Blixy Sticks

Has anyone else taken note that the recent terrorist attacks around the world that are being blamed on Al-Qaeda are the typical tactics used by this organization prior to 9/11?

A car/truck/boat bomb with predictable and limited collateral damage. I don't mean to diminish the acts, but they certainly are not on par with the planning and execution necessary to pull off 9/11.

It makes me wonder whether Al-Qaeda was/is capable of an event such as 9/11 without the aid of a well-funded and highly technically staffed intelligence organization. It is worth pondering, at least.

ex-idaho

Blixy I share your doubt to a degree but I think there is likely a simpler answer. Al Queda has made numerous calls to all Arabs and Muslims to wage war against the US and its allies and I think this is exactly what is happening. These individuals that are carrying out these attacks by all indications believe they are acting under orders from Al Queda but they are also acting independently without any signifigant training or funding from outside sources.

Explosives and military hardware are pretty easy to come by on the black market especially in the ME so I am pretty confident that they are unfortunate people caught up in what they see as a desperate fight.

Loren Pechtel

1) 9/11 required years of planning. They can't do that level of thing very often. They also don't have the competent suicide people to do it. A car bomb or the like takes far less skill on the part of the operator.

2) We have seriously damaged their capabilities with our attacks in Afghanistan.

ex-idaho

I don't know Loren but I think you may be overstating the case. From what I have read the impact on Al Queda is faily minimal seeing as we have captured or killed very few of the so called leaders. I think suggesting that Al Queda operates like a typical military organization would be folly. They are decentralized and spread out with a very fluid leadership. But most importantly they appear to have shifted from recruiting members to join the organization to a policy of using media announcements to encourage individuals to carry out attacks independently. This poses a very critical problem for the US and the Bush admin. If they are not operating within countries but using random individuals from around the world who do we attack?

Vorkosigan

Guardian had an article the other day on this....let me see if I can dig it up...

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by ex-idaho
I don't know Loren but I think you may be overstating the case. From what I have read the impact on Al Queda is faily minimal seeing as we have captured or killed very few of the so called leaders.

But we have messed up their communications badly. I don't think they have been defeated, merely suppressed.

If they are not operating within countries but using random individuals from around the world who do we attack?

I agree, it's a big problem.

PsycheDelia

i agree with loren about another 9/11-type attack being unlikely for a while at least because that did take a lot of planning and preparation.
however i wonder about the attack on afghanistan weakening al-qaeda. all it probably did was increase the decentralization. after all the message is simple - just attack america, the where and how never seem to be important. i don't know if every attack needs to be orchestrated by a central command. that is one of the scariest things about islamist terrorism - it doesn't even always have to be al qaeda, any other group could take up the cause.

Shake

PsycheDelia puts it pretty well, I think. We've heard how it (al-Qaeda) was/is a very loose organization, and how the cells were urged to make attacks of opportunity (a bit more spontaneous) when- and wherever possible. Yes, something on the scale of 9/11 obviously took a lot of planning and cooperation, but this was apparently more the exception to how they work rather than the rule.

Our attacks on Afghanistan several years ago caught most of the American public by surprise. "Afghanistan? I thought they were our friends!?!" Since we had helped them against the Soviet invasion. This was the first time many of us had heard of Osama bin Laden, too.

It's sad that it took 9/11 to wake us up. We've endured smaller attacks over the years with minimal response. As the only big kid on the block after the demise of the Soviet Union, we felt invulnerable. Becoming content is NOT a good thing.

We are now torn between a traditional (and historical) return to greater isolationism and the responsibility of being the savior of the oppressed. It will make us friends, but it will make us enemies as well.

John Hancock

Are our defenses compromised by the Al Queda DEMON! while we are beleaguered by minons of a general movement?

Martin

Blixy Sticks

Come again.