To me it all hinges on whether Al Quaida leadership intended to lop off the top floors of the twin towers or actually destroy the whole complex.
After we get done kicking their filthy asses all across the globe and make any mid eastern nation harboring terrorists reluctant to do so, I would say yes. History has already recorded the attack on Pearl Harbor as about the worst mistake the Japanese could have made during WW2.
As for the attack itself, I don’t think they were intending to do anything but create as much destruction as possible.
I hope they decide to rebuild the towers in defiance of the attack.
Yup. In 2051, it will be on the History Channel – “Great Blunders in History”… stupid bastards anyway.
A) al-Qaida, there is no goddamned u.
B) Although the simplistic self-serving triumphalism in re harboring terrorists is of course wonderful for making nice safe little North Americanos feel safe and warm inside, those of us who’ve followed this shit for more than, well 6 months, know that in most MENA region countries the al-Qaeda network folks have long been illegal.
Inded that is what makes the organization so resiliant and hard to break up, they’ve operated as an underground org longer than most Western intelligence folks have paid attention to them.
State sponsorship is not their MO and is not their problem (despite our dear neo-Cons a-factually beating the Iraq drum.).
Whether it is seen as an error depends on the degree to which one is able to fight and counter such groups.
Bloody simplism.
Since the Arabic language does not use the English alphabet, all English spellings of Arabic words are phonetic and approximate at best. Approximate solutions do not lend themselves to unique answers. Rather they tend to lead to multiple acceptable spellings.
Do a web search of “Al Quaida” and see how many exact matches you get.
How many different ways have you seen the Libyan Political Leader’s name spelled in the media?
Ah, you endeavor to teach me something in regards to Arabic, a language I am fluent in. How very amusing.
Yes, indeedy, the Arabic alphabet does not use roman characters.
Now, al-Qaeda contains the Qaf. The Qaf is most easily represented using roman characters by a Q, since the sounds are relatively close and it helps distinguish between qaf and kaf.
It’s followed up by a fatha, a short a sound. No u. None.
Why a “u” then? Becaue of simple minded over-correction and applying motherfucking English spelling rules to, yes you guessed it, a foreign word.
Now, an innocent enough error, other than it irritates the fuck out of me for no logical reason, but it also leads to mispronouncing of the word. (al Qa ee dah becomes al qwa ee da or something like that)
Ergo, it’s wrong in the sense of being misleading as to the pronounciation and making the speaker sound like an ignorant fool.
I could give a fuck how many ignorant fools mispell al-Qaeda on the web. The depths of ignorance I have already seen quite enough of lately.
Plenty, and?
Muammar Qadhdhafi has a pain in the ass name, and folks transliterate it (a) badly -kh is just fucking wrong or (b) variously because dialectal pronounciation is different from standard pronunciation.
To get back to the OP . . .
Depends on what the perpetrators were trying to achieve. If their only or main objective was to wreak as much death and destruction as possible in order to draw attention to themselves and their beliefs then, yes, the whole thing has been a triumph.
If the objective was to shock or terrify the US into withdrawing support for Israel, leading to the collapse of Israel then it has failed.
If the objective was to force a rethink by the US of the consequences for it of its policy in the Middle East and a revision of that policy in ways which would be welcome to the Arab world then we won’t know for some time what success, if any, the operation has had.
Hey, Collounsbury, stuff it or takeout to Flames. The fact is that there are no “official” rules for translating ANY word from ANY language into English letters. It doesn’t matter if you’re fluent in High Mazabumblenut, you still can’t say exactly what gets pronounced as what. There are legitemate alternate spellings, so stop insulting people over it. You are being rude, arrogant, and crass in this case.
And yes, it was one of the stupidest things any non-lunatioc could have done (on the OP).
Definitely, considering what could have happened.
Following 9/11, the U.S., and the world to a lesser degree, were united in hunting down and punishing the terrorists responsible, and damaging the terrorist infrastructure as much as possible. If nothing else, 9/11 created a climate in which the U.S. had far more latitude to attack them than it did before. Say what you will about the success of the attacks on Afghanistan, I’m sure that Al Qaida and the Taliban would rather they not have happened.
Compare what did happen with what could have happened. The twenty terrorists who flew the planes could have individually strapped bombs to themselves and blown themselves up in crowded theatres, restaurants, or malls, one each week for twenty weeks, in a different major city each time. In short, they could have made the U.S. much more like Israel is now.
Imagine what the U.S. would be like then. Bush and Ashcroft would be seen as incompetent and unable to stop terrorism, or protect the U.S. Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. would be under direct attack. Think of the new security at the airport, and imagine the public effect of that level of security on every shopping center and entertainment district where people gather.
The U.S. has really suffered terrorism now, but it hasn’t yet suffered the real effects of terrorism: fear in the population, a seriously damaged economy, political instability, a politically fractured government. 9/11 was too much, too fast, and too short.
My guess is that perpetrators of 9/11 figured that either the U.S. would massively overreact, turning the tide of world opinion against them, or that the U.S. would withdraw as it did after the Battle of Mogadishu, or the Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
The attack on the WTCs involved Al Queda overdoing it. And, they sure got a reaction from the good US of A. Not a cowardly one like the French.
The major problem seems that they probably based their strategy on Mogadishu and this incomplete concept that Americans won’t accept any casualties. I know this is my opinion but I’ve always thought Americans won’t accept casualties fighting for someone else.(Which is how I and lot of Americans saw Somalia, the US fighting someone else’s battle.) Of course it is a bit early to tell what the final result of this act is going to be. However at this moment it seems they made a stupid mistake of turning this into America’s fight and underlining the concept that there is no choice but to fight.(The last time anyone did that was WW2 from what I remember of history.)
You know, I would like to believe that it is over. But can anyone say with any amount of confidence that there may not be more in store? Did they really just shoot their entire wad or was that the start? These people have a history of waiting a year or more before the next attack.
Yes, we have hurt them. Did we take them out though? Where exactly is Bin Laden? Do we have all the cells accounted for in the US? There just seems to be too much assumption that this is finished for my liking.
The attacks of 9/11 succeeded in promoting the implementation of significant restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals in the U.S. The Bush/Ashcroft religious fundamentalist regime has brought about a Christian Holy War mentality that has further alienated many of the world’s Muslims. Thus, I believe that the terrorists probably gained more than they could possibly have dreamed of.
Gosh, I love Gaudere’s Law.
Can you elaborate, please? It seems to me that Christians and non-Christian Americans, not to mention a huge portion of the outside world, are fairly united in condemning these terrorist attacks. Calling it a “Christian Holy War” strikes me as a reckless and grossly inaccurate label.
Bush did refer to it as a “crusade” at one point. That could be considered alienating to some.
For somebody being such an anal-retentive fuckwad about this, you’d think you would at least show a little consistency yourself.
Self righteous ass wipe.
:wally
Did anybody catch the irony about the depths of ignorance?
Yes, but that doesn’t make it a religious crusade – much less a Christian crusade. We often hear about PETA’s crusade for animal rights, or MADD’s crusade against drunk drivers. To take offense because Bush called this war a crusade – well, that’s just plain foolish.
Their objective was to further the cause of their brand of Islamism in the Arabic world, and to make a el-Kuieduh takeover more likely. This has been achieved to some limited extent. They’ve rallied their symphatizers and increased tensions with the West. On the other hand they’ve brought bombs, and more importantly more effective law enforcement and intelligence measures upon themselves.
But I wouldn’t call their tactics foolish. What they want is so extreme and so unlikely to happen, they need to use extreme and high-risk methods.
A country only develops an exit strategy when they are fighting someone elses war on someone elses soil. When your country is under attack the only exit strategy is victory or defeat.
The WTC attack was been a tactical victory, as was Pearl Harbor. Both attacks completed their objectives of inflicting massive damage. Pearl Harbor was a STRATEGIC failure because it did not achieve its desired results of keeping the US out of WWII. Who can say whether or not the the WTC was a strategic victory. It certainly brought a lot of attention to El Quesidia, however I don’t know if that is the best strategy for a shadowy terrorist organization that depends on operating in secret for its survival.