Alaska Darin Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I heard this morning that 24 of the top 26 Al Qaeda leaders are either dead or in custody.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I heard this morning that 24 of the top 26 Al Qaeda leaders are either dead or in custody. 298740[/snapback] That's a pretty high percentage.
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I heard this morning that 24 of the top 26 Al Qaeda leaders are either dead or in custody. 298740[/snapback] This can't be right. All I hear is that Bush has diverted all resources from the GWOT to the war in Iraq to avenge Daddy, to increase profits for Haliburton, and to steal all of Iraq's oil. I guess the reason why we haven't nabbed the last two is because Bush hasn't mentioned bin Laden's name in a while. You can't go after him unless you mention his name in press conferences.
Alaska Darin Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 This can't be right. All I hear is that Bush has diverted all resources from the GWOT to the war in Iraq to avenge Daddy, to increase profits for Haliburton, and to steal all of Iraq's oil. I guess the reason why we haven't nabbed the last two is because Bush hasn't mentioned bin Laden's name in a while. You can't go after him unless you mention his name in press conferences. 298788[/snapback] I guess Paul Harvey's a liar then. Oh well.
Campy Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 You can't go after him unless you mention his name in press conferences. 298788[/snapback] Or maybe it's because bin Laden's no longer a priority of the current administration. "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I guess Paul Harvey's a liar then. 298791[/snapback] Must be, since there is no way MoveOn.org would lie to me.
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Or maybe it's because bin Laden's no longer a priority of the current administration. "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him." Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020313-8.html 298807[/snapback] ...or it could be that an effective counterterrorism strategy does not revolve around one person.
Campy Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 ...or it could be that an effective counterterrorism strategy does not revolve around one person. 298816[/snapback] So you agree that bin Laden's no longer a priority then, correct?
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 So you agree that bin Laden's no longer a priority then, correct? 298820[/snapback] Again, an effective CT strategy does not revolve around one person. It never has and it never will. While the capture of bin Laden will make for good ratings, sell newspapers and give good soundbites to the Hot Pockets bunch, in the overall scheme of things it is relatively minor. You need to address the system in which they operate. If you cut off the head, the body will still be deadly. You have to think big picture, Chris.
Campy Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Again, an effective CT strategy does not revolve around one person. It never has and it never will. While the capture of bin Laden will make for good ratings, sell newspapers and give good soundbites to the Hot Pockets bunch, in the overall scheme of things it is relatively minor. You need to address the system in which they operate. If you cut off the head, the body will still be deadly. You have to think big picture, Chris. 298835[/snapback] FWIW- When everyone was gung-ho to see him dead, I was called a "terrorist-loving scumbag" because I said pretty much the same thing as you did above. Would I shed a tear if he was dead? No. But killing him would only create a power vacuum and there's no telling how evil his succesor would be. The bigger issues are to address whatever motivation they have to carry out such an act, and to tighten up security. Killing bin Laden accomplishes neither of these, and in retrospect, our country's actions since 9/11 may very well have fueled the former. In any event, I'll take your above response as a "yes Chris, we agree that bin Laden's no longer a priority."
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 In any event, I'll take your above response as a "yes Chris, we agree that bin Laden's no longer a priority." 298884[/snapback] Since I never said nor implied that, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth. You seem to want to focus on soundbites and press releases, while I prefer to watch the actions of the administration to determine the true mission. You seem to think that AQ is designed like a corporation, where everything relies on the chain of command. In reality, it is more like a conglomeration of individual smaller corporations. Most of Al-Qaeda's membership is drawn from Gamaya al Islamiya, Al Gamaya Al Islamiya, Groupe Islamique Armee, and the Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat. Al-Qaeda also has close ties with Jaish Aden Abin al Islami, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the Abu Sayaaf Group, Jemaah Islamiyah, al Jamaa essalafya lid Daawa wal Q it al, en Nahda, Sipah e Sahaba Kashmir, Hizb-al-Islami, Harakat ul Mujahideen, Harakat-ul Jihad, and members of several small Islamist parties from Tunisia, Libya and Morocco along with several other groups I have not mentioned. Removing bin Laden will take away some of the funding, unless he has set things up in such a way that his fortune is available for AQ after he passes. Otherwise, they will just have to rely on the contributions from various charities funneling money to them. Removing bin Laden could possibly result in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi taking control, or possibly Ayman al-Zawahri. I am not sure if al-Zawahri wants it, while I know that al-Zarqawi want to be the man. In any event, the groups and cells will still function as they did.
Britbillsfan Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Removing bin Laden will take away some of the funding, unless he has set things up in such a way that his fortune is available for AQ after he passes. Otherwise, they will just have to rely on the contributions from various charities funneling money to them. Removing bin Laden could possibly result in Abu Musab al-Zarqawi taking control, or possibly Ayman al-Zawahri. I am not sure if al-Zawahri wants it, while I know that al-Zarqawi want to be the man. In any event, the groups and cells will still function as they did. 298945[/snapback] AQ could pass on to one of OBL's sons as they are very active now in running the group (especially since so many top figures were lost in Afghanistan or arrested in Pakistan), and largely on the funding/money for operations side. I see Zarqari more as a field commander (which he does appear to be competant at) type rather than the organisation's commander in chief, Zawahiri could end up being the power behind the throne if one of OBL's brood does take his place at some point.
KRC Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 AQ could pass on to one of OBL's sons as they are very active now in running the group (especially since so many top figures were lost in Afghanistan or arrested in Pakistan), and largely on the funding/money for operations side. I see Zarqari more as a field commander (which he does appear to be competant at) type rather than the organisation's commander in chief, Zawahiri could end up being the power behind the throne if one of OBL's brood does take his place at some point. 299009[/snapback] While al-Zarqawi may be a good field commander, I see him wanting more. I see him wanting to be commander. al-Zawahri, I think, wants to be a second fiddle as you mentioned. He seems to be comfortable in that role. He can command, but is not the figure-head of the organization.
colfax Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 hey Brit, I'm curious - how hard do you believe Pakistan/Musharref are actually looking for OBL? it seems to me that it would be easier for the Pakistani military to capture OBL if he were in a large city as you speculate rather than in the rugged northern part of the country which is under less gov't control....
Campy Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 Since I never said nor implied that, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth. You seem to want to focus on soundbites and press releases, while I prefer to watch the actions of the administration to determine the true mission. OK, lest I put words in your mouth, do you believe bin Laden is a priority of this administration's War on Terror, yes or no? You seem to think that AQ is designed like a corporation, where everything relies on the chain of command. In reality, it is more like a conglomeration of individual smaller corporations. Since I never said nor implied that, I am not sure why you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth. Do you disagree with my suggestion that if bin Laden is killed that another leader will essentially fill the same role, eg, al Zarqawi? (hint: see your own words below) I am not sure if al-Zawahri wants it, while I know that al-Zarqawi want to be the man. In any event, the groups and cells will still function as they did. I'm fairly sure that I'm the one who posted that bin-Laden is no longer a priority. Given the context of that post, it should be fairly clear that my belief that this is the most likely reason why he's still alive (assuming he is). NB, I'm not disagreeing with your premise of effective CT strategies. I'm only stating bin Laden's simply no longer a priority of this administration. Sorry if using the presidents own words to make my point tripped you up a bit. I didn't mean to make it so hard for you to jump to his defense.
/dev/null Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 we could use biological warfare and send in... Ron Mexico!!!
Britbillsfan Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 hey Brit, I'm curious - how hard do you believe Pakistan/Musharref are actually looking for OBL? it seems to me that it would be easier for the Pakistani military to capture OBL if he were in a large city as you speculate rather than in the rugged northern part of the country which is under less gov't control.... 299038[/snapback] Musharref would definitely want to catch him & the other high ranking leadership as would most in the military / police but there are serious problems in doing so where ever he might be (assuming he is in Pakistan, of course). After all Jihadists have made several attempts on Mussarref's life over the years and he has been active in trying to remove their support and power base within Pakistan. Firstly extreme Islamists in Pakistan's security services were the main backers of the Talebs in Afghanistan (also the various groups operating in India Kashmir), without the aid of them the country would have never fallen under the control of the extremists. Despite being able to remove a lot of these individuals from their positions Musharref will not have been able to do so completely - so there is definitely an element in the military that will be working aginst the efforts to catch the slimeballs in AQ that are hiding out in Pakistan. Secondly is a more cultural one. Pakistan's leadership would consider it a dishonour to their country if OBL was found there. They have constantly denied that he is in Pakistan and will do so up until he is found there. This mitigates against the president's desire to catch the AQ leadership since his government is simultaneously saying he can't catch them because they are not in Pakistan. Third - OBL's support is such that he is not going to be betrayed. Those that might have the knowledge are too hardcore to give up the information willingly, no matter what the rewards might be. OBL is a canny operator. Whilst in Afghanistan it was almost impossible for the CIA to get hold of him because not even his trusted bodyguards and drivers knew where he would be going and staying the next day and intelligence was always a little behind (sometimes by only a couple of hours). He has shown himself to be experienced at avoiding his enemies. There are other factors involved but I would say that overall the military would want to catch the man, Zawahiri, etc, but that their efforts are seriously hampered by all of the above. Some of the cities are hotbeds of fanaticism thanks largely to Zia so it is would be difficult in the best of circumstances.
Britbillsfan Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 While al-Zarqawi may be a good field commander, I see him wanting more. I see him wanting to be commander. al-Zawahri, I think, wants to be a second fiddle as you mentioned. He seems to be comfortable in that role. He can command, but is not the figure-head of the organization. 299024[/snapback] I do see your point and it is a very solid one but I think any ambition he might have will not be enough. Sooner or later I see Zarqawi getting caught (or more likely killed) as he appears to want to be in the limelight a little too much, whilst it might gain him popular support amongst the terrorist fighters it does not do much for his life expectancy. In any case I see Zawahiri being the king maker, and can see him working to put someone he already works closely with who would have some popular support amongst the foot soldiers of his movement - hence why I would put OBL's sons as the natural successors to the leadership. There are other candidates as well but do not see Zarqari as a natural fit for the way 'AQ' appears to work. One interesting possibility (though not an altogether pleasant one) is for al-Zarqari to become a totally seperate leader of his own group in competition with AQ (he already pretty much is that despite the reported pledge of loyalty to OBL - a good PR move for him). The history of terrorist groups has pretty much always led to them spintering and sometimes becoming deadly rivals where they were once allies.
Britbillsfan Posted April 7, 2005 Posted April 7, 2005 I heard this morning that 24 of the top 26 Al Qaeda leaders are either dead or in custody. 298740[/snapback] Seems far too high a figure, to my knowledge, not including the big two, Sheik Said, Saif al-Adel, al-Masri, Thirwat Salah Shirhata and Abu Faraj al Libbi are all still at large and would have been considered in the 'top 26' for many years. What was the source of the info?
Azalin Posted April 8, 2005 Posted April 8, 2005 You're right!! I think it came with a brand new pair of Alligator boots. Though Goats were extra! 298047[/snapback] they probably passed on the goats because they were scared that their sheep would become jealous.
Recommended Posts