The Killing of al-Qaeda's No. 3: Does It Matter? (Time.com)
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
And when there is a conflict involving Muslims and non Muslims, it is very silly to blindly support the Muslims.
Which is almost always the case unfortunately.
Which is almost always the case unfortunately.
I dont know if there is so many people supporting "Muslims". Honestly, never met someone supporting the "Muslims"...
Most say something like "I dont like Muslims" and they add "but I understand why they are fighting..."
These is the maximum level of support they can get... So I dont think it's the case.
But I could support the Muslim side if I had to... I dont like aggressors...
Most say something like "I dont like Muslims" and they add "but I understand why they are fighting..."
These is the maximum level of support they can get... So I dont think it's the case.
But I could support the Muslim side if I had to... I dont like aggressors...
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I don't like instabilities in a region that harbor people who belong to aggressive groups, whether if they are Islamic based extremist, or otherwise. In which even in that case, they don't just attack the west, they attack other Muslims.
Neither case is acceptable on any terms, and neither case is anything that I would remotely advocate. Many people in a whole lot of places claim to share this attitude.
As far as understanding the enemy at hand, for the general public having anti Islams sentiments, I truly think it is because of lack of education of Muslim Culture, and the difference that the extremist have, then towards all other Muslims. Let's face it, people in everyday walks of life, don't want to have a history lesson, or a crash course in another culture, they want to go home and sleep at the end of the day.
This has happened before in human history , in other groups of individuals, and extremist.
Neither case is acceptable on any terms, and neither case is anything that I would remotely advocate. Many people in a whole lot of places claim to share this attitude.
As far as understanding the enemy at hand, for the general public having anti Islams sentiments, I truly think it is because of lack of education of Muslim Culture, and the difference that the extremist have, then towards all other Muslims. Let's face it, people in everyday walks of life, don't want to have a history lesson, or a crash course in another culture, they want to go home and sleep at the end of the day.
This has happened before in human history , in other groups of individuals, and extremist.
True, true...
But I dont want to bash the establishment again, but the powerful people who act in the sake of "stability" are most of the time people who dont care about the people who will die for this "stability" or the people who will suffer from it. they only care about the stability for economic reasons.
There is a lot of unstable regions in the world, but we dont give a damn about them... Really none. It's only when they touch a critical part of the economy, like oil... Then, someone jumps on the panic button...
Somalia? No one gave a damn, but the day they attack tankers, we hear about pirates all over the news... Same problem in Iraq.
Stability is only a tool, a parameter. Some powerful people somewhere decide when to rise or drop it... They want stability sometimes, and sometimes, they want this instability to disappear. Some businesses work very well in chaos. When you want to intervene, you love instability, when you want to sell guns and mercenaries, you love instability...
You want stability when you want to build ressorts and hotels, maybe a little industry... But if there is good money there, the stability will fly out the window... And if they have to send a soldier or two to die from time to time to tell the world that they are trying to fix things up... They will... their blood is cheap... And if the families moan about it, they will send mercenaries...
But I dont want to bash the establishment again, but the powerful people who act in the sake of "stability" are most of the time people who dont care about the people who will die for this "stability" or the people who will suffer from it. they only care about the stability for economic reasons.
There is a lot of unstable regions in the world, but we dont give a damn about them... Really none. It's only when they touch a critical part of the economy, like oil... Then, someone jumps on the panic button...
Somalia? No one gave a damn, but the day they attack tankers, we hear about pirates all over the news... Same problem in Iraq.
Stability is only a tool, a parameter. Some powerful people somewhere decide when to rise or drop it... They want stability sometimes, and sometimes, they want this instability to disappear. Some businesses work very well in chaos. When you want to intervene, you love instability, when you want to sell guns and mercenaries, you love instability...
You want stability when you want to build ressorts and hotels, maybe a little industry... But if there is good money there, the stability will fly out the window... And if they have to send a soldier or two to die from time to time to tell the world that they are trying to fix things up... They will... their blood is cheap... And if the families moan about it, they will send mercenaries...
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
That's how global factions have been working for almost all of recorded history, the powers to be, not just governmental, but corporate development and such will not occur unless there is some benefit, whether a benefit involving one or both parties involved will occur. That just seems like the way things work when you run into an crucial question.
How much are you, the citizen, willing to part with to meet your moral standards? Seriously, people who condem certain actions in places like Afghanistan, which has little resources that are legal, or even in resource rich places like portions of Africa and parts of South America, will quickly turncoat and go silent when the things they enjoy or depend everyday rely on those very acquisition practices they speak out against.
No developed country today can survive without securing interests abroad, it is a must. And trade is not always an option.
And that's not my opinion this time.
How much are you, the citizen, willing to part with to meet your moral standards? Seriously, people who condem certain actions in places like Afghanistan, which has little resources that are legal, or even in resource rich places like portions of Africa and parts of South America, will quickly turncoat and go silent when the things they enjoy or depend everyday rely on those very acquisition practices they speak out against.
No developed country today can survive without securing interests abroad, it is a must. And trade is not always an option.
And that's not my opinion this time.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
You misunderstand me.
I mean if a Muslim and a non Muslim have a conflict, other Muslims will support the Muslim no matter what.
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
That's completely understandable, on much smaller scales of course, I have been in conflicts where I opted to support someone regardless of the ground solely on the basis I was in the same social group as them.
I am sure at some point we are all guilty of it.
Unfortunatly, not everyone idolizes honor and justice, either cause it is not convinent or they just don't care.
I don't like that fact anymore than the next honest guy, but those people are still out there, even today.
I am sure at some point we are all guilty of it.
Unfortunatly, not everyone idolizes honor and justice, either cause it is not convinent or they just don't care.
I don't like that fact anymore than the next honest guy, but those people are still out there, even today.
Seehund
Banned
At least 10 times in the last ten years, al-Qaeda has lost a senior operative who was described as No. 3 in their hierarchy. Each time, they quickly appointed a successor. It demonstrates a resilience that has enabled it to survive a dozen years in open war with the U.S. Al-Qaeda, it seems, has gotten used to replace Nr 3, a particularly high risk job that involve monitoring of terrorist plots, recruiting, raising money and providing internal security.
But Yazid will not primarily be missed because of his operational value to al-Qaeda or his military insight. He built his reputation as an al-Qaeda's moneyman and bin Laden's senior administrator, not as a strategist or fighter. The main reason to Yazid's loss is such a setback for al-Qaeda is because of his close and enduring ties to Mullah Omar, leader of the Afghan Taliban. So far, Mullah Omar have refused to reject al-Qaeda or give promise to hold the organization out of Afghanistan if the Taliban would return to a position of power. Without Yazid al-Qaeda is in a very weak position to argue against such concessions. His death may be a signal to end the close ties between al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban - for it was Yazid, more than any other figure that was the driving force of the special relationship between the two groups. So Yazid's death may be a severe blow to al Qaeda's links with the Afghan Taliban and a return to safe refuge there.
But when it comes to launch attacks in the West, as long as al-Qaeda operatives have a safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there will unfortunately be no end to the ambitious up-and-coming terrorists who can take his place. It makes it even more necessary to further isolate Al-Qaeda, both from his former allies in Afghanistan and from the area where it can train recruits for new attacks in the West.
But Yazid will not primarily be missed because of his operational value to al-Qaeda or his military insight. He built his reputation as an al-Qaeda's moneyman and bin Laden's senior administrator, not as a strategist or fighter. The main reason to Yazid's loss is such a setback for al-Qaeda is because of his close and enduring ties to Mullah Omar, leader of the Afghan Taliban. So far, Mullah Omar have refused to reject al-Qaeda or give promise to hold the organization out of Afghanistan if the Taliban would return to a position of power. Without Yazid al-Qaeda is in a very weak position to argue against such concessions. His death may be a signal to end the close ties between al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban - for it was Yazid, more than any other figure that was the driving force of the special relationship between the two groups. So Yazid's death may be a severe blow to al Qaeda's links with the Afghan Taliban and a return to safe refuge there.
But when it comes to launch attacks in the West, as long as al-Qaeda operatives have a safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there will unfortunately be no end to the ambitious up-and-coming terrorists who can take his place. It makes it even more necessary to further isolate Al-Qaeda, both from his former allies in Afghanistan and from the area where it can train recruits for new attacks in the West.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Thank you for the insight!
Excuse me, but when was the last time they bombed someone and said "oh, he was completely useless, but we did it anyway just for the hell of it and because we were out of beer."
The ties between the Taliban and AQ? One person? Is this serious?
I know one thing about the tribal systems, when they adopt a pact, two influent people sign the pact and declare it publicly, and everyone who heard about it behaves like if he was the one to sign the pact...
The links between two big groups like that isnt just in some interpersonal relations... It's much more complex than that.
It's ideological, religious, politic, military (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), cultural, economical, commercial... The list is huge. And each category is complex. A marriage is a strong tie between two groups.
The only difference between a Taliban and an AQ fighter, I believe, is that a Taliban is a Pashtun, while the AQ fighter in Afghanistan is an Arab at the beginning.
Think of AQ as the Marines of the Taliban or something... Their expeditionary force or something.
They wont start to kill each others because you killed some dude...
The ties between the Taliban and AQ? One person? Is this serious?
I know one thing about the tribal systems, when they adopt a pact, two influent people sign the pact and declare it publicly, and everyone who heard about it behaves like if he was the one to sign the pact...
The links between two big groups like that isnt just in some interpersonal relations... It's much more complex than that.
It's ideological, religious, politic, military (the enemy of my enemy is my friend), cultural, economical, commercial... The list is huge. And each category is complex. A marriage is a strong tie between two groups.
The only difference between a Taliban and an AQ fighter, I believe, is that a Taliban is a Pashtun, while the AQ fighter in Afghanistan is an Arab at the beginning.
Think of AQ as the Marines of the Taliban or something... Their expeditionary force or something.
They wont start to kill each others because you killed some dude...
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Not all Taliban are Pashtuns, they are still a conglomerate of people from the region. Also, considering the history of the region, other than agreeing on killing westerners, but other than that possbily thin connection I am sure they could find a reason to starting inside voilence.
Seehund
Banned
I have certainly not claimed that it was only one person. But in this context, Abu al-Yazid was an important person in the relationship between these two groups.
Abu al-Yazid was reported to be a man of "noble character" who was trusted by al-Qaeda's different national and ethnic groups, as well as a person who was trustworthy, displayed fine manners and was amiable at all times. As an al-Qaeda founder and a member of its Shura Council, Abu al-Yazid brought great prestige to the group's support for the Taliban, and—like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri before him—he pledged personal allegiance to Taliban leader Mullah Omar as the "Commander of the Faithful". Abu al-Yazid's stature in al-Qaeda also caused his appointment to be viewed among Islamists as a complement to the Taliban and Mullah Omar. This was a direct effort to ensure that the insurgency was seen by the traditionally insular Afghans as being led by Afghans and not by "foreign Arabs." In essence, it is the same kind of keep-the-locals-in-the-lead effort that al-Qaeda undertook after the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who had broken with al-Qaeda's locals-first doctrine by behaving as the foreign leader of Iraq's Sunni insurgents.
You can then choose to believe in what I write or not. There are plenty of open sources out there if you want to verify my information.
No, I dont doubt your sources in particular or your opinion, I just want to know if it's a good thing...
The question is how to deal with the "situation".
The question is "is this a good news?" Will it have a good effect on the world? What did we win? Should we pop the champagne or slap ourselves?
Now, you tell us that they killed a trustworthy person? Are you telling us that they killed a good person?
Werent we talking about terrorists? bad guys who are evil?
The question is how to deal with the "situation".
The question is "is this a good news?" Will it have a good effect on the world? What did we win? Should we pop the champagne or slap ourselves?
Now, you tell us that they killed a trustworthy person? Are you telling us that they killed a good person?
Werent we talking about terrorists? bad guys who are evil?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
And in the absence of that government, possibly each other, again...
A result of a whole nother way of outlook on regional relations than through western eyes, and their solutions are most likely radically different, as well as what they want, you claim what they want is right or wrong, but if they are not really into regional security under conditions not in a particular faction's favor, maybe radically rejected, you can't strong arm them, if they are really not into it, then they will not co operate with any western effort.
No matter what any of us in this particular conversation or aboard come up with.
Seehund
Banned
The key to defeating al-Qaeda doesn't lie in trying to undermine its extremist ideology but in defeating its strategy. al-Qaeda's strategy is vulnerable to internal and external attack in ways that its ideology is not and influencing the way that extremists behave is far easier than changing what they believe.
Unlike al-Qaeda's ideology, its strategy is immediately vulnerable. al-Qaeda's strategy is simple and well understood: reimpose strict Islamic law in Muslim lands through a campaign of spectacular terrorist attacks designed to eliminate Western support for "apostate regimes" in the Middle East and eventually recreate the Caliphate of Islam's Golden Age.
Today, the forced isolation of al-Qaeda's senior leadership, the growing diversity of the Salafist jihadi network, and the global scope of the movement have reduced al-Qaeda's ability to define and direct its own strategy. Al-Qaeda's core leadership can no longer achieve its ends through a command-and-control hierarchy. It must resort to influencing independent terrorist organizations and extremist cells to adopt and adhere to al-Qaeda's militant strategy on the merits of that strategy alone.
If al-Qaeda's strategy is not perceived to be effective by its supporters, then its leadership will be reduced to impotent exhortation – and al-Qaeda will lose its power. Aggressively discredit al-Qaeda's strategy of violent confrontation by dealing the organization a series of transparent strategic defeats was one of the reasons that Abu al-Yazid was killed. This is the reason that it was a "good" thing to do.
I said that he was trusted by al-Qaeda's different national and ethnic groups.
Who is good or evil in this world, I will leave that to the individual to decide for themselves. One must be careful that one’s emotions doesn’t affect one's actions.
Last edited:
Well, I just dont see the AQ problem disapearing in the near future.
If we attack the bottom of the pyramid, it's called a genocide and if we attack the top, we murder the leadership...
And the leadership is then replaced by the next "best thing" and this "best thing" could be worse for us.
Terrorism is like a bulldog, the more you hit it, the more dumb and aggressive he turns...
You kill the wise guy, and he is replaced by a less experienced guy, you kill him, and then he is replaced, and some day, you find yourself with a stupid brute in command...
And the stupid brute can be more violent than the others...
You killed this man who had a good reputation... And you know the value of a good reputation in a corrupt country like Afghanistan? Such people can liberate hostages, they can negociate with the enemy, they can be trustworthy for everybody, even their enemies. Muslim respect their word when they give it. You can negociate a truce with such people.
And AQ's leadership isnt in control anymore... It's like Mac Donald's, they sent a message and everybody can take over from there... Like an open source programme. The leadership should have been killed before the production of their doctrine.
And even if you did that, it wouldnt be enough. As the restauration of the Califate is like the project of democracy in the Muslim world, everybody wants that. And I cant even blame them to live in the past, as the future seems dark for most of them...
If we attack the bottom of the pyramid, it's called a genocide and if we attack the top, we murder the leadership...
And the leadership is then replaced by the next "best thing" and this "best thing" could be worse for us.
Terrorism is like a bulldog, the more you hit it, the more dumb and aggressive he turns...
You kill the wise guy, and he is replaced by a less experienced guy, you kill him, and then he is replaced, and some day, you find yourself with a stupid brute in command...
And the stupid brute can be more violent than the others...
You killed this man who had a good reputation... And you know the value of a good reputation in a corrupt country like Afghanistan? Such people can liberate hostages, they can negociate with the enemy, they can be trustworthy for everybody, even their enemies. Muslim respect their word when they give it. You can negociate a truce with such people.
And AQ's leadership isnt in control anymore... It's like Mac Donald's, they sent a message and everybody can take over from there... Like an open source programme. The leadership should have been killed before the production of their doctrine.
And even if you did that, it wouldnt be enough. As the restauration of the Califate is like the project of democracy in the Muslim world, everybody wants that. And I cant even blame them to live in the past, as the future seems dark for most of them...
Seehund
Banned
I have spent 10 years of my life fighting the Soviet Union and the WARPACT. It took 46 years before the Soviet stranglehold disappeared. It took 12 years before the Third Reich vanished. Al-Qaeda will not disappear overnight. It will take time and a lot of hard work; but it can be done. The problem is that people forget their own history. The fight against dictators and terrorist regimes has always taken time.
Are you serious? To attack the bottom of the "al-Qaeda pyramid" can never be classified as genocide and what the top is concerned; it is more "defensive killing" than it is murder.
Or better for us!
The more you hit and the harder you hit, the more the dog will be invalidated as well and at some point the dog will be so weak that you can kill it with the final stroke.
Actually there’s a little logic in that. Imagine you are an employee working in a company. Every time there is someone in management who are clever, I’ll switch him out with a less capable person and then I’ll switch him out too. Finally, management is composed of individuals who are not competent. Do you think such a business would survive and would you as an employee trust the management?
He can be a stupid brute all he wants - but it requires that some will follow him.
Make no mistake about him. He was hard-core al-Qaeda. 100% loyal to bin Laden. Actually, he was so close to bin Laden that he was the only one who dared speak against bin Laden.He absolutely disagreed with bin Laden over Sept. 11 because he feared the U.S. response to an attack but he maintained his loyalty after the attacks. But do not imagine that you could negotiate with him.
Like Mac Donald's? Well; Yes! Think of it as a multinational corporation. It has a CEO and deputy CEO and a propaganda apparatus with franchise operations in other countries. It's a relatively small organization—thousands but not tens of thousands. So, of course we must pursue Al Qaeda's leadership and its propaganda apparatus; we must also go after the franchises.
Al-Qaeda wants a return to the Caliphate. But what would that mean in practice? Al-Qaeda points to the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. But by any metric, that was a disaster. And the idea that a complex and sophisticated society like, say, Egypt, could be run like that is nonsense. And everyone knows it. It’s not the kind of Muslim democracy the majority wants.