Hardly a non-sequitur. You said :
And I’m saying that they aren’t. They are fighting, yes, but they aren’t fighting a “global guerrilla campaign”; there are many more people who hate us ( and others ) than them. I’m saying that killing or otherwise stopping Al Qaeda doesn’t matter, because we have made so many other enemies for ourselves.
I’ve read too many articles about the topic to remember any specific one. But looking at the varying ideas of what they wanted, I think it’s the most sensible conclusion.
A lack of knowledge about U.S. leadership, for one. The fact that they weren’t fighting USSR soldiers, but striking at the U.S. capitol and the symbolic center of its economy. Overconfidence.
I’ve been trying to make a distinction between the original Al Qaeda - the group lead by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri that was based in Afghanistan six years ago - and the group that exists now, which is more global and doesn’t have as much top-down leadership. I think Bin Laden & Co. expected the scenario I outlined. What’s happened instead is that, while some of their ideas and methods have taken root, it has not brought them the direct benefits they expected. They’re not kingmakers in the Middle East, and they haven’t scared the West out of the region. Israel hasn’t been destroyed.
The fact that it became a movement is not a failure. I think they failed to achieve other goals, and the movement did not do what they thought it would. None of the governments that deal with the West have been overthrown and replaced by strict pro-AQ regimes. I don’t think the plan was “attack the U.S., run and hide for years, watch other people lead our group while we become figureheads, have the U.S. leave Saudi Arabia but set up a new base elsewhere in the Middle East,” and so on.
It’s only my opinion. But the main idea is that not everything that has happened has been according to the AQ masterplan, just like it’s not true that “if we [don’t invade Iraq/reconsider any part or our foreign policy/butter the underside of our tast], the terrorists win!”
As I wrote earlier, I don’t think he’s really in a cave. I used the term figuratively. I don’t think he’s living the life he’s accustomed to living, and I don’t think he expected to be the invisible leader of his group; I think he expected to be ordering Shahs and Emirs around by now.
Do me, and many more, a favour Der Trihs please try to limit your anti-American sentiments to an absolute minimum.
We are all aware you harbour an irrational hatred of all things American, there is little to be gained by constantly chirping on about it.
It’s really tiresome y’know
If disapproving of conquest and torture makes me “irrational”, then bring on the irrationality.
You misunderstand me my friend.
By irrational I meant quite simply that I find it irrational for an American, such as yourself, to so despise his country to the extent that at each and every opprtunity you never fail to remind us of this dislike.
As an Englishman, and damn proud of it, I could never in a million years bring myself to feel about my country the way you feel about yours. No matter how my country behaves, I am an Englishman first and foremost.
A barbaric attitude, that has led to immense suffering throughout history.
Now you enter the realms of idiocy. To state that my attitude is barbaric because of my love of country is ridiculous.
Please don’t let me lose the respect I have for you by maintaining such an obtuse stand
It appears what you’re saying Chowder is that because you’re an Englishman you’re going to be supportive of anything the United Kingdom might undertake regardless whether you personally believe its the right thing to do.
It’s way too easy to point out examples of this kind of thinking that led to horrendous consequences.
He’s not saying anything that concrete. Love of one’s country isn’t a positive or a negative in and of itself, in my opinion - the problem is that patriotism often blurs into the sentiment you described.
It’s really quite simple. I am an Englishman and I love my country with a fierce passion, I will continue to do so until the day I die.
My patriotism means that my country comes first in a long list.Unlike Der Trihs who hates the country of his birth for reasons best known unto himself, this attitude of his I find quite disgraceful.
I always reckoned that Americans were among the most patriotic nation on earth but Der Trihs shakes my belief in that.
FWIW if, for example, my country was to embark on a path similar to that of 1930s Nazis then I would not subscribe to that, I would still love my country, not the politicans
I guess he’s only getting as good as he gives, but why is that a disgrace? I don’t feel patriotism either, although I think of it as more silly than dangerous. (As the comedian said, “It’s a round world last time I checked.”)
As it is, an awful lot of the 300 million people here will tolerate no criticism of the U.S. It can get scary. In that light, I’m very happy there are people like Der Trihs.
Being a nation of people that are paying attention to what’s going on and speaking out against what’s wrong is showing that you care far more than wearing a flag pin on your lapel.
Patriotism is not my country right or wrong. There would be no America if we thought that way.
So which qualifier do you take issue with?
Are they not fighting?
Is it not global?
Is it not a guerrilla /insurgency type of campaign?
Is it not a campaign?
Yes, if you love your country. Absent that affection, it’s just …
Let me put this in another language: Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner.
It’s possible to love your country and still think it is a negative force in the world.
Some people… well, me, anyway… think that’s a bullshit PR line somebody dreamed up to put a smiley face on homophobia.
Not that I’m questioning your views, but in that case, what would you say you love?
I was trying to make kind of a snide reference there, re: HTS,LTS.
I love the ideals of this country and the people in it. I love the potential for greatness, I love the advancement of individual rights that has taken place here. I tear up at the national anthem. I think that we are hurting the world and our future in it by following our current policies.
This thread appears to have ignored the OP question. Might I suggest we get back to that
Yes, we will be attacked by terrorists within the next year. No, it will not be major. Yes, this is all speculation. No, I have no problem with that.
Yes, America will be hit with what will be considered a “major” terrorist attack. Within the next year? I don’t know. But when it comes, the political reaction will be nearly as substantial as it was after 9/11.
The American public will once again demand action and will turn away from “what if” and “slippery slope” civil liberties scenarios and toward those who they perceive as having more national security credibility. If thousands more Americans are dead, a vast majority of the population is not going to care whether a captured jihadist has a lawyer or not. Will there be mistakes and overreactions? Yes. Our system is not perfect, nor are the people that participate in it. But the voices that proclaim the “let a hundred guilty go free rather than punish one innocent” school of thought are going to be drowned out by the howls of outrage.
I even have an idea of how they might do it. I have outlined my personal nightmare terror scenario in other threads and I will repeat it here in the spirit of returning the thread to the OP.
I think that hundreds of jihadists could sneak over the mexican border a few at a time over a period of a year or two. Imagine what could happen if they are given guns and fan out to hundreds of shopping malls on the Friday after Thanksgiving. The death toll could easily top that of 9/11 and the American public would be shaken to the core nationwide.