Afghanistan

The Taliban are not going to move anywhere else. They are an Afghan political faction with no international agenda. This is an example of the conflation of "global terrorism" / Taliban which the part of the FAC report I quoted talked about. The same report makes clear that "Al Qaeda is no longer operating in Afghanistan".

You also seem to think that "al-Qaeda" consists of something akin to a regular army, with thousands of men, infrastructure, equipment, who will move en masse. I doubt this is the case. (The Taliban, and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan do, but these are not sources of international terrorism but local guerilla warfare.) The operational links between international plots and Pakistan mostly consist of sources of funding and extreme Islamist radicalisation, perhaps training in some of the tactics we have seen used, such as home bomb making and suicide bombing. The links talked about in the report are that the people concerned have at some point in their past made a brief visit to these areas of Pakistan. International terrorism consists of isolated groups of individuals gathering their own resources and carrying out their own plans with only vague organisational and funding links and sometimes visits to madrassas and other groups now operating in Pakistan... It is not hard for groups of individuals to vanish across borders.

I have debated this with you many times in the past and have no intention of painfully going over it all for you again. Have a look at this thread in which I thoroughly debunked the lie of Saddam's supposed links to international terrorism. Like the Taliban, Saddam had only regional political interests and his links to guerilla groups reflected these concerns. There is zero evidence of his ever having any relationship with "al-Qaeda" type global terrorism. Nice to see you are still repeating the same old empty rhetoric and the same old outright lies all these years on matthew.

Evidence for this claim?

On the contrary I would say the situation with regards international terrorism has become rather worse since the beginning of the UK/US' belligerent foreign policy in these areas, quite possibly as a result of it. Indeed it is very often quoted as a reason for radical action in the martyrdom statements of international terrosists, such as those made by the 7/7 bombers.

 

The report quotes a person, who is?
He seems to be making the case for moving the focus elsewhere, so he is hardly going to say: "Well, there might be a few remnants floating around in the heart of Afghanistan"...neither does he mention the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He purposely avoids any mention of Afghanistan.
If he is actually stating as fact there is none anywhere in Afghanistan, not even near the border, then we probably should have him as the head of MI6.

No, you are right, the Taleban won't go anywhere, that is true.
I definitely should have separated them from Al-Quaeda.
I did just mean Al-Quaeda finding another location to base themselves.

The point at which you quoted me I did mention the leaders not the people fighting for them. I did also presume they had their own base with their own equipment and weapons etc. If these elements were removed, would it not be more difficult for Al-Quaeda hierarchy to re-group somewhere else?
There would atleast be a power vacume..or do you think they just go to plan B?

I did go onto mention thousands of people...perhaps that is less likely, in relation to the Al-Quaeda...I simply do not know how many fighters they have there.

Imo, Al-Quaeda presumably have some form of permanent training grounds or areas they use...you make those areas less likely to be used (because we know where they are) they have fewer and fewer places to hide.
If they were so agile, then it wouldn't hold true that there was any need to try and flush out Al-Quaeda from Afghanistan...why bother?

I didn't mention Al-Quaeda.
Neither did I mention any possible links...so take a chill pill, would you.
I purposely didn't mention Al-Quaeda because I knew you would jump down my neck, and I appreciate we have been through that one before.
You agree he had some connections to "guerilla groups".
There IS plenty of documentation regarding terrorist links - lets call them what they are, Lithium.
If you think you can thoroughly debunk every possible connection to terrorism as only a local issue, I'd like to see you try.
I know you said you did in that other thread, but I am more aware of the situation now and more prepared to illustrate my point.
I know how you use words to close down the conversation, and I prepared for that too.
Heck, even my grammer/spelling has improved.

But, If that is the case then what do we define as "international terrorism"?
Isn't it the case if you are based in one country and there is a link to a terrorist attack away from any of your borders, it can no longer be defined as "local."

The 7/7 bombers were "International terrorists"?
I don't mean to laugh, it is a serious issue, but that is funny.

I have not read about many, if any, Internaional terrorist activity, lately.
But I did do a little bit of research:
On graphs I have seen there was a spike during 2001...and a decline to 2003.
It does seem to have risen since, but there doesn't seem to be any major spikes.

 

What gets me is how UK and US leaders go on about liberating the world from the scourge of international terrorism as if we in the West are whiter than white.

The West continuously pursues aggressive policies in the Middle East and acts purely in its' own interests, turning a blind eye to Israel's misdemeanors.

We are not saving the world from terrorism, we are looking after Number 1, and we got into this mess in the first place through kicking the Arab world in the teeth as and when it suited us.

You reap what you sow, and we have sown aggression. We are not "in the right", we've just got bigger armies.

 

You have clearly not read the report, which deals with all these issues in some detail.

The report also specifies that this is not a quote from an individual but a conclusion which stems from the submissions of "a range of interlocutors" and the written submission of the Foreign Office...

You talk about "the al-Qaeda hierarchy" as if this is a meaningful concept. The fact is nobody knows precisely what is meant by "al-Qaeda", whether it exists at all and in what forms. The radical Islamism we are seeing today is rather different to that seen in the pre-2001 Bin Laden days, my guess is that there are perhaps various diffuse groups in the Afghan / Pakistan border area with varying agendas but principally motivated these days by the practical concerns of the ongoing belligerence of the west in the region. What we are seeing now are disaffected Pakistanis becoming radicalised and planning jihadi type actions against the west. The predominantly Arab "al-Qaeda" of old no longer exists, "al-Qaeda" has now become a term describing mostly Pakistani Islamists. It is an ongoing and constantly changing situation, and to talk about "al-Qaeda" as if it is an organisation with a meaningful hierarchy and a constant base of members, a kind of regular terrorist army, which is in any way the same thing as the organisation which planned 9/11, is obtuse and inaccurate guesswork based on little more than empty political rhetoric.

Quite so, it seems to have been quite pointless if not counter-productive. Not to mention the level of humanitarian devastation 8 years of war has caused.

 

Yes, clearly the July 2005 bombings were of a character typically associated with "international terrorism", a result of Islamic extremism and with a stated agenda of global significance rather than a local political one. While I don't think there have been any proven links to Pakistan or "al-Qaeda", there has been plenty of speculation, and those whom the individuals concerned might have been associated with certainly have links to Pakistani Islamism.

From the released martyrdom statements:
"Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier."
"What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel."

This is what marks this attack out as "international terrorism", rather than the actions of a regional political faction with a local political agenda. This is why "al-Qaeda" type terrorism is of a fundamentally different character from that of militant political groups like Hamas, the Iranian MEK, the Taliban, the IRA, etc. This is a very important distinction to grasp in understanding and discussing this issue and a distinction you have consistently failed to make.

In your opinion, teddy bears called Mohammed cause "perhaps more" Islamist radicalisation than the invasion and occupation of Aghanistan? This statement demonstrates a quite astonishing level of stupidity that, if it weren't so dangerously and tragically ignorant, would be funny.

 

I did read the report, several times, infact.
Last week I hadn't realised the paradigm was that "There are no Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan."
I have subsequently read "The British" are using that line too.
Not the Americans, though.
The report did make a bold statement, one I was skeptical and dismissive about...but not averse to not believing.

I didn't say anything about the hierarchy I merely pointed out there was one. I think you were jumping the gun again there (Like assuming I mentioned a connection between Al-Quaeda and Saddam, when I didn't.)
But, Michael McConnell told the Senate Armed Services Committee in his February 2008 annual threat assessment report that al-Qaeda’s “central leadership based in the border area of Pakistan is its most dangerous component."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126/

There is a hierarchy to Al-Quaeda...perhaps a weaker one than was present circa 2001 and shortly after...but one nonetheless.

... Al-Qaeda's leadership has regrouped in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan and has established new terrorist training camps in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Al-Qaeda's propaganda campaign is expanding, as are its affiliations with regional terrorist groups.[16] For example, the Algeria-based Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat (Salafist group for preaching and combat, GSPC) recently changed its name to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, signaling its incorporation into Al-Qaeda's global network.[17] Since January 2005, some forty different organizations in countries that include Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen "have announced their formation and pledged allegiance to bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and their strategic objectives."[18] While the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that "the global jihadist movement is decentralized, lacks a coherent strategy, and is becoming more diffuse,"[19] the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate supports the view that Al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability."[20]

It has never been proven Al-Quaeda were behind 9/11...they have claimed credit, but for alll we know what you said about Al-Quaeda now (various diffuse groups) could have been true back then too.

But it seems likely there is more than an hierarchy than you care to believe.
I'd not like to think why you seem to be minimising Al-quaeda to the point of putting them in "".
Surely you are not being obtuse and using inaccurate guesswork based on little more than empty political rhetoric?

I have to congratulate you for making the 7/7 bombers into "International terrorists."
I didn't think it was possible, but you managed it.
I was thinking you would say you were wrong because it seemed to not tally with your previous comment ( Saddam's supposed links to international terrorism.)
With your definition of "international terrorism" it seems more likely Saddam had links to "International terrorism" even more than I thought possible.

On reflection it was a dumb thing to say.
I think my point was that incident sparked fury not only in radical people but moderate people too, therefore the spark of possible radicalisation was broader, imo.
Anyhoo, it was a dumb thing to say on reflection.

 

All groups have leaders. The point is that we are now talking about *different* groups than we were before. We're now talking about predominantly Pakistani Islamist groups whereas before we were predominantly talking about Arab ones. This is why I continue to put "al-Qaeda" in scare quotes, because it is a mistake to think that we are discussing a single, unified, consistent, regular group, and using the term "al-Qaeda" without identifying such reservations and subtleties erroneously implies this and oversimplifies a complex issue. I tend to agree with former Metropolitan Police Commisioner Ian Blair who said that "al-Qaeda is not an organisation, but a way of working"... Groups changing their name to be associated with "al-Qaeda" or pledging allegience to the absentee figurehead bin Laden reinforce the fact that these are disparate and largely unrelated groups identifying in a single cause but with no meaningful organisational structure, if there are any links at all, beyond that of ideology...

This will I suspect turn into another of your "on reflection, this was a dumb thing to say" moments. Have another look at this thread where I explained exactly this issue to you at length, several times...

 

And subordinates...isn't that the basis of a hierarchy?

I'd like some references to affirm this notion Al-Quaeda have swapped from being predominantly Arabs to Pakistanis, it seems simply because they are closer to Pakistan than Afghanistan.

It is quite possible that OBL is dead...it is even more likely he isn't the leader any more.
It doesn't matter, they are giving allegiance to a particular "cause."
They may go about things in different ways and have their own power structure.

I did post this: Al-Qaeda's propaganda campaign is expanding, as are its affiliations with regional terrorist groups.

I fear it is avoiding a truth that what could be described as "Al-Quaeda prime" are the people that the intelligence reports speak of, not the affiliates as such.

I'm not wading through that motherfucker, lithium.
Just link to specific posts you made or quote comments.

 

You've misunderstood the point being made, by only replying to the opening, four word sentence of the paragraph. Read the whole thing again and have another go.

For a start here's an interesting and well-researched article from an academic journal discussing the newly emerging groups in Pakistan and elsewhere which are now being labelled "al-Qaeda":
http://www.meforum.org/1710/jihads-new-leaders

Yes, this was my point...

I would like to see some evidence of this "Al-Qaeda prime", myself. It seems we are often being told about "al-Qaeda" and its leaders, but when it comes down to who these individuals are, they turn out to be members of precisely the disparate and unrelated groups I have been talking about (see the article I posted above as an example). This is why I have said what I have about "al-Qaeda". If it really were based around a central organised leadership, it would be fairly easy to knock out by killing those leaders. Clearly this is not at all the case, and even if the putative "leader" bin Laden died years ago (which is indeed quite possible), the movement we know as "al-Qaeda" would still be operational because of its hydra-like structure with no central organisation. It seems very unlikely that there is such a central body, and it seems very likely that it consists simply of various groups which present various dangers and act in different ways, with different structures, no one of which is pivotal to the existence of "al-Qaeda" type activities...

I'm losing patience with having to spoon feed you. You made the throwaway remark that Saddam has more links to al-Qaeda than you thought possible or somesuch. If you would like to back that one up, go ahead, I'm not going to pander to the palpable ignorance of this statement by trying to second guess what you were trying to say. You have demonstrated yourself to be startlingly ill-informed on this subject in the past, and I have no desire to spend any more time on someone who seems to lack such a basic understanding of the issues at hand...

 

My point was, there could be various groups with various leaders, I acknowledge that.
We agree (surprise surprise.)
But one "prime".
Within each or any these groups there is going to be a hierarchy.
Your point seems to be that there isn't actually a "prime."
You require names such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi et all, to "prove" there is a "prime"...well, a difficult proposition.
I fear it is more like a Venn diagram (with the centre being "Al-Qaeda prime")...different groups with various leaders and subordinates all inter-crossing.
Such as people like Atiyah Abd al-Rahma and not forgetting OBLs son who was apparently killed recently.

Again, I didn't mention Al-Qaeda. I said International terrorism.
"I was thinking you would say you were wrong because it seemed to not tally with your previous comment ( Saddam's supposed links to international terrorism.)"
Keep up, dude.

 

This is more realistic, but bears little relation to the naive conception of al-Qaeda you've been using before I picked you up on it:

It seems you have changed your position about what al-Qaeda could realistically be during this discussion, above you were talking about "thousands of people", with a "base", "permanent training grounds", "equipment and weapons etc", a "hierarchy" which would "regroup somewhere else" the removal of which would lead to a "power vacuum", even a "Plan B". Compared to the more nuanced position you are now suggesting can you see how horrendously ill-informed these comments were?

Copying and pasting the same sentence really helps to illuminate the point, and with a sarcastic smiley to boot. Your usual technique of ignorant, sarcastic trolling when you can't formulate an argument.

 

I said I presumed there was a "base", "permanent training grounds", "equipment and weapons etc".
It could be true...Infact it is more than possible.
I let that be because I was tired and unable to source relevant info because my computer was screwed.
I said it is less likely there are "thousands of people" working as an army.
I still do think that.

I was brief with my explanations earlier, yes...and it could come across as ill-informed, I agree.
But, I'm not going to write a whole thesis on the subject each time I post
You probed I answered (Edit: Like when you called the troops idiots or somesuch and then went on to elaborate). Thanks.

I copied and pasted my comment to show I didn't mention Al-Qaeda.
I didn't need to formulate an argument because I didn't say what you had me saying.
You were wrong.

I wasn't being sarcastic I was being friendly (I don't have to be if you don't wish for me to be - I can be a **** instead if you like)...
Talk to fingermouse about my use of that emoticon.
It really isn't as bad as it seems. Honest.

 

I'm fairly convinced that there were "al-Qaeda" type groups working in Afghanistan and that these would have had bases and equipment. I'm less convinced of the idea of an "al-Qaeda prime" and affiliates, a hierarchy which would up stumps and regroup elsewhere to resume leadership of its evil terrorist network. That sounds like a Republican's wet dream fantasy and bears little relation to the facts as we know them. There may well be groups claiming to be the "original" al-Qaeda, and logic would tell us there is a group which has been around longer than any of the others currently operating. But this will be just another group among many. The idea of a central group which is able to influence other "al-Qaeda" type groups seems to me naive. There is plenty of evidence of disparate and unrelated jihadi type groups. In fact as far as I know there is *only* evidence of disparate and unrelated jihadi type groups. Show me some evidence for this "al-Qaeda prime" model and the idea will seem more credible. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Clearly "international terrorism" in this context refers to "al-Qaeda" type activities, Islamism, "jihadi" groups... these are all interchangeable terms in the context of this discussion.

 

Sorry - I'll respond to your first comments when I have more time.

Erm, you chastised me for apparently associating Saddam and Al-Qaeda.
Me mentioning Saddam and International terrorism and not Al-Qaeda, is wrong too now?
In the context of that particular discussion you got me wrong.
I know you say you are never wrong, but I do believe you were in this case. Infact I know you were.

 

We were talking about the 7/7 bombers. I was specifically defining them as "international terrorists" because they were self-associating with the "al-Qaeda" movement of jihadi Islamist action against the west. In response to this definition of the 7/7 bombers as international terrorists because of their jihadi agenda you said:

With your definition of "international terrorism" it seems more likely Saddam had links to "International terrorism" even more than I thought possible.

Clearly the subject under discussion was "al-Qaeda" type international terrorism. Clearly I was defining international terrorism in this context as jihadi type Islamism. The words that you wrote state unambiguously that you are associating Saddam with the definition of international terrorism I was using - jihadi Islamism - which is the only kind of international terrorism which was being discussed, and the only definition of international terrorism I have used throughout this whole discussion, and the other one I've linked you to. Which part of this don't you understand?

 

There is no easy answer here. We all want peace. The Taliban and al Qaeda are stone cold killers adn they want a worldwide Caliphate under which all of us will bow to Allah and live life as in the 7th Century. Women will have it particularly hard in such a world. If they take Pakistan, which with Afghanistan and Somalia is amongst their first goals....they will get a lot of nukes...and the world will be in a really a bad situation.

 

Lithium, they may well have been "self-associating with the "al-Qaeda" movement of Jihadi Islamist action against the west," It doesn't make them part of Al-Qaeda does it?
If I had said: "The 7/7 bombers were part of Al-Qaeda," you would have quite rightly called me on it.
You even said: "While I don't think there have been any proven links to Pakistan or "al-Qaeda" there has been plenty of speculation, and those whom the individuals concerned might have been associated with certainly have links to Pakistani Islamism"

So when I say Al-Qaeda, I'm hoping that you are not assuming I am talking about any individuals that "self-associate" with Al-Qaeda.

I notice you didn't say: "The Al-Qaeda 7/7 bombers..."
If you are saying that any group that is inspired or "self-associating" with Al-Qaeda are part of Al-Qaeda - we might be in a bit of a pickle, sir.

I said your e.g made me think Saddam was involved or facilitated more International terrorism, because you said foreign policy is often cited as a reason for radical action and that in this case it was Jihadi Islamism as the other motivation.
Even now you are not linking the 7/7 bombers with Al-Qaeda directly...
You just say "Jihadi Islamism."

I don't think it is unreasonable that when I say "International terrorism" I don't have to prefix it with "not Al-Qaeda," regardless of what we are talking about in this thread..

I'm aware "International terrorism" hasn't been officially defined, but as you defined it...it doesn't necessarily have to be inspired by Al-Qaeda...and even if it is inspired by them, it doesn't make them part of Al-Qaeda.

If I had attempted your verbal somersaults you would have been mocking me, Lithium.
I'm not letting you do the same thing with out questioning it.
So, I am sorry, I still think you got it wrong.
But perhaps we should move on.

When Jihadi Islamists "free associate" (as you put it) with Al-Qaeda, who do you think they are talking about?
Imo, it would be "Al-Qaeda prime" perhaps recieving information via As-Sahab
It could be a true they are following a long dead or weakened atomised groups message, but like I said earlier "Al-Qaeda prime" could NOW be organised more like a Venn diagram of "disparate groups" and their individual leaders and sub-bordinates such as Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
It does, however, appear Ayman al-Zawahiri is head honcho nowadays.
He has written: Letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri

 

Yes, I am saying exactly that ... al-Qaeda consists of individuals and groups who self-associate with the concept of al-Qaeda, there is no central organisation, there are only disparate groups who self associate with the cause... I have been saying exactly that for several pages.

My working definition is obviously not the only possible definition of "international "terrorism". It is however the definition I was using at the time. Consequently when you said "your definition" you were clearly referring to the definition I was using, not some other definition which you now choose to use. This may be a simple misunderstanding on your part, an inaccurate use of language, and is really not worth spending so much time and derailing a thread over...

 

True. Lets agree to disagree.

 

Did a post or part of your post get deleted?