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.

Is it me, or the radical terrorists organizations are emulating the Hydra group?
"Cut of one head, two will appear".

That's been the general idea for a while. Al Qaeda have said it is better for terrorists to work in smaller cells.

ISIS seem to be bucking that trend at the minute.

Indeed lol

 loki old fart wrote:
So it's been a screw up, and all about saving face.

No, things are never that simplistic or moralistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
That's been the general idea for a while. Al Qaeda have said it is better for terrorists to work in smaller cells.

ISIS seem to be bucking that trend at the minute.

ISIS are playing a different game, trying to capture & hold territory brings with it a need for an entirely different organisational structure to what you need for terrorism.

 loki old fart wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You should read between the lines here.

The US policy on Al Quaeda is: 'eradicate them'.

The US police on the Taliban is: 'they are hostile and we are actively militarily opposed to them, but at some point we will have to negotiate with them'.

As this goes back to the Bush administration it show that the departments involved have some medium and long forecast planning, possibly through foreign influence. As a policy it makes sense.

Orlanth has it figured out. This is all about the US eventually getting out of Afghanistan.

I mean, if people in this thread would stop with, well, whatever the hell kind of outrage they're trying to drum up and think about this, they'd realise a few basic things. The US is not going to eradicate the Taliban. The US is not going to stay in Afghanistan forever. The US is not going to one day just say 'oh well, those terrorist scum are set to overrun the country but we're leaving anyway, sorry'.

As such, the US has to look for another way out. Trying to deal with the Taliban, or at least deal with more manageable parts of the Taliban, and allowing them a small part in legitimate Afghani society is one possible way out of this mess.

So it's been a screw up, and all about saving face.

Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable, however getting stuck in Afghanistan was the mistake. In hindsight, in fact I wont even say that, in the minority unlistened to analysis of the time, the Afghan campaign should have been a slightly extended punitive raid. In, knock head and leave.

 loki old fart wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Only if you ignore the 'eradicate Al-Qaeda' bit. We almost got that one done.... Well then it just becomes a mess against cause wrecking AQ just led to ISIS so yeah. It's a screw up XD Not much face to save though

Fixed that for you.

As for Al Quaeda, you need to understand the basic nature of the conflict involved. it is against an ideology not a nation state or individual group. Two facts most people have missed.

1. At no point, pretty much ever can the US or western nations as a whole sit back and say the war is won, time to bring troops home for a ticker tape parade.
Now the war with radical Islam is underway it will remain pretty much permanently. It should be seen as crime prevention rather than war.
This is the elephant in the room, which is why most people, especially elected politicians, don't want to face this reality.

2. Al Quaeda is not a name or an orgnisation. It's more like a verb. It doesnt matter who inn Al Quaeda you kill anyone else with a robe and a bomb can become the new Al Quaeda. all they need do is launch an attack in Al Quaedas name. This is why I refer to the name as a quasi verb. Its a doing word. Someone who joins and does nothing isn't really Al Quaeda, and isnt really actionable, someone who never joins never sees the inside of a training centre but blows something up or beheads someone and claims to be the Al Quaeda cell of region <insert name> then there truth to the matter.
Eradicating Al Quaeda is a matter of wiping them out when you see them, the job can be basically done, considering that the conflict is ongoing and unending.

People need to realise that terrorism is closer to organised crime than war, and crime will never just go away.
However you don't want to classify it as crime directly as crime indicates a different response level, which might not be appropriate for tackling organisations of this nature.

 Orlanth wrote:


Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable,.

The Taliban had no connection to 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda.

however getting stuck in Afghanistan was the mistake. In hindsight, in fact I wont even say that, in the minority unlistened to analysis of the time, the Afghan campaign should have been a slightly extended punitive raid. In, knock head and leave.

Look at my old posts, on the subject "I told you so", I even compared it to Vietnam.

As for Al Quaeda, you need to understand the basic nature of the conflict involved. it is against an ideology not a nation state or individual group. Two facts most people have missed.

1. At no point, pretty much ever can the US or western nations as a whole sit back and say the war is won, time to bring troops home for a ticker tape parade.
Now the war with radical Islam is underway it will remain pretty much permanently. It should be seen as crime prevention rather than war.
This is the elephant in the room, which is why most people, especially elected politicians, don't want to face this reality.

2. Al Quaeda is not a name or an organization. It's more like a verb. It doesn't matter who inn Al Quaeda you kill anyone else with a robe and a bomb can become the new Al Quaeda. all they need do is launch an attack in Al Quaedas name. This is why I refer to the name as a quasi verb. Its a doing word. Someone who joins and does nothing isn't really Al Quaeda, and isnt really actionable, someone who never joins never sees the inside of a training centre but blows something up or beheads someone and claims to be the Al Quaeda cell of region <insert name> then there truth to the matter.
Eradicating Al Quaeda is a matter of wiping them out when you see them, the job can be basically done, considering that the conflict is ongoing and unending.

More akin to gardening, you weed it today, and you weed it again next month, or till you give up gardening.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable,.

The Taliban had no connection to 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda.

The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, or detain him for arrest by international warrant when he was allegedly openly residing in Kabul at the time of the 9/11 attacks. This was how the Taliban got on the Washington hit list.

 loki old fart wrote:

More akin to gardening, you weed it today, and you weed it again next month, or till you give up gardening.

Either analogy will do with regards to an ongoing unending job. But garden weeds don't generally kill people, don't have an ideology or require legislation that conflicts with extant western values. Organised crime however does.

Also an agrarian analogy only goes so far, farms and land plots are passed on as an inheritence not a problem. Weeding is part of the process by which you get to grow nice garden carrots for the stew Nobody wants to 'inherit' terrorism and there is nothing to be gained in the task.

 Orlanth wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable,.

The Taliban had no connection to 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda.

The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, or detain him for arrest by international warrant when he was allegedly openly residing in Kabul at the time of the 9/11 attacks. This was how the Taliban got on the Washington hit list.

So you can declare war for refusing to extradite ??

 Orlanth wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

More akin to gardening, you weed it today, and you weed it again next month, or till you give up gardening.

Either analogy will do with regards to an ongoing unending job. But garden weeds don't generally kill people, don't have an ideology or require legislation that conflicts with extant western values. Organised crime however does.

Also an agrarian analogy only goes so far, farms and land plots are passed on as an inheritence not a problem. Weeding is part of the process by which you get to grow nice garden carrots for the stew Nobody wants to 'inherit' terrorism and there is nothing to be gained in the task.

But it's still an endless task. Which was the point.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Who is defined as a terrorist is and always has been a matter of political expediency. The word is so abused at this stage it has no real meaning any more, and it never had a particularly defined meaning anyway.

Pretending this is any different is really pretty silly.

I'm frankly far more disgusted with Obama going to kiss the ass of the new Saudi ruler. I can still never fathom why the Saudis manage to be everyone's best friends when they publicly execute people etc etc etc etc.

When we start calling that lot "state terrorists" and putting them on lists too, I'll believe it is more than a political tool.

1) Oil
2) Being their allies has huge advantages in the region, with access to the Suez, Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman

Could you make this .jpeg just a touch bigger, There's a cosmonaut on the international space station who can't quite see it from orbit.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable,.

The Taliban had no connection to 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda were operating in Afghanistan. The Taliban sheltered Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and allowed them to operate training camps in the country.

snip.

Reds8n

 Hordini wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable,.

The Taliban had no connection to 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda were operating in Afghanistan. The Taliban sheltered Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and allowed them to operate training camps in the country.

Al Qaeda had training camps in lots of places, you didn't declare war on.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Who is defined as a terrorist is and always has been a matter of political expediency. The word is so abused at this stage it has no real meaning any more, and it never had a particularly defined meaning anyway.

Pretending this is any different is really pretty silly.

I'm frankly far more disgusted with Obama going to kiss the ass of the new Saudi ruler. I can still never fathom why the Saudis manage to be everyone's best friends when they publicly execute people etc etc etc etc.

When we start calling that lot "state terrorists" and putting them on lists too, I'll believe it is more than a political tool.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/634374.page

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden, or detain him for arrest by international warrant when he was allegedly openly residing in Kabul at the time of the 9/11 attacks. This was how the Taliban got on the Washington hit list.

So you can declare war for refusing to extradite ??

Well war wasn't formally declared. People dont do that anymore.
Yes, Afghanistan was invaded to hunt for Bin Laden, thats the simplified version anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–14)

So is the KKK or operation rescue listed as a terrorist organization?

 skyth wrote:
So is the KKK or operation rescue listed as a terrorist organization?

Giving time as the US goes down the road in the Future I highly believe Extremist Groups would be considered Terrorist Groups.

 loki old fart wrote:

snip.

Reds8n

 Hordini wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


Its more like kicking the can down the road for the next administration.
The Taliban needed opposing because of 9/11. It was justifiable,.

The Taliban had no connection to 9/11, that was Al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda were operating in Afghanistan. The Taliban sheltered Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and allowed them to operate training camps in the country.

Al Qaeda had training camps in lots of places, you didn't declare war on.

Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden was operating out of, and was the primary of area of operations for Al Qaeda Central, until we chased them into Pakistan.