Protecus
Prophet of Certain Certainties
+28|6825
https://www.september11news.com/Nov3OsamaTVSpeech.jpg VS https://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1215/csmimg/OJIHADSPAT_P1.jpg

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, co-founder of al-Qaeda and intellectual leader of their global jihad, has publicly criticized the current strategies of al-Qaeda, specifically Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri.

The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive, he writes. "Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?" asks Dr Fadl. "That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."
He even criticizes the use of "sleeper cells."

He is equally unsparing about Muslims who move to the West and then take up terrorism. "If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum," writes Dr Fadl, then it is "not honourable" to "betray them, through killing and destruction".
To add a dose of realistic pessimism, I doubt this means the end of al-Qaeda. Al-Sharif has been rotting in an Egyptian prison since 2004, so the chances that he still has a significant amount of power in the AQ power structure is pretty low. He is more useful as a figurehead than an actually leader.

But it is interesting that even AQ is having issues with their current mode of function.
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

Protecus wrote:

The terrorist attacks on September 11 were both immoral and counterproductive, he writes. "Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?" asks Dr Fadl. "That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11."
...wait... you mean it actually worked?  That someone has figured out it is a bad idea to attack the US?  You mean someone over there has fugured out that it is not worth it, and the cost of attacking America is too high?  Why, that means we may have actually known what we were doing!  Too bad the guy that figured it out has no power left.  But, if he figured it out, then so can others.  There is hope, yet.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina
Well, I believe he's referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq.
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6526|Escea

This guy seems to have a sliver of sense (to an extent).
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I believe he's referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq.
I dunno, I am kind of growing fond of using "You attack my country, I will not only kick YOUR countries ass, I will kick the ass of the next country over, and let them know I am doing it just because YOU pissed me off," as a matter of foreign policy.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I believe he's referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq.
I dunno, I am kind of growing fond of using "You attack my country, I will not only kick YOUR countries ass, I will kick the ass of the next country over, and let them know I am doing it just because YOU pissed me off," as a matter of foreign policy.
Eh...  I'm not fond of that approach.  It hasn't worked very well for Israel.
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6930|Canada

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I believe he's referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq.
I dunno, I am kind of growing fond of using "You attack my country, I will not only kick YOUR countries ass, I will kick the ass of the next country over, and let them know I am doing it just because YOU pissed me off," as a matter of foreign policy.
Eh...  I'm not fond of that approach.  It hasn't worked very well for Israel.
QFT
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6748|The Land of Scott Walker
It would work quite nicely ... but Israel hasn't gone balls out yet.
imortal
Member
+240|6968|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, I believe he's referring to Afghanistan, not Iraq.
I dunno, I am kind of growing fond of using "You attack my country, I will not only kick YOUR countries ass, I will kick the ass of the next country over, and let them know I am doing it just because YOU pissed me off," as a matter of foreign policy.
Eh...  I'm not fond of that approach.  It hasn't worked very well for Israel.
Well, they are still there, even after being outnumbered by a lot:1.  And no army has tried to invade them for a while.  I did not say it was a perfect solution, but seems to be working so far.

Now, I grant you that this kind of thing smacks of being high-handed, and everyone else in the world loves to resent it.  "Hatred is the cowards response to being intimidated." (George Benard Shaw) No body likes the bully, and everyone is nervous about the guy too big for anyone to stop, even if they are exceedingly polite.

Last edited by imortal (2009-02-21 10:57:14)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

It would work quite nicely ... but Israel hasn't gone balls out yet.
Well, I suppose in a ruthless practical sense, it would probably make more sense to just wipe out Gaza at this point, because of how much they've really pissed off people over there.  They've essentially radicalized the whole populace there through suffering.

It's just that what imortal is suggesting has a tendency to escalate things.  It doesn't make sense to go into conqueror mode unless you are able to just kill indiscriminately and relentlessly.  I'm pretty sure if we push things much further, WW3 might result.

About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6924|London, England
Pakistan would've been invaded proper a long time ago if it wasn't for its nukes. Why do you think Iran wants them so bad, they see the amount of shit Pakistan is getting away with just because of having nukes (and Israel) and they want a slice of that action
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
Are you aware that Pakistan have more than 100 nukes?

If there was any sign they were going to be invaded by a Western power, I find it highly unlikey that a few dozen of those wouldn't "accidentally" find their way into the hands of terrorists.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-21 11:06:15)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

imortal wrote:


I dunno, I am kind of growing fond of using "You attack my country, I will not only kick YOUR countries ass, I will kick the ass of the next country over, and let them know I am doing it just because YOU pissed me off," as a matter of foreign policy.
Eh...  I'm not fond of that approach.  It hasn't worked very well for Israel.
Well, they are still there, even after being outnumbered by a lot:1.  And no army has tried to invade them for a while.  I did not say it was a perfect solution, but seems to be working so far.

Now, I grant you that this kind of thing smacks of being high-handed, and everyone else in the world loves to resent it.  "Hatred is the cowards response to being intimidated." (George Benard Shaw) No body likes the bully, and everyone is nervous about the guy too big for anyone to stop, even if they are exceedingly polite.
Well, I think Teddy Roosevelt was generally right about this sort of thing (although I disagreed with many of the conflicts he furthered).

The idea is...  show that you've got balls, but don't piss off everybody.  There is a certain amount of intimidation that affords respect, but once you go past that, people align to defeat you.

It's basically the main difference between us and the Nazies.  Hitler was obviously cool with invading anyone.  We need to show that we have some sense of restraint.  So far, we've done ok, but we need to work on it some.

Israel is powerful, but they'd be a lot less that way if it weren't for our support or that of France.  And admittedly, Israel is kind of reaching that point of no return when it comes to averting conflict.

We thankfully are in a much better position to get people to convert to our side.  Spreading prosperity is much more effective than spreading fear when it comes to defeating terror.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
Are you aware that Pakistan have more than 100 nukes?

If there was any sign they were going to be invaded by a Western power, I find it highly unlikey that a few dozen of those wouldn't "accidentally" find their way into the hands of terrorists.
Well, that's what I meant by clever planning.  We currently have some soldiers helping the Pakistani government with securing their nukes.  We could... (if we were clever) "borrow those nukes" before invasion.

It wouldn't be very ethical, but it would make defeating them much simpler.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

About the only invasion I see as even feasible now is against Pakistan, but that would require some very clever planning and leadership.
Are you aware that Pakistan have more than 100 nukes?

If there was any sign they were going to be invaded by a Western power, I find it highly unlikey that a few dozen of those wouldn't "accidentally" find their way into the hands of terrorists.
Well, that's what I meant by clever planning.  We currently have some soldiers helping the Pakistani government with securing their nukes.  We could... (if we were clever) "borrow those nukes" before invasion.

It wouldn't be very ethical, but it would make defeating them much simpler.
I very much doubt they don't have some discretely stashed away where they wouldn't be found....
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina
Point taken.  Either way, invading Pakistan would likely increase terrorism, but the only reason I even entertain the thought of it is because their government is so unstable.

With Iraq, there was a stable government in place, and we had the conflict contained.  There was no need for invasion.

With Pakistan, it's quite the opposite.  They can't even really control most of their country properly.

We might as well encourage Pakistan to split up into multiple countries by ethnic regions.  At least, that way, only the more Westernized regions would have the nukes (for the most part).
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Point taken.  Either way, invading Pakistan would likely increase terrorism, but the only reason I even entertain the thought of it is because their government is so unstable.

With Iraq, there was a stable government in place, and we had the conflict contained.  There was no need for invasion.

With Pakistan, it's quite the opposite.  They can't even really control most of their country properly.

We might as well encourage Pakistan to split up into multiple countries by ethnic regions.  At least, that way, only the more Westernized regions would have the nukes (for the most part).
But at least the government is fairly friendly towards the west (by fairly friendly, I mean as friendly as they can be given the political climate there).

Best thing the US could do with Pakistan is to leave it well alone - may not seem the best idea from a short term security perspective, but long term you reduce the profile of the US in the region and people care less about it, meaning less radicalisation. Propping up unpopular governments doesn't work. People don't like foreign powers running their nations by proxy - which the US is renowned for and is much of where the hatred for them has come from. Iran being a perfect example.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

But at least the government is fairly friendly towards the west (by fairly friendly, I mean as friendly as they can be given the political climate there).

Best thing the US could do with Pakistan is to leave it well alone - may not seem the best idea from a short term security perspective, but long term you reduce the profile of the US in the region and people care less about it, meaning less radicalisation. Propping up unpopular governments doesn't work. People don't like foreign powers running their nations by proxy - which the US is renowned for and is much of where the hatred for them has come from. Iran being a perfect example.
Well, it would be a lot less of a problem if certain regions of Pakistan weren't providing shelter for the Taliban after their attack runs into Afghanistan.

Honestly, the lack of actual power in the Pakistani government (and the fact that many terror sympathizers are in their leadership) is what makes our intervention necessary.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6884|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But at least the government is fairly friendly towards the west (by fairly friendly, I mean as friendly as they can be given the political climate there).

Best thing the US could do with Pakistan is to leave it well alone - may not seem the best idea from a short term security perspective, but long term you reduce the profile of the US in the region and people care less about it, meaning less radicalisation. Propping up unpopular governments doesn't work. People don't like foreign powers running their nations by proxy - which the US is renowned for and is much of where the hatred for them has come from. Iran being a perfect example.
Well, it would be a lot less of a problem if certain regions of Pakistan weren't providing shelter for the Taliban after their attack runs into Afghanistan.

Honestly, the lack of actual power in the Pakistani government (and the fact that many terror sympathizers are in their leadership) is what makes our intervention necessary.
And how often does US intervention work out well? Particularly in the Middle East.

So far as I can tell, intervention has a very poor track record for all concerned.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-02-21 11:31:41)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

But at least the government is fairly friendly towards the west (by fairly friendly, I mean as friendly as they can be given the political climate there).

Best thing the US could do with Pakistan is to leave it well alone - may not seem the best idea from a short term security perspective, but long term you reduce the profile of the US in the region and people care less about it, meaning less radicalisation. Propping up unpopular governments doesn't work. People don't like foreign powers running their nations by proxy - which the US is renowned for and is much of where the hatred for them has come from. Iran being a perfect example.
Well, it would be a lot less of a problem if certain regions of Pakistan weren't providing shelter for the Taliban after their attack runs into Afghanistan.

Honestly, the lack of actual power in the Pakistani government (and the fact that many terror sympathizers are in their leadership) is what makes our intervention necessary.
And how often does US intervention work out well? Particularly in the Middle East.

So far as I can tell, intervention has a very poor track record for all concerned.
Well, I can't argue with that.  We should've left Iran well enough alone back in Mossadegh's day, but the Brits were rather persuasive in moving us to action. 

We also never should've supported Saddam.  Contrary to popular belief, we didn't actually put him into power, but we did support him after he entered power.

We also never should've supported the Saudi regime when they first entered power, but they had a lot of oil, and we wanted it just like everyone else.

We never should've supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets, but we've essentially righted that wrong now.  Invading Afghanistan is one of the few times I supported our intervention.  Now, we basically have to finish what we started.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6832|Global Command
Osamas master plan was to have our government go broke chasing shadows; to curtail our liberties in the name of defeating a ragtag bunch of fanatics, and by doing so turn the American people against its leadership.

I'd say Osama won that war.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

Osamas master plan was to have our government go broke chasing shadows; to curtail our liberties in the name of defeating a ragtag bunch of fanatics, and by doing so turn the American people against its leadership.

I'd say Osama won that war.
Yeah...  he basically did.

You forget another part though.  More than anything, he wanted most of the world to hate us.  We're going to have to tread carefully to repair all the bridges we've burned.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6832|Global Command
The Iraq war was never counted into the budget.
What kind of leadership does that?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

The Iraq war was never counted into the budget.
What kind of leadership does that?
Yeah, he took non-discretionary spending to a new level.

Unfortunately, these bailouts have somehow managed to be even bigger in cost than the war though.  I never thought the immediate successor to Bush would spend money faster than him....
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6832|Global Command
More money has been spent on the bailout than gulf war 1 and 2, world war one and two, korea, Vietnam combined.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard