Article

2003-11-23 Terror Networks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2003-11-23 1:09:09 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "Unlike wars against a conventional enemy, al-Qaâida has no territory to occupy, no army to surrender and no flags or statues to tear down," Kevin Rosser, a Middle East analyst for Control Risks, writes in the consultancyâs risk assessment for 2004. "It is a nebulous entity, with operatives and sympathisers scattered in as many as 60 different countries."

So, Al Qaeda does this to be on the Evening News?

The analysis is fatuous at its base. Of course there are resources to be had, countries to conquer and statues to take down. Just because they are not a conventional enemy in no way means they do not have conventional goals, at their base: Power and wealth masked by quoting the passages of the Koran and dipped in innocents' blood.

The rhetoric of a "war against terror" creates expectations that sooner or later it will end in victory, but it is impossible to foresee an end to a campaign against an adversary which has no negotiable demands, just a utopian vision of a medieval form of Islam ruling the world. "In many respects al-Qaâidaâs attacks are an end in themselves," said Josh Mandel, another Control Risks analyst.

They must be paying this guy off in rock cocaine. The war on terror is not rhetoric. Were Clinton still in power there is not doubt you could consider it rhetoric, but at this moment in history the war on terror is anything but rhetoric.

An opponent with no negotiable demands is little more than a target. What was that about rhetoric, again?

A terrorist with negotiable demands does not exist, nor should they.

The scare quotes around the term war on terror is a cute touch but it doesn't make this analysis any more congent for having used them.

In my view the war on terror is imminently winnable, especially now that Al Qaeda has chosen the eventually disasterous strategy of shitting in thier pool.

I would say the opposite of what this writer says. The attacks in Istanbul are a sea change in Al Qaeda tactics and operations. Western interests are hardened because the United States has the resolve to take Al Qaeda pussies head on. My conclusion is that war on terror has turned the tables on Al Qaeda.

Posted by badanov 2003-11-23 8:49:24 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2003-11-23 8:49:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Good one Boris. Good post too. This is a pick your target kind of war. Some targets have borders others don't. Our tactics must, at times, mimic those of Islamic murderers. Looks like SA is starting to come to terms with what it is they like and don't like about AQ. Whats troubling is the Bipolarness regarding Iran. It makes me dizzy. Their willingness to support mass murder is strange. Car bombs, Iranian criuse missles.

Posted by Lucky 2003-11-23 1:13:02 PM|| 2003-11-23 1:13:02 PM|| Front Page Top

08:07 B
04:34 Atomic Conspiracy
01:58 Atomic Conspiracy
00:18 Lizzel
00:16 LeftEnd
00:10 LeftEnd
23:55 LeftEnd
23:54 NotMikeMoore
23:51 Rafael
23:35 NotMikeMoore
23:24 NotMikeMoore
23:20 NotMikeMoore
23:13 NotMikeMoore
22:52 capt joe
22:48 capt joe
22:45 capt joe
22:45 rkb
22:33 Chuck
21:41 BOBB
21:33 J
21:26 Charles
21:17 ruprecht
21:12 ruprecht
21:06 ruprecht