Battista comes to mind. South and Central America have always been hotbeds of stupid American foreign policy.
School of the Americas, anyone?
Not that Cuba is in Central or South America. But it’s definitely OF them.
Would you be so kind as to provide a cite for this blanket accusation against our fellow Americans?
This is a joke, right? As far as Dogface is concerned, you’re either for George W. Bush or you’re a terrorist. :rolleyes:
Batista did not attend the SOTA. Batista was a sargent in the Cuban army, who led a rebellion in 1933 called in “La Revolucion de los Sargentos”, or The Sargent’s Revolution, and as such is a Cuban homegrown dictator, much like Castro. And also exactly like Castro gave himself a higher rank once he became head of state, Batista was a general, Castro is a commandante.
No, I’d really love to see where DF got this idea so that I can judge the relative validity of it for myself.
rjung and SimonX,
I think you guys are getting distracted by sidebar rhetorical sniping between elucidator and Dogface. Not taking a position on either comment, mind you.
Anyways, as to al-Queda, Marley23 said:
“Al Qaeda terrorists apparently believe they are fighting to free the world from the West.”
I’d have to disagree. They are fighting for control of Islam period. It’s not to remove just western influence, but to force the adoption of sharia law and other 5th century behaviours. They want to control the whole kitchen and what it produces, not just keep the pigs out of it.
The more recent attacks are about political control, not religious control. Understanding of course that religion is interwoven into the political scene, they are still not completely interchangeable.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
I think it’s reasonable to assume that he was talking about the subject of terrorism only: on the subject of terrorism, you are either with us or against us. I really don’t think that he meant to claim that anyone who disagrees with the US on any subjecy is for terrorism. But when Afghanistan refused to cooperate with our prosecution of Al Qaeda, I think it’s understandable that Bush did not consider that to be a neutral action with regard to terrorism.
The official policy of AQ may have little to do with the goals of individual members. The French resistance had Communist elements, Nationalist, Aristacratic, Social Democrat, and Christian, all pulling for the same cause. I think that AQ is a bit like that, in the sense that it is born out of overwhelming Muslim frustration and humiliation. Not in the sense that the US/UK forces resemble the Nazi’s.
When you think about the level of destruction al Qaeda is “capable”? of bringing about, one could argue that they have been somewhat defanged as an international threat. But, living in tourist-flight school central, I’ll postpone judgment on that one.
Striking at apartments in Saudi Arabia, the UN, NGOs, and the “British” / synogogues* in Turkey, for example, sound like classic al Qaeda operations – if they are unable to hit the Saudi royal family, Her Majesty, Tony Blair, US troops in Saudi, GWB, the Pentagon, the Turkish government, US warships, embassies, or the WTC multiple times. In other words, maybe (fingers crossed) acts of desperation?
*Not “British synogogues.” I’ve heard two possible motives.
Right. I’m just connecting the two: free it from the West so everything can be controlled by theocratic Islam.
It seems they were more thoughtfully targeted than the trusted media would have you believe, if this report about the Christian Arabs killed in the most recent Riyadh attack is true. LINK
From the Link:
Maybe Western reporters automatically equate “Arab” with “Muslim”, so perhaps there is no deliberate attempt to deceive by the aspiring Walter Durantys involved.
Or, maybe not.
Saudi Arabia is still a Muslim country. Nonetheless, I hadn’t heard what Alan Owens Bess just posted, and given the Turkish attacks weren’t on Muslim targets either (two synagogues, a British bank and a British consulate), it sounds like saying ‘Muslim countries’ might be missing the point.
And you probably won’t outside the neocon scandal sheet that Alan Owes Bess linked to.
I’d put it in the could conceivably be true category. But my feeling is they just made it up and are relying on nobody checking. C’mon, the primary source of the information is an al Qaeda leader?
I’m with Beagle. Not gonna go all the way out on the limb, but for the most part the past year has seen al-Qaeda and its minions striking at two types of targets: those which are located close to or within areas of Muslim populations large enough to conceal a hyper-radical element, and those within or near remote areas which can support roving guerrilla operations.
Other considerations such as terrorization of the infidels within their reach no doubt also plays a role, but al-Qaeda’s ability to take its battle to non-Islamic territory appears to be temporarily diminished. I strongly suspect that logistics is now dictating the strategy, not the other way around.
Do you expect terrorists to be logical?
A major problem with using violence is the unpredictability of responses and side effects.
They should study Sun Tzu.
Dal Timgar
You have a wrong view on this problem.
What happens now is what was predicted before the US entered Afghanistan.
-
The central command of an organisation that was named AlQaeda is gone with as result that local cells start operating on their own, that last thing already a problem before the Afghanistan adventure.
-
Local groups who for the greatest part had nothing to do with AQ to claim they are AQ. They just jump on the wagon and every time something happens and is immediately blamed on AQ without and before any possible verification, such local groups are encouraged to play that game.
-
Some of those local groups did have in the past some connection with AQ in the sense that one or more of the members where in Pakistan/Aghanistan camps or were volunteers in Tchetchenia or other local troubles. They returned home, back to their own environment and now they jump on the AQ wagon.
The groups I talk about represent an extremely little minority in their respective countries and have all their own goal which is in any case destabilising society.
In most cases connected with their opposition to the government, local politics, foreign policy of their country, whatever… it was until now focussed on local problems.
So no, not everything is AQ and no, they don’t “target Muslims” all of a sudden. These groups do what they did before - or dreamed of doing before - enouraged by the easyness of using the AQ umbrella.
Of course the whole recent situation in Iraq has made it much easier for them to recrute and is constantly putting oil on the fire. For them it is a very good, cheap and easy PR stunt if they sell their actions as AQ.
Salaam. A
OMG!! I actually agree with Aldebaran on many of the salient points of his post. Good post btw Aldebaran.
From Aldebaran
Good point. I think that much of AQ’s command and control structure (such as it was) was destroyed or at least disrupted in our ‘Afghanistan adventure’. The result is what you are saying…fragementation, with all the surviving cells and splinter organization pretty much doing whatever they want.
From Aldebaran
Not sure if many of these groups have absolutely NOTHING to do with AQ, but I think that your main point that they are peripheral at best is a good one. And if AQ’s command and control structure is totally disrupted, these groups are totally on their own, and obviously not thinking strategically…they are just reacting and doing their own thing, to their own ‘plan’…if they even have one.
From Aldebaran
Again good point. I think that the majority of what we are currently seeing actually falls in this camp for the most part. Also, I think that a lot of these folks are aware that if they tag the AQ name on their actions, they get more press.
From Aldebaran
Again agreed. I don’t think that this is really anything new. I also don’t think that these people are opposed to doing whatever they think it takes…and if it involved killing their fellow muslims, then so be it. I also agree with Aldebaran that these people are a very small minority, so aren’t exactly representative of their respective peoples, or of the average man on the street in the area.
In the long run, I think these kinds of actions will ultimately hurt their cause much more than it will help them. Just as AQ gets the ‘credit’, they also get the ‘blame’, and ultimately that blame will come back to haunt them. If they (AQ and the various factions, splinters and assorted nutballs) focused their wrath exclusively on the US I could definitely see a more wide spread appeal in the region. Even time THEY kill innocent civilians though, I’m thinking that it will only dis-illusion people that may have been on the fence, and anger others against them.
-XT
Yes Bryan I have to agree with you, and also, I have to warn you that with your blessing, I intend to plagiarise that quote in the future because it’s so incisive and insightful.
In a lot of ways, Al-Quaida, or even Islamic Sharia Law (as exemplified by the backwood hicks of the Taliban), is yet another philosophical example of drunken power lust for mine. It reminds me of the Communist expansion era in the mid 1920’s to mid 1930’s - that is, the concept was still sufficiently entrancing in the minds of an awful lot of followers around the world, but at the same time, the full extent of how the system lacked checks and balances was not yet apparent. And ultimately, that lack of accountability was what did most of the Communist countries around the world in - that is, you ended up having graft and corruption, and death squads and secret police blah blah blah.
Given enough time, the Taliban would have ended up the same way - if in fact they weren’t already. And I predict the Al-Quaida movement will end up the same way if they ever get into government. That is, the desire to hold onto power at all costs when mixed with a total lack of accountability always results in internal corruption and avarice - every time without exception.
In the interests of fairness however, it has to be said we’ve already got a lot of countries in the Middle East which qualify as such forms of government. What is it? 15 countries in the MENA region and only Israel is a true democracy? The rest? Fiefdoms, and one party states etc? Nation states either on the verge of fiscal anarchy or obscenely doped with oil revenue.
I’d love Tamerlane’s input on the following thought processes of mine - primarily because he’s such a wonderful student of history.
It’s my contention that it’s the already existing lack of accountability and enforcement of civil law in the MENA region which provides the fertile soil for Al-Quaida to blossom. I believe that the commitment to stamping out corruption, at the political, judicial, and police levels are paramount to stable society. And further, a commitment to enforcing judicial and civil law in a way which allows complete strangers to do commerce without fear of having contracts being reneged on with a total lack of fear of any consequence is singularly the great hurdle to overcome within the MENA region. I believe if you can fix that, the Al-Quaida movement will die like the Communist movement died.
All I’m saying here is that there are some really rotten eggs who already exist within positions of power in the MENA region, and the USA in particular is rightly or wrongly perceived as the ultimate finacier who enables their survival. Ergo, by extension, the USA is a valid target for the bitterness and hatred. I’m not saying that’s right, but it’s how the Al-Quaida logic is working. Unfortunately, their solution (total Islamic Sharia Law) is nothing noble either. It’s just another belief system - another form of fascism.
How much written propaganda and material have Al Qaeda released ? Seems not that much ? Do they openly criticize muslim governments or not ?
Its hard to evaluate exactly what their long term goals are in relation to ME governments… on the short and medium they certainly want the US taking their paws off the region for sure.