I see. Ok. Fair enough. I'd recommend you read my WHOLE post again...but we've moved on now, haven't we. :tongue:
Like I said, when groups talk about "al-Qaeda" I think they are talking an idea, a "movement" which consists of nothing more than disparate individuals and organisationally unconnected groups with a shared ideology. Like I said, I agree with Sir Ian Blair who said that "al-Qaeda is not an organisation, it is a way of working". It's a badge of honour, a way of legitimising themselves, making themselves sound big and threatening, when they are often powerless and unimportant. The letter from 2005 you link to talks exclusively about the regional political insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Insurgent movements which would not have existed had the west not invaded those two countries. Reading the letter in full it also seems clear how unconnected the insurgent leaders are, how little information has been shared, and how little co-ordination there is beyond a shared political and religious ideology and the fact they are both fighting against American occupying forces. It was not the orders of the head of an international movement to an affiliated movement, but a speculative attempt at communication between unconnected groups. Al-Zawahiri may well be the "head honcho" of a resistance movement in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border these days, that does not mean he has the ability to co-ordinate disparate "al-Qaeda" type groups or has the ability to plot anything beyond his local resistance against an occupying power. This letter seems like good evidence of that. It seems "al-Qaeda" can mean whatever and whoever we choose it to mean, from regional militant political insurgencies to international terror plots perpetrated by organisationally unconnected groups. As such, I put it to you that as the name of an international terrorist organisation, the concept is unhelpfully simplistic and perhaps meaningless. Like I said, please show me some evidence backing up this idea of "al-Qaeda prime" and affiliates. Like I said, the idea seems naive and not based in the evidence we have.
This is a question I've asked myself a lot. I opposed the war in Afghanistan from the start, but unlike Iraq, where I have always favoured immediate withdrawal, part of me feels that pulling out of Afghanistan to let the Taliban back in would be the greater of two evils for the long-suffering Afghan people. Troubled by my lack of clarity on this issue (cue name drop) I put this question to Tony Benn and he helped settle my mind. "It’s an unwinnable war. Every country has to work out its own internal problems. You can’t solve them with an invasion.” It’s a position to which he has remained consistent, despite his own political sympathies. “If we’d invaded South Africa to end Apartheid, there’d be bloodshed from that day to this.” I think that's very true. We can't continue to prop up Western puppet governments in the name of the Afghan people, any more than we could have used military force to put Nelson Mandela in power. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, accepting that we are no longer policemen of the world, but other countries do have to resolve their own internal problems without military intervention. That model simply does not work in the modern world. It causes far more problems than it solves.
I can't see how over a million civillians killed due to the situation that we directly created can ever be considered a moderate success. Not even removing Saddam justifies that. All we are doing is limiting the damage we have caused....
I won't dispute No.s, there is little point. The death toll is high and that definitely is a negative. I chose my words carefully, because triumphantism under such a heavy loss is rather vulgar. To the other 28,221,180 (est) people life is improving, slowly, imo... http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,633415,00.html If you wish to see it as a complete failure, feel free to do so...we all have to respect each others opinions, I guess.
As far as the international dimension is concerned, I agree with you - the shared ideology being the key component. I too think they are effectively unconnected groups, but ultimately they do all want the same thing. But I still do like the idea of that Venn diagram, I mentioned a few times. It is, perhaps, easier for individual groups to have their own power structure, that know the political dynamics and vulnerabilities etc, of the area they are within. They are also free to pursue individual goals, such as their own state and/or removal of none Muslim governments. Obviously at the moment, the main focus is on one of the key areas in the Muslim world, Al-Zawahiri, talks to, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, about their activities, in the particular war they are co-ordinating. They just happen to be "Al-Qaeda prime," Imo. (Btw, I thought I made up "Al-Qaeda prime," but it has been used once before: http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2007/06/gunning-for-al-qaeda-prime-stratfor.html.) During the war in Bosnia the focus was there... Other "battle grounds." 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 Burma (Myanmar) Chechnya 7 India 8 Iran 9 Iraq 10 Kashmir 11 Philippines 12 Somalia In the letter, Ayman al-Zawahiri's, praises some of them: There is endless footage of, Ayman Zawahiri, talking about his various global agendas, and Jihad, that doesn't involve what you describe as "local." No it doesn't. * ^ Do you see these "disparate groups" only operating in Iraq/Afghanistan and Pakistan? If so, I think you are wrong. Al-Qaeda backed groups are operating everywhere...according to your logic, they operated here too. It is perhaps true, the combination of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban wouldn't have occurred if "we" had not invaded those two countries. But, there would have still been conflict at some point, when both groups aims were not being met, by whom ever was around at that time. You are joking, right? Go nuts: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Al-Zawahiri+&meta= Al-Zawahiri, isn't the leader of a "resistance group", he is a terrorist charged with implementing/facilitating Jihad around the world. You make him sound almost romantic. It is true, he is primarily charged with implementing Jihad in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq and Egypt...which to him are "local" issues. It does seem like you wish to limit these people to resisting western occupation, and all they want is peace and quiet...if only that were true. I've never said "Al-Qaeda prime" was capable or was actively involved in co-ordinating International Terrorism by themselves. Unconnected groups in different Muslim countries or where Islamic fundamentalists seek to kill their enemies (such as here) are not being told what to do by "Al-quaeda prime," per se. If you want evidence of one multi-pronged assault by one cohesive group...I doubt it can be found...not in a lifetime anyway. I've just tried to provide evidence of "Al-qaeda prime"...but you seem to wish to reduce them to "resistance fighters" fighting an invasion, when neither men are originally from the area they are in now.. I do think "Al-Qaeda prime" are more actively and directly involved in what you consider "a resistance movement in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border" Even though their activities spread further than that and their mission isn't necessarily because we invaded Iraq and Afgahnistan. It is true "Al-Qaeda" is used quite a lot in various context...perhaps that is why you desire for them all to be connected or for them not to be referred as one whole mass...I can share that desire...but, the truth is the groups themselves add "Al-Qaeda" to their original names..so what can ya do! http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Al-Zawahiri+Al-Qaeda&meta= Happy hunting.
Liking an idea is not the same as that idea being credible or true. You say "al-Qaeda backed groups". I say groups who self-identify as al-Qaeda, with little evidence of organisational links... One intercepted message mentioning other battles against the west does not amount to evidence that these groups are organisationally related. It is evidence they are linked by nothing other than an anti-west ideology. Key phrase being "these days". I am aware of this character being on the scene for a number of years and operating in different theatres and contexts. I was challenging your specific claim that he is "al-Qaeda prime", ie that he is now orchestrating an international movement that could realistically be called al-Qaeda. It seems he is involved in the Afghan resistance based in the Afghan/Pakistan border these days. Where's the evidence that he (or anyone else) is "al-Qaeda prime"? If this is what you believe, then perhaps you will agree with my earlier suggestion that your "al-Qaeda prime" is simply one disparate group among many, with no organisational links to others. That is, not "al-Qaeda prime" in any meaningful sense whatsoever... You can try to be specific and precise in your use of language, rather than repeating the unhelpfully simplistic term as if it means something. The term "al-Qaeda" seems to be little more than a propaganda tool, on both sides.
I agree entirely :cheers2: lithium and odon I suggest you just have a straight punch-up, I can't bear anymore of this tedium.
That's why I wrote what I did above that particular line. If you look harder you will find a lot. Obviously not every single group is backed/supported/organised etc etc etc... but a fair few are. From Africa to Asia. I didn't try to suggest there were operational links...I said he was praising them. Plus I was just pointing out he mentioned other Jihadist wars. And it wasn't just anti-western ideology, btw. You're purposely diminishing the seriousness of that particular group. They are not "one disparate group among many" in the area they operate they are the main group. If you rounded all the Jihadi groups up arond the world they would stand out, and most would have heard of them. I doubt this could be said of many of the other groups. This doesn't prove that group is at the top of the tree... But, there is enough inteligence reports to suggest this is the case. I can't really provide a signed/spoken confession unless you can understand Arabic. Jihadist war, lithium...Jihadist war. Atleast lets agree on that point. I gave you a link for you to look through right at the end. I'm done trying to convince you on that one...just so you can either remove it from your reply or refer back to it not being enough evidence. Sorry. Perhaps so to a certain degree..but behind Al-Qaeda/Al-Qaeda facilitated group etc etc etc - each group has a name...such as Al-Shabaab.
Matthew, you gave me a google search. This is not formulating an argument or presenting evidence. This is telling me to search google in order to provide evidence for *your* claim. This is laughable. If you want to contribute meaningfully to the discussion please do so, I'm tired of this pointless waste of everyone's time.
Sorry, I'm aware this thread has been derailed by an increasingly pedantic and irrelevant discussion taking away from the original point. Matthew has a habit of irritatingly nitpicking every single last point made by anyone who doesn't share his views using this comment-by-comment technique which loses track of the original argument and fails to progress meaningful discussion. I shouldn't let myself get sucked in. Again. :troll:
You asked ME the questions...Lithium. You wanted ME to expalin every last utterance I made. Starting from post 15. You didn't get sucked in you actively and willing kept the ball rolling. If anybody can be accused of pedantry it is you. God, how rude are you sometimes.
So am I right now. Hence the link. If you can't find a way to move forward...lets quit shall we? It's been fun while it lasted and didn't descend into your last rude comment.
Apparently your idea of "quitting" is negative repping me and sending me a private message calling me a ****. I do enjoy the level of sophistication you bring to the forum, matthew
I called you a nasty ****. It was a perfectly civil conversation...till you turned on me...as usual. Hence the negative rep. If it was so civil why be a nasty ****? Reducing our civil conversation to you accusing me of trolling. It tends to be your usual way of ending things...vey unfair and not really needed. I just don't think you can help yourself. Perhaps you should keep your debates for other places and just keep posting Ian everywhere HERE.... I was a little angry at the time for you being a hypocrite, imo. But, if you felt it was too much...then I can apologise for that. I still do think you were being rude and nasty... "The Matthew! Proudly supporting war on these forums since 2004... " Something ELSE that isn't true. My word...you wonder why I get a little frustrated. On a lighter note: It did make me laugh when JT was moaning about us but contributed: I agree entirely ... and hasn't been back...atleast we were making this thread, erm...yeah. P.S: I'll positive rep - just for the hell of it...
Lol...No, I have never "proudly supported war." Obviously anybody with a different opinion to you on this particuar issue, must be "proudly supporting war" - I won't bite any further, though...it aint worth it...you won't listen.
