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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57561467/al-qaedas-own-country-for-2013-northern-mali/

An AP News article, so I'll only link it, since they get anal about that stuff.

Pretty disconcerting though. They've effectively annexed a region the size of Texas, and have been seriously fortifying it, while stock piling supplies and weapons. Thousands of weapons dissapeared from Libya following Qaddafi's overthrow, it's reasonable to assume they got their hands on a lot of them. Stock piles of weapons from the Mali military should be in their control as well, since their military effectively splintered and fled the region with their pants around their ankles early last year.

It seems these guys have taken a page out of the Talibans' books as well. Public mutilations, attacks against women, and destroying World Heritage sites that predate Islams introduction to the region.

This is something that really needs to be watched, and I'd say acted on. The world doesn't need such a well established safe haven for these crazies.

I like how "al Qaeda" now refers to any and all Islamist groups.

 dogma wrote:
I like how "al Qaeda" now refers to any and all Islamist groups.

You do realize that Al Qaeda is not a single organized entity right? If what you said was true, the other two "Islamist groups" mentioned in the story would be Al Qaeda as well, they aren't though.

AQIM has officially been a branch of Al Qaeda since 2007. There are several differant branches of Al Qaeda. They operate in various regions of the Middle East and Africa. Think of the Hydra. Many differant heads that can act independantly, but all tied together.

Honestly, so what? I feel sorry for the innocents with the curse of being born into this and all the other hundreds of hellish places on earth but recent intervention has shown it's lack of long term influence.Leave them to it, if they interfere with us, liquidate them. Constantly trying to improve these desert hell holes and elevate their people is a pointless exercise. Let them wallow in their filthy squalor and if they so much as stick their heads outside their warrens, erase them utterly with long range aircraft, missiles and so on. Just be ready to welcome the nation back to the table when they've shaken these repulsive bastards off for themselves and decided to throw off this ridiculous dark age religion and it's vile trappings.

djones520 wrote:

You do realize that Al Qaeda is not a single organized entity right?

Yes, I realize that "Al Qaeda" is the pseudonym that many Americans have assigned to all "Islamist terrorists".

djones520 wrote:

If what you said was true, the other two "Islamist groups" mentioned in the story would be Al Qaeda as well, they aren't though.

What "other two" groups? The article only refers to "affiliates" of Al Qaeda, and then names them.

djones520 wrote:

AQIM has officially been a branch of Al Qaeda since 2007.

You cannot claim that Al Qaeda is not a single, organized entity and subsequently attribute to it qualities that make it a single, organized entity.

Dogma, it's obvious you have little understanding of this topic if your making this argument. The branch of Al Qaeda that is situated in Pakistan/Afghanistan is the nominal head of the organization. Other branches, such as AQIM, Al Qaeda in Yemen, or the now mostly defunt Al Qaeda in Iraq were (mostly) terrorist groups that had formed on their own, and because they have similar goals and ideals "joined" the larger, more recognizable Al Qaeda. They largely operate independantly, but are still a part of the organization. AQIM is not the same group that perpetrated 9/11. Doesn't mean it's no less a part of the greater Al Qaeda organization then the folks we fought in Afghanistan or Iraq were.

And I don't make those distinctions. Organizations like the EU and the US Government are the ones that do, so take it up with them.

As for the other groups, why don't you read the article. It's on the first page, towards the bottom.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Honestly, so what? I feel sorry for the innocents with the curse of being born into this and all the other hundreds of hellish places on earth but recent intervention has shown it's lack of long term influence.Leave them to it, if they interfere with us, liquidate them. Constantly trying to improve these desert hell holes and elevate their people is a pointless exercise. Let them wallow in their filthy squalor and if they so much as stick their heads outside their warrens, erase them utterly with long range aircraft, missiles and so on. Just be ready to welcome the nation back to the table when they've shaken these repulsive bastards off for themselves and decided to throw off this ridiculous dark age religion and it's vile trappings.

Well said.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Honestly, so what? I feel sorry for the innocents with the curse of being born into this and all the other hundreds of hellish places on earth but recent intervention has shown it's lack of long term influence.Leave them to it, if they interfere with us, liquidate them. Constantly trying to improve these desert hell holes and elevate their people is a pointless exercise. Let them wallow in their filthy squalor and if they so much as stick their heads outside their warrens, erase them utterly with long range aircraft, missiles and so on. Just be ready to welcome the nation back to the table when they've shaken these repulsive bastards off for themselves and decided to throw off this ridiculous dark age religion and it's vile trappings.

Agreed, we are not God, nor should we try to be him/her.

Slap me once, and I'l turn the other cheek. Slap me twice, and I'l knock your fuggin teeth out.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Honestly, so what? I feel sorry for the innocents with the curse of being born into this and all the other hundreds of hellish places on earth but recent intervention has shown it's lack of long term influence.Leave them to it, if they interfere with us, liquidate them. Constantly trying to improve these desert hell holes and elevate their people is a pointless exercise. Let them wallow in their filthy squalor and if they so much as stick their heads outside their warrens, erase them utterly with long range aircraft, missiles and so on. Just be ready to welcome the nation back to the table when they've shaken these repulsive bastards off for themselves and decided to throw off this ridiculous dark age religion and it's vile trappings.

You're the type of guy who would have voted for Chamberlain.

 Seaward wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Honestly, so what? I feel sorry for the innocents with the curse of being born into this and all the other hundreds of hellish places on earth but recent intervention has shown it's lack of long term influence.Leave them to it, if they interfere with us, liquidate them. Constantly trying to improve these desert hell holes and elevate their people is a pointless exercise. Let them wallow in their filthy squalor and if they so much as stick their heads outside their warrens, erase them utterly with long range aircraft, missiles and so on. Just be ready to welcome the nation back to the table when they've shaken these repulsive bastards off for themselves and decided to throw off this ridiculous dark age religion and it's vile trappings.

You're the type of guy who would have voted for Chamberlain.

I'm betting that you have absolutely no idea about anything to do with Neville Chamberlain's political career, other than the so-called 'appeasement' of Hitler.

djones520 wrote:
Dogma, it's obvious you have little understanding of this topic if your making this argument.

I disagree, and would subsequently argue that your understanding of this topic is deficient.

djones520 wrote:
The branch of Al Qaeda that is situated in Pakistan/Afghanistan is the nominal head of the organization. Other branches, such as AQIM, Al Qaeda in Yemen, or the now mostly defunt Al Qaeda in Iraq were (mostly) terrorist groups that had formed on their own, and because they have similar goals and ideals "joined" the larger, more recognizable Al Qaeda.

I'm confused. Is Al Qaeda a single, organized entity or a loose term of reference for Islamist terrorist groups? Because, again, you are attributing to it the characteristics of a single, organized entity while further claiming that it isn't one.

I suppose you might contend that Al Qaeda is a loose confluence of Islamist terrorist groups that are hostile to the US, but as that includes nearly all Islamist terrorist groups I am not certain the distinction is relevant.

And yes, I am aware that several government agencies publicly equate "Al Qaeda" with "Islamist Terrorist", but I am also aware that they do it as a matter of convenience.

Right or wrong "Al Qaeda" elicit a more visceral reaction than simply "terrorist organization".

It's a propaganda war too...

 Albatross wrote:
I'm betting that you have absolutely no idea about anything to do with Neville Chamberlain's political career, other than the so-called 'appeasement' of Hitler.

Wasn't he a town planning committee chairman at one point, too?

 Seaward wrote:
You're the type of guy who would have voted for Chamberlain.

When countering someone else's ideas with articulated ideas of you own are just too hard, why not just throw some random garbage out there, see how it goes?

 Seaward wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
I'm betting that you have absolutely no idea about anything to do with Neville Chamberlain's political career, other than the so-called 'appeasement' of Hitler.

Wasn't he a town planning committee chairman at one point, too?

Actually, he did a lot for working conditions in the UK in terms of maximum working hours and paid holidays.

My point was that no-one voted for Chamberlain. His predecessor retired. We don't have a presidential system over here - you vote for the party, not the man.

In any case, I think poor old Neville gets unduly rough treatment. He was plainly trying to avoid another major European war, mere decades after the most horrific in modern history. I don't see anything wrong with that. His aims were noble. You can't blame Neville Chamberlain for Adolph Hitler being a genocidal megalomaniac.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Incidentally, show of hands: Who glanced at this thread title and thought it said 'Al Qaeda Owns Northern Mail'?

I thought they were expanding their postal network!

 Ouze wrote:
When countering someone else's ideas with articulated ideas of you own are just too hard, why not just throw some random garbage out there, see how it goes?

Really? So I'm the only one who finds it ironic that a guy who spent seven pages going on at exhausting length about the plague of the working poor in America goes, "feth 'em," regarding the hapless citizens of an impoverished African nation coming under the thumb of guys guaranteed to run it far worse than an 18th century work house just because he doesn't like 'adventurism' or whatever it was he was railing against?

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the chances of overthrowing oppressive governments in that region and becoming mom-and-apple-pie democracies are extraordinarily low. The chances of overthrowing oppressive governments and becoming radicalized in a different but equally bad direction are far better. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to do something about that if we're able. Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "The rest of the world's problems won't affect us!" doesn't work any better now than it did before.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
When countering someone else's ideas with articulated ideas of you own are just too hard, why not just throw some random garbage out there, see how it goes?

Really? So I'm the only one who finds it ironic that a guy who spent seven pages going on at exhausting length about the plague of the working poor in America goes, "feth 'em," regarding the hapless citizens of an impoverished African nation coming under the thumb of guys guaranteed to run it far worse than an 18th century work house just because he doesn't like 'adventurism' or whatever it was he was railing against?

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the chances of overthrowing oppressive governments in that region and becoming mom-and-apple-pie democracies are extraordinarily low. The chances of overthrowing oppressive governments and becoming radicalized in a different but equally bad direction are far better. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to do something about that if we're able. Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "The rest of the world's problems won't affect us!" doesn't work any better now than it did before.

heh... yeah, it is ironic.

But he does have a point. We (meaning Democratic countries) can't be the world police all the time.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
When countering someone else's ideas with articulated ideas of you own are just too hard, why not just throw some random garbage out there, see how it goes?

Really? So I'm the only one who finds it ironic that a guy who spent seven pages going on at exhausting length about the plague of the working poor in America goes, "feth 'em," regarding the hapless citizens of an impoverished African nation coming under the thumb of guys guaranteed to run it far worse than an 18th century work house just because he doesn't like 'adventurism' or whatever it was he was railing against?

Are domestic issues and foreign issues are the same?

 Seaward wrote:

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the chances of overthrowing oppressive governments in that region and becoming mom-and-apple-pie democracies are extraordinarily low. The chances of overthrowing oppressive governments and becoming radicalized in a different but equally bad direction are far better. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to do something about that if we're able. Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "The rest of the world's problems won't affect us!" doesn't work any better now than it did before.

This paragraph is contrary.

 Seaward wrote:

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the chances of overthrowing oppressive governments in that region and becoming mom-and-apple-pie democracies are extraordinarily low. The chances of overthrowing oppressive governments and becoming radicalized in a different but equally bad direction are far better. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to do something about that if we're able. Sticking our fingers in our ears and saying, "The rest of the world's problems won't affect us!" doesn't work any better now than it did before.

I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here. You're saying you don't think overthrowing oppressive governments to install democracies work; which I agree with.

Are you arguing that we'd stand a better chance of doing so successfully then the local populace? Because, unless we full-on occupy the place for decades, I don't think it matters much who does the overthrowing.

And while I agree, in principle, with the idea that with great power comes great responsibility, both with Spider-Men and nations; and that should as one of the most powerful nations in the world we have a duty to act when great evil happens and we are capable of stopping it; I think that duty has to be balanced against the duty that our nation owes to our own citizens not to throw away the lives of their sons and daughters in conflicts that cannot be won with any sort of longevity. It's not that I'm adverse to "adventurism" so much as it sorely has to be balanced by pragmatism and yes, even ROI. We can't give people liberty or freedom, they have to buy it on their own with blood.

So I guess I'm confused because it doesn't sound like you even disagree with this.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm honestly not sure what you're saying here. You're saying you don't think overthrowing oppressive governments to install democracies work; which I agree with.

Are you arguing that we'd stand a better chance of doing so successfully then the local populace? Because, unless we full-on occupy the place for decades, I don't think it matters much who does the overthrowing.

And while I agree, in principle, with the idea that with great power comes great responsibility, both with Spider-Men and nations; and that should as one of the most powerful nations in the world we have a duty to act when great evil happens and we are capable of stopping it; I think that duty has to be balanced against the duty that our nation owes to our own citizens not to throw away the lives of their sons and daughters in conflicts that cannot be won with any sort of longevity. It's not that I'm adverse to "adventurism" so much as it sorely has to be balanced by pragmatism and yes, even ROI. We can't give people liberty or freedom, they have to buy it on their own with blood.

So I guess I'm confused because it doesn't sound like you even disagree with this.

I think that waiting for them to get their ducks in a row doesn't work, because the guys that popular revolts install in that entire region have so far proven to be no better than the guys they kicked out, with a few mediocre exceptions.

Here's the thing about "throwing away the lives" of our sons and daughters: just because they're not actively engaged in a war with us at present doesn't mean it's not a vital security issue to nip this kind of crap in the bud. We know what happens when al-Qaeda gets safe, stable havens. They don't just call it a draw and wander off to do something else.

I have a solution instead of wasting lives and resources (especially American lives and resources, as if we didn't burn enough of those on our last two desert adventures)

If the terrorists are putting people to work we should thank the job creators!

But are bomb building and vestment digging truly positive growth industries?

 Albatross wrote:

In any case, I think poor old Neville gets unduly rough treatment. He was plainly trying to avoid another major European war, mere decades after the most horrific in modern history. I don't see anything wrong with that. His aims were noble. You can't blame Neville Chamberlain for Adolph Hitler being a genocidal megalomaniac.

That and a lot of other politicians around the world agreed with that approach, it wasn't out of step for the time. There wasn't much of a taste for another war if you can imagine yourself in the shoes of people in the 1930s. But lets hear criticism about being slow to act against Hitler from someone in a country that didn't join the war until 1941.

Incidentally, show of hands: Who glanced at this thread title and thought it said 'Al Qaeda Owns Northern Mail'?

I thought they were expanding their postal network!

I keep seeing it as 'Al Qaeda Owns Northern Line'.

Terrorists on the Northern Line? Better use the Piccadilly...

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have a solution instead of wasting lives and resources (especially American lives and resources, as if we didn't burn enough of those on our last two desert adventures)

Ayap.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
But are bomb building and vestment digging truly positive growth industries?

They create growth in the construction, health care, and law enforcement industries. The environment also encourages a strong grassroots level economy.

Any nation that spends $600 Billion + on defence (43% of the world's total) should not be worried by a couple of hundred terrorists in some African sandpit.

True democracy comes from within, not foreign intervention. Let's not mistake the mistakes of Afghanistan by trying to turn Mali into Denmark. These things are complicated.

d-Usa- I love your new cat avatar. He looks on with such disdain.

In other news, stop the presses! There is political and social unrest in Africa based on ethnic, social, and religious tensions!

Something must be done!

USA didn't break it. We don't have to buy it. I do reserve the "nuke it from orbit" option as noted however.

hmmmm as I recall the capture of northern mali was mainly done by Tuareg nationalists trying to create their own nation for the last several decades. The islamic militants jumped in only after Libya and fighting between them and the Tuaregs is ongoing.

Secondly, why should we intervene when the AU is already assembling a massive invasion force to re-capture northern mali and overthrow the military junta in southern mali??

This is old news by several months