| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Terror Networks | |
| Al-Qaeda Beginning of the End, or Grasping at Straws | |
| 2007-10-11 | |
| |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #11 #4 is gener correct - IMO AL-QAEDA, despite heavy field and leadershiplosses and the likely current physical incapacitation of Osama Bin Laden, is getting ready for a final campaign to decide the fate of Iraq + a perceived US-Iran conflict. * GUAM K57 CALL-IN > TOPFF 4 ANTI-TERROR EXERCISE > demanded that US-Guam Officios tell local residents THAT IT IS ALREADY KNOWN THAT GUAM WILL NOT SURVIVE A MAJOR NUCLEAR DETONATION(S), plus to tell HOW MANY CHINESE MISSLES ARE POINTED AT GUAM RIGHT NOW [plus Taiwan, Philippines?]AS A CONSEQUENCE OF POTUS BUSH AND THE "US/AMERICAN" WOT. IMO the Caller prob thinks the USA is using terror = anti-terror as a PC excuse for new wars/US imperialism. *WESTPAC > soooo, besides China, Russia, Russia-China, etc, the USA andor the former now have RADICAL ISLAM to contend with in the WAR/BATTLE FOR THE PACIFIC = ASIA-PACIFIC. |
| Posted by: Josephmendiola 2007-10-11 21:32 |
| #10 "No matter how much we disagree with any person regardless of his approach, we cannot remove him from the circle of Islam, unless he commits a sin of unbelief." Perish the thought that flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers isn't sufficiently evil to represent a "sin of unbelief". Moreover, given that—in fact—it is not, what then does this tell us about the boundaries of acceptable behavior in Islam? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-10-11 17:47 |
| #9 I haven't seen much dancing in the streets of the muslim mideast lately. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-10-11 15:40 |
| #8 The irony is that in a piece warning against optimism, Scheur presents a very optimistic thesis. Al Qaeda would be destroyed, he tells us, by the removal of bin Laden as its head, but it hasn't happened yet. But it is in the nature of things that in time it will; it has to. His death, Scheur suggests, natural or otherwise, would effectively end the operational menace from al Q. Personal allegiance to him holds the organization together. There is no institutional framework likely to survive him. The war may be shorter if Scheur is correct about al Q's fragility. He also leaves aside the stronger argument that al Q is losing not because of internal rifts but because they are losing on the battlefield. The Sunnis of Anbar and Diyala are al Q's natural base. They lose them, they lose in Iraq. Lose in Iraq, lose almost everywhere. And losing they seem to be. Scheur critices the Bush administration for screwing up and making al Q stronger and the jihadi problem worse. But I read this piece as postive for the future. |
| Posted by: Baba Tutu 2007-10-11 14:27 |
| #7 Interesting article but it reminded me about Al Queda's goals. The goals are to take over the Muslim world first. The Saudi's know this so it's not a surprise Saudi religious leaders pop off against Al Queda once in awhile. As long as Al Queda is obviously aiming at the West it's okay to tacitly support them but the conflict has been going on next door for some time and the Saudi troublemakers are probably not crossing into Iraq to die as often as before, so the troublemakers will be at home in Saudi Arabia and the King and cronies finally have to do something. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-10-11 12:22 |
| #6 There are two Al Quedas. The real terrorist group and the ideal that motivates sudden Jihadi syndrome. We killed communism but somehow the ideal lived on, a thorn in our side to this day. We must continue to fight Al Queda until both the group and the Ideal are dead, then we need to mock it and hammer the stake home so that it can't come back. Fight the West, die like the rest. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-10-11 12:02 |
| #5 It would be good to examine the evolution of al-Qaeda, based on how we have culled it over time. That is, at the beginning, they were middle and upper classes, able to travel, set up elaborate support mechanisms and commit terrorist acts far away from their home countries. If al-Qaeda is effectively reduced to just Pakistan, and their fight is just to stay in Pakistan, they have ceased being a worldwide threat. They are entirely on defense. And the quality of their personnel is just local peasants. While those outside of Pakistan may call themselves al-Qaeda, they are just local freelancers, having no real connection left to the real al-Qaeda. As such, they are just like any home grown extremist movement, and can be dealt with the usual way. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-10-11 10:46 |
| #4 Al-Q may be on the wane in Iraq but in Pakistan its big and getting bigger. Scheuer puts in a lot of the theological give and take in Salafi bigwigs because he has some knowledge of it but the reality on the ground depends on more than this theological conflict. |
| Posted by: mhw 2007-10-11 10:28 |
| #3 It's nicely footnoted, though. And Mr. Scheuer does raise some interesting points about taqiyah in action. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-10-11 10:02 |
| #2 Nah, should be Opinion, because it's written by Michael Scheuer, who used to be important, when he was working for the Government (Chief of the bin Laden Section of CIA, 1996 to 1999), and now is presumed to have an axe to grind. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-10-11 09:50 |
| #1 Argh, should be op. Dang. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2007-10-11 08:56 |