves. Whether or not Bush gets reelected is irrelevent to Bush. He accomplished his vendetta against Saddam for the recovered plans of the assassination of his father, and has staked out a great plot of land in the middle east to begin civilizing the despot…dare I say… nearly anarchist region. I think he’s done excellently and despite popular opinion of him, I think he is a very intelligent, cunning president. I for one, hope he gets reelected.

25

Rather, I should say attempted assassination of his father.

26

Well didn’t Bush Sr. try to kill Saddam first ? How come its ok for Americans to try and “decapitate” leaders but others not ?
(Not even I think Bush would be so stupid to have a assassination vendetta against Saddam destroying world peace… its Julien who brought this stupid idea up. Just debating the honesty aspect of it all. Besides to kill people you don’t need to invade countries… )

What Culture ? If Bush had “culture” he might attempt to spread some… civility through military occupation is funny… but your free to cover your eyes.

If you really don’t think Bush is worried about his reelection… why is he talking of pulling out troops by July ? Why is he hiding the flag covered coffins ?

27

Most of this has already been adressed, but I’ll put in my 2 c.

It seems to me that maybe the problem with the OP is that the way you frame this situation is based on a number of unexamined assumptions. Principally that all this is somehow about the US.

What goals would that further ?

Turkey has had its own concerns with terrorism for a number of years, Turkey may see eye to eye with the US on some issues and not others. I don’t see where the US comes into this particular situation at all…
That AQ is a monolithic entity with a clear target and command structure has already been adressed by several posters,

I have seen very little solid information in the media regarding the nature of AQ - mostly some pretty wild speculation. A large number of fairly disparate groups over a huge geographical area seem to fall under the AQ mantle. Historically, radical groups have often been closely linked to various criminal enterprises as well - ETA, protection racket, IRA, drug dealing, things can get pretty confused.

28

Rashak Mani:

The situation was different with Bush Sr. He didn’t have plans drawn out to destroy Saddam, in fact, he stopped the war after the invasion of Kuwait to the dismay and death of a vast population of Shiite muslims when he could’ve easily rolled right through and taken out Iraq and Saddam in the process. Assassination of a leader of a nation is generally against the guidelines of the Geneova Convention.
And I didn’t say that what he did was right or wrong, I did however say that I would have done the exact same thing. Right or wrong.

29

Oh, and just because it doesn’t entirely matter to him doesn’t mean it isn’t worth persuing. If possible, I’m sure he would like to be reelected, just as I said I would vote for him… I really don’t see…where you were going with that… I figured that much was obvious.

30

Also, what occupation? It’s not an occupation, it is just being spun that way. In order to rebuild Iraq and establish a stronghold of Civility you have to be there to build. This could take a few years, and people can look at it the wrong way. But the ends justify the means. Eventually from that foothold we could sort out the Palestinian-Israel situation, establish a functional economy in the middle-east and westernize it a little bit. You have to admit that they’re all just a -little- spooky-crazy over there!

31

I have no problem assuming AQ did it and, in fact, I believe chances are they are responsible. I do not have any problem with the OP either, rather, I was just saying I see LC’s point as well.

As far as AQ I believe they do not care as much about individuals as about their cause and if a few people have to die for the cause then so be it. No doubt that their actions harm their own people but that’s what happens when you are fanatically irrational.

Oh, wait. Let me turn that around and see what happens: As far as George Bush, I believe he does not care so much about individuals as about his cause and if a few people have to die for the cause then so be it. No doubt that his actions harm his own people but that’s what happens when you are fanatically irrational.

Yup, works just as well. A few people stir the shit and make life hell for friend and foe alike. In the meanwhile the majority of people are trying to get on with their lives but it is difficult when aggressive attacks all around you are getting people fanatically and aggressively worked up and feeling “something must be done”. AQ like GWB are “doing something” and the rest of us suffer the consequences.

Well, I have a bad cold and a very runny nose these days. . . . . and it is all his fault. :wink:

32

Sailor: You’re really not looking at the situation holistically. Could you at least try to imagine what could be gained from this endoever?

33

It seems to meet Webster’s definition:

In what way is it not an occupation?

I see. America is civility and the rest of the world is barbaric. But what right does America have to impose its culture by force on others?

Um no. You are totally ignorant of what western culture stands for. Western culture stands for the notion that the ends do NOT justify the means. The notion that the ends justify the means is as barbaric as you can get. It is what Stalin and Hitler and Mao and bin Laden stood for.

Yes, because “western” is good and anything else is bad? The notion that waging war in the area is going to defuse the Palestinian-Israeli situation is one of the stupidest things I have heard in a long time. It seems to be doing just the opposite. It will make matters worse.

:rolleyes:

34

From me

From Asteroide

About the US? I never claimed it was ‘about the US’. To my mind its like this…if I pick a fight with the biggest guy in town, why would I then turn around and kick another man in the nuts TOO? What goals does THIS further? Well, I only have one guy (or one country) pissed off at me at a time. My REAL assumption (which was appearently WRONG) was that Turkey wasn’t fully engaged against AQ, and that therefor kicking THEM in the nuts might not be the most tactically wise thing to do.

From me

From Asteroide

This wasn’t part of the OP Asteroide. This was later on in a back and forth discussion. The US IS part of this thing, because AQ pretty much declared war on the US. So, taking that as a given (unless you have some arguement otherwise), I’m exploring such things as the wisdom of widening the conflict when they are already engaged with the US. What reactions from the muslims in the area to this kind of thing? What reaction from Turkey from this attack?

I guess my OP was poorly written, as half the posters can’t appearently see what I’m asking. Its either that or you are reading it in such a way as to grind your own axes upon it. Frankly I have no idea. It seems clear enough to me what I’m getting at…but then I wrote it so I guess I’m biased.

Your main objection Asteroide seems to be that I’m basing this thread on “a number of unexamined assumptions”…“Principally that all this is somehow about the US.”

Well, you are probably right to a degree…I AM basing this on the fact that the US is involved. So, lets examine the assumption then. AQ has pretty much brought about a state of war with the US. Unless you are an AQ denier and think its someone else that did it, we’ll say thats now an examined assumption. Q.E.D the US IS involved, as we are at war with AQ.

Ok, now. Next assumption: AQ was behind several attacks in the region. Seems plausable enough to pass muster as an assumption to me…they claim credit after all, and most of those attacks also believe its not outside of the realm of possibility that it WAS AQ. Ok, so thats now an examined assumption.

Now that we have the assumptions out of the way (I assume anyway…if there are more, please feel free to bring them up), the OP is asking: Is this wise of AQ to widen the conflict with countries (and maybe more importantly populations) that might have been either A) Neutral or B) Even beligerant/antagonistic to the US with reguards to the conflict between AQ and the US? Why the US? Well, getting back to earlier observations, they are at war with the US. See, it fits. The OP is also asking, what effect, if any, will this have on Turkey? Will they become MORE beligerant towards AQ? How about thier population? Will they turn against AQ if muslims are casually killed in these attacks? Broaden the question…what about the ME in general. Will THEY become more disillusioned and beligerant towards AQ if muslims are killed in these attacks?

Does this clarify anything or make it worse?

-XT

35

So its a nice social visit ? I don’t remember anyone inviting the USA… why play around with words ? Its an occupation anyway you see it. Build ? Rebuild you mean…

Take a few years ? I think Bush just announced withdrawl in July ? Great foothold you got there… lasted a year… besides the Palestinian issue has barely been addressed by Bush. He doesn’t care about it.

36

It may be an ‘occupation’ by Websters Standards, but that does not mean that it is supposed to be an occupation. We -want- to work with them, but the crazy militants want to see it as an occupation, ipso facto it is an occupation. This, in the long run I believe will save MILLIONS of lives. By ‘westernizing them’ like we did with Japan, we will demilitarize them and establish a little bit peace and democrasy in that region. A standard for the rest of the crazy arab world to follow. All they know is violence and bloodshed, and if they keep running things as they are, that is all they’ll ever know. But if we occupy them, at least for a short time and establish a medium of infrastructure and democracy, they’ll eventually get used to it. The militants will settle down and finally… yes FINALLY there will be peace in the middle east. Try to be a little more open-minded.

37

Just because he hasn’t mentioned it yet doesn’t mean it isn’t on the agenda. Be patient and watch. Good things will follow.

38

sailor, I can see what you are getting at with your Bush/AQ turnabout, and I can even partially agree with you. Its just not what I was getting at in the OP. To me, that dead horse has been beaten sufficiently to become paste. I was simply trying to explore another aspect of this situation/conflict.

From Sailor

Agreed. I will point out (just to give that dead horse one last kick) that GW is doing things in reaction to things AQ pretty much started in the first place…kind of like striking a knee with a hammer. I’m not saying it justifies what he’s done (because I don’t believe it does), but I CAN see where it comes from. 9/11 was the match that set off this explosion IMO, at least as far as America was concerned. Without that, I think we’d be just bumping along as usual, getting ready to oust one of the most forgettable presidents in history. Thats one thing that certainly happened with 9/11…good or bad, no one is likely to EVER forget Bush now…

-XT

39

From Rashak Mani

hijacking my own thread. :frowning: I’m tired of seeing this though. You have a cite for this, Rashak Mani? My understanding is that we are turning over the GOVERNMENT to the Iraqi’s in June…but that there is NO plans to bring out the troops. Where is your data on the US withdrawling in July??

BTW, why are you guys even bothering to argue with Julien?? America is NOT occupying Iraq?? Its like argueing with someone who is claiming the world is flat guys…why bother??

-XT

40

xtisme, I see you didn’t bother to read my subsequent posts. It never was meant to be an occupation. It was meant to be a collaberation with the Iraqi people in an effort to build a stable democracy.