Posted on 09/14/2005 7:26:38 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
AS THE WAR between the United States and Al Qaeda enters its fifth year, the nature of the armed, transnational Islamist group's campaign remains misunderstood. With the conflict viewed largely as an open-and-shut matter of good versus evil, nonmilitary engagement with Al Qaeda is depicted as improper and unnecessary.
Yet developing a strategy for the next phase of the global response to Al Qaeda requires understanding the enemy -- something Western analysts have systematically failed to do. Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act. It was a military operation researched and planned since at least 1996 and conducted by a trained commando in the context of a war that had twice been declared officially and publicly. The operation targeted two military locations and a civilian facility regarded as the symbol of US economic and financial power. The assault was the culmination of a larger campaign, which forecast impact, planned for the enemy's reaction, and was designed to gain the tactical upper hand.
Overwhelmingly centered on the martial aspects of the conflict, scholars and policymakers have been too focused on Al Qaeda's ''irrationality," ''fundamentalism," and ''hatred" -- and these conceptions continue to color key analyses. The sway of such explanations is particularly surprising in the face of nonambiguous statements made by Al Qaeda as to the main reasons for its war on the United States. These have been offered consistently since 1996, notably in the August 1996 and February 1998 declarations of war and the November 2002 and October 2004 justifications for its continuation.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The only "talks" we will have with Al Qeda is when they surrender.
I am speechless.
UN 'I want to understand what motivates you to kill... what is that you want the west to do?
Terrorist 'Die'
Might as well try to talk / reason with a rabid dog
2) I did a Google on the pig who wrote this piece of trash. He's been very active with the UN, pushing the idea that the idea of human rights needs to be taken in "context," meaning that us Westerners should cut the towelheads some slack, since we don't understand their "culture." For example, we need to quit complaining about honor killings of young girls.
He is a typical educated towelhead - familiar enough with the mechanics of writing and scholarship to appear reasonably well-spoken, but, under the veneer, still a savage.
I've sent em a bunch. I wouldn't hold my breath...
Not nasty letters, either. Just letters that don't conform to their dogma.
I won't argue the spirit of your criticism, but the objective fact is that the term "assymetrical warfare" comes from counterterrorism experts, probably around the 1990's. And the tactics used by al-Qaida and the rest of the merchants of mayhem fit the description to a tee.
By the way, I found this interesting analysis of asymmetry on a website, and it goes to enforce exactly what I said in my first post:
If the inferior power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics.
In other words, the asymmetry only exists because we ALLOW it to exist. When we start fighting al-Qaida under their own rules of engagement, we erase the tactical advantage -- the asymmetry -- their side requires to compete.
We bomb and shoot low-level jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq in wholesale numbers. Yet far more important enemy operatives not only operate freely in this country, they are rewarded for doing so.
The fifth column is right about one thing: This is a class war, but the opposing classes are almost the direct opposite of what the professional liars of academia and the media represent them to be.
The terrorists and their apologists represent the ruling class of cultural elitists and academic activists; as well as the sizable portion of the business community that has been bribed or coerced into supporting elitist and Islamic goals.
The opposition, the loyalists, are the working and middle classes of this country.
We'll talk to the their grieving mothers.
That poor pseudo-academic forgot that not that too long ago one of his mates, a spokesperson (use of the PC term is intentional - so to rile the Islamists) of al-Qaeda in California taht says "Yes we want peace, but it is peace in OUR terms.". i.e no negotiations, but only surrender from us.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1482368/posts
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.