Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

djones520 wrote:
No I'm not.

Yeah, you are, and so is the guy that runs global security. His information has always been criticized for being a dubious derivative of popular rhetoric.

djones520 wrote:
It is a tricky organization, and it's going to take a lot of effort to destroy, but it can be done.

You're going to blow up the internet, then? Because that's what it will take.

First rule of studying Islamic terrorism: everyone calls themselves an arm of Al-Qaeda, but what they say really doesn't matter.

djones520 wrote:
It is true. Reread what I wrote. The Taliban wasn't even formed until 1994. The people that formed it were trained in Pakistan.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with what I questioned. You said that the US didn't fund the Taliban, and I said that the CIA and the ISI supported the mujaheddin with the implication that said support was funneled to what would become the Taliban.

Hell, you even said that the US funded the Pakistani effort against the Soviets. You're contradicting yourself on a fundamental level.

djones520 wrote:
No I didn't. What that was in reference to was that the people who eventually became the Northern Alliance received very little support from our funds, because Pakistan was more comfortable supporting the southern fighters, which eventually backed the Taliban after they took over Afghanistan. WE DID NOT SUPPORT THE TALIBAN. It's pretty clear. Saying we did is like saying the Soviets did becaues the Taliban used the weapons that the Soviets left behind.

Uh, you said that the majority of US funds were distributed by Pakistan, which means that the US, at the very least, indirectly supported the Taliban even according to your above clarification.

No it doesn't. It means, in the general context, "strugglers" or "Jihad participants" in a specific context.

I just looked It up and sadly I stand corrected.

Uh, you said that the majority of US funds were distributed by Pakistan, which means that the US, at the very least, indirectly supported the Taliban even according to your above clarification.

This is getting into semantics.

Practically speaking, we did fund the Taliban. A lot of the weapons and training that they built their powerbase on came from the US.

Semantically, we didn't back the Taliban. We didn't go to the Taliban and say "hello, Taliban, here's some training and weapons." We were going to "anybody willing to kill Russians," and even then, indirectly. So, to the extent that "funding the Taliban" means "funding the Taliban because it's the Taliban and we want to fund it," no, we didn't do that.

I think the argument here is between "the US supported the Taliban" and "the US supported whomever was willing to kill Russians." We did that latter. Technically that took the shape of the former, but what we thought we were doing was the latter.

One obvious way that this sorta matters is if somebody suggests there was some degree of ideological agreement demonstrated by us founding the Taliban. "Oh, you didn't mind Wahabbism then!" Except we didn't even THINK about Wahabbism, we thought about killing Russians. Our ideological alignment with the Taliban began and ended with "kill Russians."

Ok... my job for the last 9 years has been combatting Al Qaeda, but sure... armchair general man knows better then I do about what I'm talking about.

And I'd love to see your correlation that US funds supported "indirectly" an organization that wasn't created until 5 years after US funds stopped.

I'll go one further for you though. The man who founded the Taliban (Mohammed Omar) was a member of the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen, an organization that received almost none of the funds at all. So you can't even say that during the Soviet invasion that our money was responsible for supporting and training him, because it wasn't.

Phryxis wrote:
One obvious way that this sorta matters is if somebody suggests there was some degree of ideological agreement demonstrated by us founding the Taliban. "Oh, you didn't mind Wahabbism then!" Except we didn't even THINK about Wahabbism, we thought about killing Russians. Our ideological alignment with the Taliban began and ended with "kill Russians."

Well, I think its fair to say that we aren't ideologically opposed to Wahabbism insofar as they aren't coming after us. Which is a point against people arguing that Wahabbism is a sin against creation, or something, but not really a serious statement regarding geopolitics.

djones520 wrote:And I'd love to see your correlation that US funds supported "indirectly" an organization that wasn't created until 5 years after US funds stopped.

Doctor Emmett Brown wrote:If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious gak.

djones520 wrote:Ok... my job for the last 9 years has been combatting Al Qaeda, but sure... armchair general man knows better then I do about what I'm talking about.

Yeah, shooting at people totally makes you qualified to describe them.

djones520 wrote:
And I'd love to see your correlation that US funds supported "indirectly" an organization that wasn't created until 5 years after US funds stopped.

Its not a difficult argument dude, and I'm not the first person to make it.

djones520 wrote:
I'll go one further for you though. The man who founded the Taliban (Mohammed Omar) was a member of the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen, an organization that received almost none of the funds at all. So you can't even say that during the Soviet invasion that our money was responsible for supporting and training him, because it wasn't.

Yeah, because Omar's group consisted only of 50 students, and never drew additional recruits from other groups that were funded by the US/ISI.

1. I don't shoot at them. I work in Operations. At my home duty station, I work in a Strategic Operations Center that overseas all Operational Airlift the AF conducts worldwide. At my deployed location, I work hand in hand with Intel with mission execution for Air Refueling missions that keep the fighters and bombers who provide CAS (Close Air Support) and TST (Time Sensitive Targetting) missions in the air.

It is my business to know who the enemy is, and where they are, because everything I do correlates with that.

2. Well you're not the first person to be wrong then.

3. And your still failing to show how 5 years after the Russian conflict ended, those recruits were still being funded by the US.

djones520 wrote:1. I don't shoot at them. I work in Operations. At my home duty station, I work in a Strategic Operations Center that overseas all Operational Airlift the AF conducts worldwide. At my deployed location, I work hand in hand with Intel with mission execution for Air Refueling missions that keep the fighters and bombers who provide CAS (Close Air Support) and TST (Time Sensitive Targetting) missions in the air.

So nothing that relates to the history of the Taliban.

djones520 wrote:
It is my business to know who the enemy is, and where they are, because everything I do correlates with that.

You don't want to use the word "correlates" there.

djones520 wrote:
3. And your still failing to show how 5 years after the Russian conflict ended, those recruits were still being funded by the US.

I never said that was the case, so why would I need to show that?

1. We were discussing Al Qaeda, and your assertation that I didn't know what I was talking about. But it does involve the Taliban as well, since they are our enemy as well.

3. Yes you are, when you claim the US was responsible for the funding and training "indirectly" of the Taliban. The US funded and trained people who fought the Soviets. When the Soviets were gone, so was the US.

The people who created the Taliban had nothing to do with any of the funding and training the that US provided during that time. The people who later joined the Taliban had recieved some of that training, but the US had nothing to do with their actions after they did what we trained them for.

Was the US responsible for Timothy McVeigh because they taught him how to create explosive devises? Or Lee Harvy Oswald because they taught him how to shoot?

Phryxis wrote:I think the argument here is between "the US supported the Taliban" and "the US supported whomever was willing to kill Russians." We did that latter. Technically that took the shape of the former, but what we thought we were doing was the latter.

Is that really any better, honestly? I mean, how is 'we supported them because they were opposed to our enemies and we didn't really think any further than that' supposed to be a defence? There's a reason people make fun of the CIA and blowback is it.

Is that really any better, honestly?

I'm not really talking about good or bad, I'm just talking about the semantics of it. One can say that the US funded the Taliban, because our money/training ended up in their hands. One can say the US didn't fund the Taliban, because we didn't fund the Taliban, because, as drjones points out, they didn't really form as a governmental organization until long after we stopped sending the money, and we had no special interest them except as people willing to kill Soviets.

Phryxis wrote:I'm not really talking about good or bad, I'm just talking about the semantics of it. One can say that the US funded the Taliban, because our money/training ended up in their hands. One can say the US didn't fund the Taliban, because we didn't fund the Taliban, because, as drjones points out, they didn't really form as a governmental organization until long after we stopped sending the money, and we had no special interest them except as people willing to kill Soviets.

It is a very semantic argument, though, isn't it? I mean, everyone knows the US gave support to various Afghani groups because they wanted to hurt the Soviets, and not because they supported those groups particularly. The debate is whether that was sensible given what was to come afterwards*.

I've been told that the US mostly allied with the more controllable and moderate groups that ended up the Northen Alliance, while the Taliban received most of their support from Pakistan in the wake of the Russians leaving. Which seems a much better defence.



*I'd say it was pretty reasonable, if only there'd been money available afterwards to stop Afghanistan falling into extremism.

djones520 wrote:1. We were discussing Al Qaeda, and your assertation that I didn't know what I was talking about. But it does involve the Taliban as well, since they are our enemy as well.

So we were discussing both.

djones520 wrote:
3. Yes you are, when you claim the US was responsible for the funding and training "indirectly" of the Taliban. The US funded and trained people who fought the Soviets. When the Soviets were gone, so was the US.

No, no I'm not. The US funded and trained people who fought the Soviets and later constituted the Taliban. You've said this yourself. You simply aren't willing to admit what the implications of such a statement are.

djones520 wrote:
The people who later joined the Taliban had recieved some of that training, but the US had nothing to do with their actions after they did what we trained them for.

Nor did I say that they did. Pay attention.

djones520 wrote:
Was the US responsible for Timothy McVeigh because they taught him how to create explosive devises? Or Lee Harvy Oswald because they taught him how to shoot?

Did I make any comment, at all, about responsibility? Nope. Pay attention.

id say what we think of as al'qaeda (osama and his peons) is pretty much defeated at this point. Sure we hear about offshots in somalia and yemen and other countries, but those guys are just trying to big themselves up.
By now we are tangling with the amorphous "islamic terrorism" threat, and that is going to be practically impossible to defeat. Simply because there are always going to be a few dickheads trying to blow something up, oh and look they are muslims!

2 words Hell Yes.
Everyone can run out of men at some point. Sometime people are going to find out that the Al-Queda is just going to kill you when they are done with you.

As an idea, since Al-Qaeda is a recognized name globally, it will probably never die.

Even in the highly improbable event the terrorist leaders of the organization are captured/killed and their training camps destroyed, member cells scattered to the winds, we are talking about only one terrorist group.

There are many, many more out there.

This really braks down into three questions.

1. Who are Al Quaeda?

2. Can we beat them?

and on a sub topic:

3. What is Pakistan doing about them?


Who are Al Quaeda.

I find the question irrelevant, I am sceptical to reports that Bin Laden still lives, because both sides at some level want him to be so. What messages we get from Bin Laden are sketchy at best for many reasons and are possibly faked or disguised to the point where we do not know if they are genuine or not.

As for Al Quaeda itself, ultimately who cares, it has served its purpose. The best descriptor is to consider Al Quaeda as a pseudo-verb than a proper noun. Al Quaeda is determined by action not membership, thus someone who plots Islamic terrorism can claim to be part of Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda whoever they are, will not dispute this, neither will western midia military or politics. Therefore in reality those who commit acts of Islamic terror are 'Al Quaeda-ing' and may claim to be Al Quaeda, those who do not are not.

Now as the dogmas that cause Islamic terror are globally distributed, simply being a corruption of the Islamic faith, and potential members are also globally distributed Al Quaeda members can crop up anywhere with or without any connections to a wider terror network. Whwen the 'shoe bomber' proclaimed himself a disciple of Osama Bin Laden was there any indication that he was? As far as we are aware not, but there doesnt need tro be. Some might call independent isolated terrorists as not Al Quaeda, but then Al Quaeda doesnt disown them.


Can we beat them?

Possibly, but some changes are needed. Many of the problems are not just complaint that can be labelled at Islamic fundamentalism, two major complaint nd causes of dissent are the mishandling of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs and the wests inability to secure and settlement that gives them even basic civil protection. Palestrinians are treated as less than human by a bigoted succession of Israeli governments and it is little wonder than many turbn to militancy. European states largely remain neutral on Arab-Israeli affairs, however the US has been blatantly partisan even when facing incontrovertible facts that the Israeli state is oppressive and involved in illegal occupation.
Secondly while talking aboutoccupation Afghanistan is occupied for good reason, the Taliban were directly in choots with terrorism, however Saddam Hussein was not. Hussein was evil, but in command of his own country, we took it away not out of concern for the people but out of greed for oil.
I really cannot call the Iraqi militants 'terrorists' and 'insurgents', no matter what vile things they do. Iraq is not free, its occupied and its resources are being stolen. Frankly those who are fighting western soldiers in Iraq has more in common with the Free French than with Al Quaeda.
The flipside to that is that a lot of 'insurgency' genuinely is insurgent, across the border from Iran and Iran has no more right to be there than we have and is unconcerned by the civilians casualties caused by their insurgents own actions.

To beat Al Quaeda we need to beat an idea, we beat an idea with a better idea. Tom make that work logically we need moral high ground and that involves some form of settlement that establishes human rights within territories occupied or government by Israel, and a withdrawal from occupied Iraq.


What is Pakistan doing about them?

Pakistan is doing far more than they are credited with and deserve our support and gratitude rather than accusations of half heartedness. It is one thing for western countries far away to make a tough stand on Islamic terrorism. It is eanother thing for a neighbouring country with an open border and a Moslem population to do the same. Pakistani leaders are in for a rough time for helping us, far more than our own leaders are. And it doesnt help that Pakistani aid is demanded by the same USA that allows Israel to crap all over their Moselm brothers in the West Bank. Its a little two dimensional to assume that Moslems have care for each other globally, by and large they do not, but they are sensitive to the wests own actions and it is indicative of where the wests sympahies lie.
This is made evident in this thread. Pakistani leaders have so much more to lose, they have a Moslem electorate and hostile borders however people from the safety of arm chairs in western cioties concemn them for not doing as much as leaders who have more resources and are more detached from the issues. Yet similar armchairs are also quite happy to post support for what can be seen as anti-Moslem community activities. Why should they trust us, we demand of them, but the first time they have a problem with a western country or Israel will Washington help them, no they wont, and they know it.

A country using conventional military tactics always have a very very hard time defeating guerrilla styled organization/s.

Depends what you consider to be 'conventional military tactics'. Britain (and the British Commonwealth) has historically had a quite a bit of success in counter-insurgency warfare.

It's one major notable failure was of course the American War of Independence - if one could be bothered, it would be quite possible to draw parallels between the tactics employed by the Taliban and by George Washington's forces.

Aaaaaaand...gak storm!

ShadowZetki wrote:Actually no, it was no joke. During the soviet invasion of Afghanistan fleeing refugees went towards pakistan where the US government armed and funded those who would later return as rebels against the soviets and left behind a program worth millions in the hands of pakistan to train them, that + the other rising warlords banding together to fight a Jihad (holy war which means to reclaim lost lands) against the soviets, thus you get the Taliban

-Edit- Sorry I meant the Pakistani Intelligence Service but still pakistan regardless

Jihad. Means. Struggle.

Your lack of knowledge regarding South-Central Asia's political history in the last 40 years is staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Al-Qaeda can be defeated, with copious amounts of napalm.