The Killing of al-Qaeda's No. 3: Does It Matter? (Time.com)

N

News Manager

Milforums News Bot
Time.com - Taking out terror suspects in Pakistan has little impact on U.S. security, today, because the Qaeda leadership there is on the run. The greater threat to America comes from homegrown militants

Read more...
 
I happen to disagree with the FBI agent ... it does matter that we continue to take out the upper-echelon of the Al Qaeda's leadership. The more we decimate them, the weaker they are .. and while I have to agree that terrorists at home continue to be a problem, training continues to be at the hands of foreign groups. That means that the more we impact these groups, the more we will impact our home grown terrorists.

I believe in overkill ... and ... the more of these wackos we kill, the safer I will feel (both over seas as well as at home).
 
Sure, but tell us how he ended.

I still think we can fight terrorism effeciently with peanut butter. Some people are ruthless, and the reaction of their victims is to produce worse people to deal with them.
 
I'm still confused by the whole number 3 thing, it is obviously a crappy job, because by my reckoning we've killed or bagged 6 no3's in the last 4 years - yet nothing changes!

We've got to stop thinking about these people as ignorant savages, they've grown up in conflict and have learnt lessons the hard way. For every single one there is another waiting to take his place, each more willing to stamp his authority and identity on the "no 3" role, ususally through more action!

It is time we considered how can we bring these people to the table. I'm not sure of the qoute but it likens terrorism to the hydra. At the moment I feel that we creating a list of martyrs and a recruitment ad for Al Quaida and the Taliban second to none. We have to tackle them at the roots, strangle the support, then we might see some realistic gains, lopping off hydra heads is a long term prospect that I don't think we in the West have the stomach or spirit for.
 
I'm still confused by the whole number 3 thing, it is obviously a crappy job, because by my reckoning we've killed or bagged 6 no3's in the last 4 years - yet nothing changes!
Click to expand...

It's probably one of the more important jobs. 1 and 2 are there as figureheads while the No. 3 probably runs the organization which makes him more visible which means there is more risk of getting taken out.
 
My point is that there is nothing to learn from Vlad. He was a butcher and a sadist. I know we can learn from a lot of things, but come on... There is nothing interesting to learn here.

His head ended on a spear.

We know that we can use some horrible methods to destroy the enemy's moral. But isnt that a kind of defeat? The day we will ask our men to mutilate fallen enemies to scare them... We will be common criminals.

We need civilized methods to reach our objectives. Some warlords think that these methods cost too much. But if we look carefully, these methods are the cheapest.

Because the other methods dont work... Unless we have corrupt objectives like slaughtering people and looting.

There is some conclusions we have to understand:
1- terrorism is here to stay. Mankind learned a new trick, and it's called terrorism. Like crime, it will exist as long as there men and laws.
2- We have to find an adapted way to fight terrorism, to keep it at a minimum. Like we do with crime.
 
Well O3, once you start the negotiation it's hard to stop.

We start with nasty tactics, and few years later, will move to the next step. And then, it's medieval times all over again.

And where do you see an utopia? In the contrary, I say that we cant destroy terrorism. It's here to stay. Mankind learned this new trick, and it wont give it up.

Now what we can do is make people less desperate. The more we are agressive with terrorists, the more desperate they are. And we will do big mistakes in the way, and not just collateral damage in firefights, I mean supporting dictators and such... And we would be fueling terrorism.

The only solution to terrorism is in politics.

We have to find a balanced way to live our lives. We have to stop our needs for foreign oil.
To secure these ressources, we allow corrupt regimes to exist (Saudi Arabia). We sell out democracy to secure ressources. If we let the people in these countries take power. They will probably fight each others... But we wouldnt be directly concerned as we will have less strategic interests over there.

It's the whole political system that we would have to change. And of course, there will be terrorism even in that ideal political situation. Some people would rather take political power by force. But in this case, we will have the public support when fighting it.
 
03USMC said:
Yes giving into demands is always the best course of action.
Click to expand...

As opposed to continuing the war as it is? How's that going by the way? Are the Taliban destroyed? Is Al Qaeda gone? Whats the ETA only declaring total victory. What's that? The Taliban are actually stronger now than at any previous time? That they are now expanding their influence throughout the country? That the Central Afghani government is both corrupt and incompetent? That basically there is absolutely no end in sight and that our chances of a victory are practically nil?

Reality check: If we were going to win this one, we would have by now.

I am currently a book about Greek Resistance movement on Crete. The Topology of Crete is identical to Afghanistan (except its an Island) and so are the people. Both the Cretan and the Afghani people are simple, uneducated, very nationalistic, hotheaded, and extremely violent. The Cretans made the Nazis stay absolutely miserable. They would hit the Germans very hard and than vanish into the mountains. The more the Nazis tightened the leash, the more defiant the locals became.

Learn from History. We AREN'T going to win this one with military force alone.
After all, its only been 7 years of bloody stalemate. The US involvement in WWI and WWII combined was shorter. This should now be obvious.

Negotiation a peace is a much better idea. Negotiating means they get something, we get something, and both of us can go on with our lives.

Most of the "taliban" are not really actually taliban, they are remote communities independent tribes (again like Crete) who don't like armies in their backyard. The Real Taliban/al Qaeda are in Pakistan and have been since 2002. Its time to end this charade, its accomplishing nothing excepting for getting lots of young people killed.
 
03, giving up to demands? Where I said that exactly?

If the demands are fair, we should give them up before they turn to terrorism.

I say that if you deny people their freedom and their rights. I mean basic rights like equality. Then you deserve a shotgun blast in the face.

So if their demands are freedom and democracy... Then yeah, I would give up to terrorists if they are asking for that.

Isnt that killing terrorism with democracy? where is the problem in that?

And yeah, I'm the kind of idealist who blame rich countries for taking the resources of the world. I'm the kind to ask the average American to take the bus. Call me a monster for that.

Terrorism was made by our society. Because we live in an unfair world. And this world doesnt make us happy... It's not doing it's job. So we have to change it. Some of us rather let the world change us. We are asked to protect it by all means at all costs. Some are ready to sell their souls to the devil to protect it.

It's dying... You dont want to follow this system. It's falling apart.
 
mmarsh said:
As opposed to continuing the war as it is? How's that going by the way? Are the Taliban destroyed? Is Al Qaeda gone? Whats the ETA only declaring total victory. What's that? The Taliban are actually stronger now than at any previous time? That they are now expanding their influence throughout the country? That the Central Afghani government is both corrupt and incompetent? That basically there is absolutely no end in sight and that our chances of a victory are practically nil?

Reality check: If we were going to win this one, we would have by now.

I am currently a book about Greek Resistance movement on Crete. The Topology of Crete is identical to Afghanistan (except its an Island) and so are the people. Both the Cretan and the Afghani people are simple, uneducated, very nationalistic, hotheaded, and extremely violent. The Cretans made the Nazis stay absolutely miserable. They would hit the Germans very hard and than vanish into the mountains. The more the Nazis tightened the leash, the more defiant the locals became.

Learn from History. We AREN'T going to win this one with military force alone.
After all, its only been 7 years of bloody stalemate. The US involvement in WWI and WWII combined was shorter. This should now be obvious.

Negotiation a peace is a much better idea. Negotiating means they get something, we get something, and both of us can go on with our lives.

Most of the "taliban" are not really actually taliban, they are remote communities independent tribes (again like Crete) who don't like armies in their backyard. The Real Taliban/al Qaeda are in Pakistan and have been since 2002. Its time to end this charade, its accomplishing nothing excepting for getting lots of young people killed.
Click to expand...

What do we mean by "peace" in Afghanistan anyway?

Afghanistan has been a partially governed and often violent country for hundreds of years. Its central governments have rarely been strong enough to fully rein in regional warlords, who have often used criminal or mercenary enterprises to support themselves. The West should therefore have modest ambitions when it comes to "peace" in Afghanistan. Important as it is to work for a country where human rights are in full flower, a strong and beneficent central government provides services and all girls are educated, this is not likely in the foreseeable future. From a purely western point of view, an acceptable peace in Afghanistan may well be a situation where the country is not used as a base for trans-national terrorist groups (as it was for al-Qaeda), and where the drug trade is under some semblance of control.

Of course, a more ambitious agenda would include human rights and economic and social development. These are not trivial matters, and there is a strong case to be made that the long-term stability of Afghanistan is dependent on them. But are these matters that are likely to come after "peace" (or, more accurately, some degree of stability) is achieved.

But such processes can take a long time to bring conflicting parties to the point where they can launch official talks. Often, they are measured in years. Sometimes parties initially enter Track Two dialogues not so much with the intention of making peace, as that of trying to gauge the other side's willingness and ability to fight on. This leads to one of the key determinants of when a conflict may end: whether the fighting parties are sufficiently exhausted to stop fighting. Most conflicts end either when one side wins, or when both gradually come to the realization that they cannot win and cannot sustain the effort. In the latter case, it is rarely clear, either to the outside world or the conflicting parties, when such a ripe moment is occurring. Instead, even as some on each side begin to consider whether a negotiated settlement is possible and might be a better option, each side continues to test the other for weakness in order to determine whether it might still be worth fighting on to victory.

Can we negotiate with the Taliban? What are they likely to want? One of the first objectives of any process, Track Two or otherwise, is to find out if the Taliban are prepared and able to take part. The Taliban have advanced a set of conditions for peace. These included the removal of all foreign forces and the creation of a state based on a very strict interpretation of Islamic law. While many of these conditions were unacceptable to the Afghan government and the West, the fact that they were put forward at all is interesting. But we do not know whether they were put forward as the first step in a long process of trading concessions towards a compromise, or as a "take it or leave it" proposition. The Taliban themselves may not know; they may have been testing the waters to see how the Afghan government and the international community react. Indeed, other questions are raised by this list of conditions: Are the Taliban a sufficiently unified group to be able to make strategic decisions and compromises over time, or are they, as many are coming to appreciate, more a group of factions that may lack the discipline to negotiate over time and stick to decisions? Does the fact that there are differences between factions of the Taliban mean that getting a meaningful agreement will be impossible, or does it permit us an opening for talks with more moderate factions, even if the hardliners may never agree to compromises? None of the answers to these questions are clear, and they are unlikely to be for some time. But only some form of talks -- official or not -- will reveal the answers.

Can we still achieve our objectives by fighting? Is this apparent willingness of some on the other side to talk a sign of weakness? Is it a deception to lull us into dropping our guard?" A weakening of the overall ability to militarily resist the Taliban will not aid the process of making peace; it will likely hinder it. If we leave the southern part of Afghanistan and if the overall ability of the coalition to resist the Taliban is thereby diminished, then the Taliban may take it as a signal that it is worthwhile to keep fighting rather than seriously negotiate. Perhaps a wiser course would be for NATO to hold out the prospect of phased withdrawal of combat forces. That may provide an incentive to the Taliban, or its moderate elements.
 
LeMask said:
03, giving up to demands? Where I said that exactly?

If the demands are fair, we should give them up before they turn to terrorism.

I say that if you deny people their freedom and their rights. I mean basic rights like equality. Then you deserve a shotgun blast in the face.

So if their demands are freedom and democracy... Then yeah, I would give up to terrorists if they are asking for that.

Isnt that killing terrorism with democracy? where is the problem in that?

And yeah, I'm the kind of idealist who blame rich countries for taking the resources of the world. I'm the kind to ask the average American to take the bus. Call me a monster for that.

Terrorism was made by our society. Because we live in an unfair world. And this world doesnt make us happy... It's not doing it's job. So we have to change it. Some of us rather let the world change us. We are asked to protect it by all means at all costs. Some are ready to sell their souls to the devil to protect it.

It's dying... You dont want to follow this system. It's falling apart.
Click to expand...

Osama Bin Laden clearly stated his view that democracies, constitutional governments, and insufficiently Islamic monarchies are equally unacceptable forms of governance for Islamic societies because they empower human rulers and man-made legal systems rather than "the law of God." Al Zarqawi expanded on these sentiments in a January 2005 statement that characterized democracy as a rival "religion" to Islam and criticized adherence to democratic principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion as un-Islamic and tantamount to apostasy punishable by death. A statement released by Al Zarqawi's group following Iraq's January 2005 election stated that, "we shall not accept the rule of anyone but that of God and His Prophet [Mohammed]."

So what should we do with this guy Bin Laden?
 
You go to war when all other options have been depleted, and then you go to win, nomatter what.

//KJ.
 
Well Naddoður, Bin Laden cant speak in the name of the muslim world.

If I had to resume the situation, I would say that in the Muslim countries everybody shuts his mouth... You speak about politics, you better not speak about important issues. Because if you ask for real democracy, if you ask to fight corruption, you get silenced, murdered, tortured etc...

So who opens it? Well, it's the extremists. And among the extremists, there is a minority that supports terrorism.

If we started today to support real democracy. By pressuring the ruling elites over there (let's be honest, we got them by the balls) to let their opposing political parties to speak and maybe take power.

We will see some new groups coming out of dark areas. Moderate Muslims etc... And even religious extremists, who are opposed to our values, but opposed to terrorism in the name of their religious values. Yes, they do exist.

These terrorists you fear so much will be overwhelmed. Right now, we silenced all the religious voices in these areas. So the only who dare to speak are the extremists... We can sink them easily, they are a minority and ridiculously small one.

We will then have allies who know very well our enemies to fight them. dont forget that all the losses we had because of terrorism is a joke next to the losses the Muslim had from terrorism. We started to count the 9/11. Ask Algeria about terrorism... They know their stuff.

We dont know anything about the Muslim world... And we are too arrogant to learn fast enough. Ben Laden is a joke...

And Naddoður, my dear friend, democracy is a huge idea. It can find some room, and even in hardcore Islamic countries it can find some room.

We have all over the world Muslim scholars who say that democracy is compatible with their religious beliefs.
And it's not a new concept for them neither... The Muslims use the "Shura" model since the beginning. It's some kind of council of elders/specialists. Like a parliament. And they have voting and naming of their emirs (local presidents with oral mandates) since the beginning...

Those who say that we cant export democracy everywhere are wrong... Just that they are a little "backward" and that they forgot about their own principles. These countries are in a political lethargy for centuries now...

i'm not a military expert, but I can find my way in indigenous politics... And I can assure you that it's possible to build a working and real democracy in Muslim countries just by using their own laws and rules.

The problem is that when we export democracy, we do it the wrong way... And they cant accept it. And we understand easily why when we remember the colonial era.
http://www.yabiladi.com/forum/profile/1/270688
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top