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

Well, you said it... Wahabi Islam...

Let me tell you a joke.

One day, the Sunnis and the Chiites met in a mosque in Mecca to discuss witch school is the true school and then make peace.

And as usual, they took off their shoes at the doors. But the Sunnis took out their shoes and kept them in their hands while entering the mosque.
The Shiite ask them why they are keeping their shoes.

They answer them "we dont want to see you steal our shoes, since the time of the prophet Mohammed, the Shiites had the reputation of being thieves."

The shiites are angry and tell them "There was no Shiites at the time of the prophet Muhammad."

The sunnis answer them "oh really? Then there is no point debating if you school is the right Muslim school."

You see my friend, these are mixtures between religion and culture. Wahabism is the mix between Arabic culture and the strong language of the muslim religion.

It have a lot of influence, but only on the poorly educated people in these countries. When it comes to scholars, who have a huge influence... Democracy is compatible.

Wahabism is a mediocre version of Islam. And if its influence on terrorism is strong, its influence on the majority of Muslims is ridiculous.

I said clearly that this kind of extremism is ridiculously low...

Go see the most backward tribe in the Muslim world. Tell them that you bring democracy, and that they have to name a president... they will take out their guns to blast you...

Tell them that you want to help to name an emir. And they will listen to you.

Even the soldiers in Iraq have cultural training to make the cars stop at check points... The hand signals are different over there... But there is hand signals to make cars stop/slow down.

Same in politics.
 
Last edited:
I have said this before, on numerous occaisions, terrorists are criminals, pure and simple. They should be prosecuted under the rule of law, we should use the international courts to tackle them, as their operations tend to span many countries.

We need to move Afghanistan from a direct military confrontation into a civil infrastructure building and law and order focus. At the moment the Afghan police are sucking the hindmost and we have done very little to change or influence their behaviour, much has been mad of the Afghan military progress - but everyone bemoans the lack of change and corruption within the police, so what has changed over the last 9 years?

I know that most police organisations are not equipped to deal with the kind of threat that is faced in Afghanistan, but that is where the military can be used, to provide extra security and enable the rule of law to be enforced. Let's stop thinking about grand face offs and understand that the Taleban only want to fight on their terms, so let us take the fight to them on our terms. Enable the rule of law, support it with direct infrastructure development and protect it with the military, find, fix and destroy is not the only way to nullify your enemy.
 
03USMC said:
What part of democracy is not compatable with Wahabbi Islam do you not get?
Click to expand...

Who said Afghanistan would be a Democracy? its not even a Democracy now.

This crazy notion that we can build nations in our image needs to go, it has failed in practically every situation it has been tried. Nation building is a busted idea, we should focus on Afghanistans stability.

What will happen is we will appoint some warlord in charge, maybe Hamid Karzai maybe someone else. This warlord will attempt to keep the other warlords in line. This warlord will agree not tolerate any terror cells in Afghanistan. As long as he agrees to that NATO will leave him alone and in charge.
 
Well, from a French point of view, the USA are not a real democracy...

And from an universal point of view, every nation that recognize Saudi Arabia as a legitimate country is a corrupt regime.

To put things simple... The only democracy I know in the world is Mali. I dont know about the other countries... Maybe some "scandinavian" countries... Sweder, Finland etc... And maybe Canada... But anything else... No highly educated people, no democracy...
 
mmarsh said:
Who said Afghanistan would be a Democracy? its not even a Democracy now.

This crazy notion that we can build nations in our image needs to go, it has failed in practically every situation it has been tried. Nation building is a busted idea, we should focus on Afghanistans stability.

What will happen is we will appoint some warlord in charge, maybe Hamid Karzai maybe someone else. This warlord will attempt to keep the other warlords in line. This warlord will agree not tolerate any terror cells in Afghanistan. As long as he agrees to that NATO will leave him alone and in charge.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one that brought up the demoracy angle. Your cohort did;-)
 
I might be just tossing two cents in, but it seems to me that Hearts And Minds pretty much failed.... in all uses.... and given the degree that these supposed "muslim" groups will take to make a point, even to blow up and kill their own blood and family in the name of being able to say 'Martyr'..... there is only one solution. Decimation by attrition.
Leave the civilan population alone. Help them. Assist them. Bad guys? Take them out.
Bring the Marines, the Army, SAS, all that could be rounded up.
 
It's a little more complex than that.

It's better to admit that we barely understand the mindset in these countries. The cultural differences can be huge in some situations.

We are going against the very nature of these people in some areas.

How to free Iraq without giving Iran an ally at his borders? knowing that the relation between Iran and Iraq is somehow like the relation between the Vatican and a country with a majority of Catholics.

And there is many issues like that... The world is really messed up.

the Muslims are just angry... The Saudis are wasting the biggest natural resource in history. And the Americans are extremely happy with this situation.
Iraq is a country with a huge potential, they have oil and human resources, they had an excellent education system back in the time, yet, the US government supported a dictator, sold weapons to both sides in Iran Iraq war, wasted the country when it was trying to take its property (Kuweit is an Iraqi province full of oil), starved the country in 10 years and gave the whole country as a present to terrorism with a disastrous campaign...

And then you have Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Algeria, Palestine... We took a huge civilization, and we treated it crap... We destroyed their culture through colonization and we are sucking them dry...

Now, it's easy to use this shame/guilt/anger to produce something like... I dont know... terrorism maybe?

We have to stop waging economic war on other countries... By the way, we are losing this war. The Chinese are kicking our butts... And other countries are sneaking on us.

We shouldnt put human beings on the food chain under us... Because they can jump and get above.
 
Last edited:
What is really stupid, is the thought that the world is a safer place when we DON'T destroy a terrorist.

THE WORLD IS A SAFER PLACE WHEN WE KILL ANOTHER TERRORIST - TOP OF THE RANK AND FILE OR NOT.
 
Chief Bones said:
What is really stupid, is the thought that the world is a safer place when we DON'T destroy a terrorist.

THE WORLD IS A SAFER PLACE WHEN WE KILL ANOTHER TERRORIST - TOP OF THE RANK AND FILE OR NOT.
Click to expand...

Chief...

Its a question of the means not the ends.

If a target is riding in a car and he were to have a very unfortunate encounter with a Hellfire Missile fired from a Predator and laser tagged by a SF team nobody sees. Nobody will care, not even the Muslims.

But when you have 120,000 high-profile troops stomping around the country side looking willy-nilly for "terrorists" it attracts the wrong type of attention from local tribe groups who feel threatened by our presence or those simply looking for a fight with the USA.

And the worst thing about it is that type of operation will never ends. Because the fact that you see non-muslim troops in muslim lands it acts as a PR lighting rod for terrorist recruitment. You kill 1 and another 10 take their place.

We can keep pursuing terrorists, but we must do it low-key, because having NATO troops in Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan only widens the conflict as we have already seen.
 
Killing the al-Qaeda number three is pretty insignificant. Even killing Bin Laden himself isn't very important. Radical Islam is here to stay. All this "top-down" hierarchical military thinking is so passe. So is the idea of "winning' which is a moronic American sports metaphor. We are living in an age of 4th Generation Warfare; a time when military power is becoming extremely decentralized. Non-state "actors" are the wave of the future. Political and religious movements increasingly transcend national boundaries. Large and unwieldy multi-ethnic states like the US and the old Soviet Union are going the way of the dinosaur. A bunch of semi-primitive mountain tribesmen in Afghanistan fought the old Soviet Army to a standstill and now they are doing the same with the US. The problem for the US is how many millions of dollars is it going to cost to kill one semi-literate Taliban fighter with a rusty Lee-Enfield? Sure the Afghans are brave, but they are not supermen. Its just that counterinsurgency is so insanely expensive that when a modern military force goes up against nearly any reasonably determined guerilla foe, the guerilla wins even if he "loses" in the strict military sense. Overreacting to terrorist attacks by engaging in extended counterinsurgency operations in two countries is falling into a trap for us set by our enemies. Invading and setting up puppet states in Iraq and Afghanistan might make the hicks, yahoos and jingoes happy on the home front, but it really doesn’t solve the problem of Islamicist terrorism in the US. The correct response to 9/11 should have been: Bomb Afghanistan for a few months for the sake of slaking domestic blood-lust and spend a few billion more on improved human intelligence and law enforcement resources for better terrorism prevention domestically. Anything else would be the kind of overreaction our enemies actually want.
 
Last edited:
How would an insurgency like the one in Afghanistan react to and invading force that used a brutal scorched earth invasion plan, then occupied the country with extreme prejudice? You know, like an "evil power", basically ignoring human rights and using fear as a tool by any brutal means necessary?

I am just peering into the situation from the other end of the looking glass.
 
1,000th or 1st ....................

MMARSH ...

Sorry ... as far as I am concerned, the notion that American troops are 'storm troopers' set on depriving citizens of their human rights, is a bunch of hooey. American troops were introduced into both Afghanistan and Iraq (though I didn't support the policies in Iraq) to ensure that their citizens would have a chance to form a government that supported the citizens themselves instead of a suppressive religious bigoted regime. After the governments are capable of defending themselves, American troops will withdraw UNLESS the governments request a 'peace keeper' force remain.

As far as I am concerned, I DON'T CARE WHO KILLS TERRORISTS AS LONG AS THEY ARE KILLED (AND THAT INCLUDES THE TERRORIST WHO IS 1,000TH ON THE LIST AS WELL AS THE TERRORIST WHO IS NUMBER 1).

Way too many innocents have already been killed.
 
I think Chief Bones has to seperate US propaganda from actual US policy. If actual US policy is to bring "democracy" to Afghanistan, then the people that rule us are indeed insane. Apart from a few eccentrics, I don't think anybody believes in Democracy in Afghanistan. The opposition to the Taliban is mostly ethnic and religious, namely the non-Sunni and non-Pashtun elements of society, not believers in "democracy" and fighters against "a suppressive religious bigoted regime."
 
It's hard to see how you can bring any western value like democracy to Afghanistan, when as you say CornCord the region has been in conflict for thousands of years, more recently in tribal and ethic tensions, things I do not believe are dealt with that often in the west anymore. Honestly I believe with anyone here has stated the obvious already, it does indeed seem that the average Afghani citizen, does not care for such outlandish outsider ideals such as fighting for "freedom, and peace" in their country.

And as for strategy of cutting off the head of the snake. It is indeed hard to use predators, and satellite imaging to defeat a force that pretty much uses goat herders, and bicycle couriers as means of delivering important messages across borders and in other countries in the region. Simplicity can have hidden advantages sometimes.
 
It should be the people's choice ...

Sukio ...
Personally I could give a damn whether there ends up being an Afghani government based upon democracy or not (although I favor that type of government)...
IT SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE..
​
Whether it is a satrap, a religious theocracy ....it is nobody's business except the Afghan people's what form their government takes.

  • BOTTOM LINE:
IT IS THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE..
​



​


​
 
Chief Bones, I am not saying I do not agree with you, it's just I do not believe that the people seem to care as much for the American ideal of Democracy, and more for tribal and ethnic ideals, its as if they do not choose democracy, but something like a feudal governing system.

What would really help learning about this, is there anyone here on the IMF who has worked with Afghani civilians and military personnel before on a deployment to the country? What was their general attitude to the Coalition effort to democratize their country?

Thanks

This is beginning to prompt me to want to research the ethic composition of the country, and how they have been governed over the centuries, I am not going to make the mistake of saying that they are ideologically behind the times, they seem to have the capability to be a very clever and devious enemy, imagine if the factions in the country that are not against the coalition used this to better the lives of their inhabitants. But the place is even today rich in culture, even if is alien to Western counterparts.
 
Last edited:
Yossarian said:
How would an insurgency like the one in Afghanistan react to and invading force that used a brutal scorched earth invasion plan, then occupied the country with extreme prejudice? You know, like an "evil power", basically ignoring human rights and using fear as a tool by any brutal means necessary?

I am just peering into the situation from the other end of the looking glass.
Click to expand...


Ask the Russians.
 
Some people here speak like medieval war lords... All they can think about is more violence.

"things arent going well on the battlefield? hmmm, let's try nasty tactics."
"but sir, the tactics are already very nasty."
"okay, let's try something even nastier."

It's not just criminal, it's inhuman, criminal AND dumb... because it doesnt work...

If you invade Afghanistan like an "evil power" like you say, then you might crush Afghanistan... Maybe... But all the justice loving people all over the world will start to fight you. Think about friendly countries... Like in Europe who cant hold their population unless they promise them to fight for justice and freedom...

It's like cutting the branch supporting you... People need justice to survive. we need at least an illusion of justice to live. At least. We barely have that... take that out and the whole society would collapse.

The biggest weapon the terrorists have uses this very principle. They see us as a corrupt system, crushed under his own weight... If you give them that, all they have to do is sit while we destroy ourselves...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top