Posted on 07/31/2004 7:25:05 AM PDT by yoe
Once again, STRATFOR states the obvious with ample doses of verboseness.
Total horse manure. They had a stable base of operations in Afghanistan; is running for their lives in the mountains of Pakistan really better? Is fighting the U.S. in Iraq--a new theater of operations for Al Qaeda--really better than fighting the U.S. in the other theaters (where they no longer challenge the U.S. as they used to)? One imagines Al Qaeda pulling out of Iraq to fight the U.S. in the streets of Mecca, saying, "Allahu Akbar! Now we really have the infidel where we want him!"
The Al Qaeda operatives that have been questioned about Sept. 11th have all said the same thing: they never expected the U.S. to fight back. They really thought we would roll over one more time. If Kerry is elected, that will become a good assumption again.
"Once again, STRATFOR states the obvious with ample doses of verboseness."
These seems almost Kerry-esque. And I think they see Al-Qeda as having more power in the Islamofacist world than they probably do, at least at this point in time. My impression is that "Jihad" is a global movement, but not at all centralized. Much more like the Reformation than the Inquisition. Based on Madrid and the recent cave-in of Manila it seems that the center of World Jihad IS now in Iraq, for good or ill. Now that we've handed over general control to the Iraqis I'd like to think our forces are being re-focussed to hunt down the Al Queda people, or whatever they are, who are calling the shots from there.
Muslims in America better pray nothing happens here in an attempt to disrupt our elections. I don't think the rest of us will stand for that.
Debatable premise. Obviously, they want to take over the entire Middle East, Asia (and Europe), and unifying their people against us would certainly help; although I think you could argue that they were already pretty unified against us, judging by the reaction to 9/11. But if Bush had done nothing, then they would have been unified in the delight of feeling that they had overcome us easily and that we were no threat (which would have been true). And then it would have been no problem for them to swamp certain weaker ME states (probably aided by Saddam, who saw himself as the new Saladin) and then move on with their larger program.
By fighting back, Bush showed them that, first of all, we will fight back, even after years of inaction had made them confident that we wouldn't; and he put other ME countries on notice that we were available to help them fight against AQ, since many of their own rulers and people may not like us, but are not particularly thrilled at the idea of being overthrown by AQ and being part of the "new caliphate."
I think we really had no choice but to fight back, and if we had actually done so long before, we would have had more respect in the ME and much more support, rather than less.
Right.
It really needs to be restated from time to time least we start focusing on the trees and forget the forest.
In other words, they are a central power with a goal of grabbing land. This is a vision of an political power competing with the United States in regional hegemony.
The big question here is: are they? or is al Qaeda really just a bunch of individual, small, decentralized organizations as we have been told in the past?
If they are centralized, who is running the show? In other words, who is sitting in the air conditioned strategic think tank running the war?
How many Muslims have really been vocally against the goals of the Al-Queda? I have heard some protest some of the methods, but the goals?
Why are they voting for Kerry this year?
FYI
(and shameless plug)
Jemaah Islamiyah failing to regroup, attack Southeast Asia, says report
eTaiwan News / AP ^ | 7/25/04
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1178016/posts
Jemaah Islamiyah has tried in the last year to carry out terror attacks in Southeast Asia, but failed because of a lack of funds and support from other militant groups, and an absence of planners among its ranks, officials said.
The al-Qaida-linked organization's ability to mount attacks was severely dented by the arrest of scores of militants after September 11, 2001, including Hambali, the group's alleged operations chief, a Malaysian government official told The Associated Press on Friday.
(snip)
"How many Muslims have really been vocally against the goals of the Al-Queda?"
I think you misread my comment, I said the IslamoFACIST world, I just think AL-Queda isn't like the Don Corleone of these folks, I think the different groups, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Whatever the one in the Philippines is, I can't remember their name, I don't think they all get their marching orders from Osama, they are all making it up as they go along. And probably each group is hoping to be on top after they take over the world.
As for Muslims in general, I'm not sure what to think. Obviously many of them are very oppressed within their society. For some people converting to another religion, or marrying against family wishes may get you ostracized, maybe your family would even act as if you were dead, for Muslims they actually KILL you. So it's hard to tell in a situation like this. However, it amazes me that "feminists" are more concerned about being able to have their unborn children killed upon request than they are about the plight of women subgated by Islam.
Let's face it, Al Queda or no Al Queda, these people are a mess. We could have left them in their mess, but they brought the cr*p over here and killed people because of it. Now, basically, they must be hunted down. Bush is trying to "liberate" them, I have no idea if he will be successful or not. But if we fail in liberating them, we're going to have to subjagate THEM, lest they succeed in subjagating US.
And, per usual, concludes with a resounding "maybe, maybe not."
There's some factoid floating around that OBL actually rebuilt his Kandahar family compound shortly before 9/11, indicating he wasn't too concerned about reprisals.
Yep, we tried ignoring them... it didn't work. Again, the book THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP is a very good read on the subject.
I think they thought we would have a very limited response or not response at all, and they could use the attack for political purposes within their sphere of influence, as they had the other attacks. Publicizing the attacks normally brought into them new investors and more funding. I think that was their goal. They might have a future plan of a pan-Islamic state, but I think they were planning on doing it one country at a time and starting, not with Saudi Arabia, but with very disconnected countries like: Afghanistan, the Sudan, etc. And that is the evidence we have on the ground. This theory of Stratfor is, well, high conjecture to say the least. I don't think it is an obvious theory at all.
I agree with you, I believe they are nothing more than organized criminals wrapping their actions in a patina of religious rhetoric.
They are actually impractical, they seem to live in a magical world where they believe that if all muslims are united under their wise and benevolent leadership then the Golden Age Of Islam (TM) will miraculously be resurrected. But they don't have anything to say about sewage in the streets, illiteracy in the Arab world or bad dental hygiene or any of the other thousands of things that need to be fixed in the muslim world. As the Iranians are finding out, being a devout muslim won't get you a job.
bump for later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.