TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- #2?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

#2?

Sky news is reporting that Al Zwahiri has surrendured in Pakistan. Just crossed my newswire a few minutes ago.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/...1127982,00.html

quote:

Osama bin Laden's second in command has been surrounded in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf has told CNN. Troops say they have cornered Ayman al-Zawahri in an operation near the Afghan border. The operation, involving hundreds of troops and paramilitary rangers, has been carried out in the South Waziristan region. The identity of the man surrounded has not been confirmed. But President Musharraf said: "(Judging by) the resistance that is being offered by the people there, we feel that there may be a high value target." Sky News' Foreign Affairs Editor Tim Marshall said: "Most people believe the number two is actually the brains (behind the al Qaeda network)." And he added: "If it's true it is an enormous strike. It cannot be underestimated."

Starting to look like it:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4539021/

One down, one to go.

nice.

lets string him up by his balls.
terrorists deserve nothing less than the ultimate punishment.

YEEEHAWWWW...

I thought this thread was going to ask me if I needed to poop.

Guess I was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I thought this thread was going to ask me if I needed to poop. Guess I was wrong.

Do you need to poop? I just did. Read the Marketplace section while I was in there. Brent Mossberg offered no new insight, as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Do you need to poop?

Yeah, might as well.

It's very cathartic for me.

Thanks for asking, btw.

For the day Osama will (should) be captured: what will follow?
Will all sleepers and terrorists come out of their holes and give up...?

quote:

Originally posted by Eye-Q For the day Osama will (should) be captured: what will follow? Will all sleepers and terrorists come out of their holes and give up...?

exactly...

#1 and #2 thru #1000 aren't really important.

new leaders will emerge.

Re: #2?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Sky news is reporting that Al Zwahiri has surrendured in Pakistan. Just crossed my newswire a few minutes ago. http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/...1127982,00.html

he's SURROUNDED

he hasn't SURRENDURED

Re: Re: #2?

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey he's SURROUNDED he hasn't SURRENDURED

Correct. Initial reports coming off the wire said he had surrendured, but they later said he had just been surrounded.

I see 2 possibilities:

either 1) They captured him, but don't want anything released prematurely, so initial reports may have been correct, but protocol would dictate that claiming a surrendur needs some sort of official blessing before hitting the wires.

or 2) He is surrounded and soldiers will fortify their positions and bomb the shit out of him tomorrow.

either way, whether he has surrendered, he's surrounded, bomb him to hell, capture him and capture Ousama, u really think it's gonna get the USA and the other anti terrorist countries any good? U really think terrorist cells will give up because their "idol" was caught? Come on, be logical. this will do nothin but bring more terror! Rememember when they caught Saddam? Did the suicide attacks decrease or multiply by 10? Option B i say.

So instead of being happy, try feeling a bit worried, cuz am pretty sure this will activate more terror...

quote:

Originally posted by Deejiuana either way, whether he has surrendered, he's surrounded, bomb him to hell, capture him and capture Ousama, u really think it's gonna get the USA and the other anti terrorist countries any good? U really think terrorist cells will give up because their "idol" was caught? Come on, be logical. this will do nothin but bring more terror! Rememember when they caught Saddam? Did the suicide attacks decrease or multiply by 10? Option B i say. So instead of being happy, try feeling a bit worried, cuz am pretty sure this will activate more terror...

Why ... you're right! Let's free all the terrorists from jail and then they'll all just go away and we can live happily ever after!

Please ... terrorism isn't some two bit operation where you get on a bus, wait in line to pick up your suicide belt, and then gayly skip to the target to blow yourself up. It's evolved into a complex terrorist cell network where decisions, resources, and organization is planned from the top and implemented from the bottom. By eliminating key elements of cells you essentially disrupt their command and control capability, their communications with other networks, and their ready access to resources and funding. While it's true that in time, someone may rise up to take the removed leaderships place, you essentially decrease their effectiveness and their ability to operate with the level of efficiency that they were once capable of. And by all accounts, since al-Zawahri is often referred to as the "brains" of Al-Q. you can most certainly hedge your bets that capturing/killing him will diminish their overall capabilities.

Go fire the entire managment team of a company and see what happens ... confusion, lack of control, etc. Yes underlings may have the necessary skills to rise up to take the place of some members of management but they most certainly lack the same level of competance that was in place before. The leaders of Al Q. are leaders for a reason.

Re: Re: Re: #2?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Correct. Initial reports coming off the wire said he had surrendured, but they later said he had just been surrounded. I see 2 possibilities: either 1) They captured him, but don't want anything released prematurely, so initial reports may have been correct, but protocol would dictate that claiming a surrendur needs some sort of official blessing before hitting the wires. or 2) He is surrounded and soldiers will fortify their positions and bomb the shit out of him tomorrow.

OR

Pakistan cant fight in the dark

DING DING DING

the sun comes up there in about 2 hours so if hes there u'l know soon after

Alright, all this information was very helpful and nicely put together, but there are some things you dont seem to get...

quote:

Let's free all the terrorists from jail and then they'll all just go away and we can live happily ever after!

Hmm, weird, i dont think i mentioned something about freeing the "terrorists" from jail...

quote:

terrorism isn't some two bit operation where you get on a bus, wait in line to pick up your suicide belt, and then gayly skip to the target to blow yourself up. It's evolved into a complex terrorist cell network where decisions, resources, and organization is planned from the top and implemented from the bottom.

Man, 1-u talk like i have no clue what terrorism is. Umm, just a lil note, i lived in Syria for 8 years and no, i have not been into "terrorist cells" but living there gave me a pretty good idea of what it's like. 2-It's seriously not as complicated as u make it seem...lol, trust me.

quote:

By eliminating key elements of cells you essentially disrupt their command and control capability, their communications with other networks, and their ready access to resources and funding.

Ok, but there's something i dont understand: The US have been in Afghanistan for how long now? a year? more? ok, and the most wanted Al Q guys are there, right? Since the Americans have been there, am sure they disturbed their "communications with other networks and their ready access to resources and funding", right? Hmmm, well, then, could you PLEAAAAAAAAASE tell me how the Al Q is STILL ABLE TO THREATEN, SEND VIDEOS, SEND TAPES, ATTACK, and ORGANIZE ATTACKS LIKE THE ONE IN SPAIN??? Oh but wait, am sure most of the Al Q guys stayed in their caves and called up some other Al Q network based in Spain and ordered them to do it, right? Pffft, come on. Point is: no matter how disturbed u think they are, it's actually by hurting them that they'll hurt back. Look at the number of attacks that took place after each capture and/or kill of important ppl (Saddam, his sons, and the others for example)

Last but not least, there's something about Arabs which you do not know and it's called: Revenge. In our bible (am christian) it says that if someone hits you, you let that person hit you again. Yet, in Islam, when a person hurts you, you "have the right" to go after that person. Hey, this is present amongst all arabs; it's known. When they're hurt, they hurt even more. I aint makin this up...Just look at history...

But anyway, i dont wanna screw your "optimistic" point of view. Was just trying to warn people that capturing one, and two and three and 10 and even the HEADS will do nothing but bring more bloodshed...
Nuff said...

^-guy above me.. hush.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Why ... you're right! Let's free all the terrorists from jail and then they'll all just go away and we can live happily ever after! Please ... terrorism isn't some two bit operation where you get on a bus, wait in line to pick up your suicide belt, and then gayly skip to the target to blow yourself up. It's evolved into a complex terrorist cell network where decisions, resources, and organization is planned from the top and implemented from the bottom. By eliminating key elements of cells you essentially disrupt their command and control capability, their communications with other networks, and their ready access to resources and funding. While it's true that in time, someone may rise up to take the removed leaderships place, you essentially decrease their effectiveness and their ability to operate with the level of efficiency that they were once capable of. And by all accounts, since al-Zawahri is often referred to as the "brains" of Al-Q. you can most certainly hedge your bets that capturing/killing him will diminish their overall capabilities. Go fire the entire managment team of a company and see what happens ... confusion, lack of control, etc. Yes underlings may have the necessary skills to rise up to take the place of some members of management but they most certainly lack the same level of competance that was in place before. The leaders of Al Q. are leaders for a reason.

werd.

Pics or STFU!

Best pic would be one with bullet hole between the eyes.

BTW, What does Saddam look like these days? Did they shave him or let him grow his beard like ZZ Top!


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Deejiuana Ok, but there's something i dont understand: The US have been in Afghanistan for how long now? a year? more? ok, and the most wanted Al Q guys are there, right? Since the Americans have been there, am sure they disturbed their "communications with other networks and their ready access to resources and funding", right? Hmmm, well, then, could you PLEAAAAAAAAASE tell me how the Al Q is STILL ABLE TO THREATEN, SEND VIDEOS, SEND TAPES, ATTACK, and ORGANIZE ATTACKS LIKE THE ONE IN SPAIN??? Oh but wait, am sure most of the Al Q guys stayed in their caves and called up some other Al Q network based in Spain and ordered them to do it, right? Pffft, come on. Point is: no matter how disturbed u think they are, it's actually by hurting them that they'll hurt back. Look at the number of attacks that took place after each capture and/or kill of important ppl (Saddam, his sons, and the others for example)

The fact that Al-Qaeda has still been able to conduct attacks against targets, despite the US offensive in Afghanistan, does not make the case that the offensive is NOT diminishing Al Q. capabilities to conduct attacks and is in fact contributing to their success. That's a flawed rationale for causality. The reasons why Al Q is likely flourishing is probably for a number of reasons such as increased cooperation in the wake of 9/11 and events such as the Iraq invasion. Both of which have nothing to do with attacking Al Q. directly in an effort to weaken them directly. An analogy would be if a country, which desired less pollution, cut back on driving while increasing factory output ... when they find out that pollution increased, they incorrectly arrive at the conclusion that driving less increased pollution.

Given the ability to operate freely and without impedances, I'm certain that you would see far more successful Al Q. attacks. Inaction is not the solution. While it's true that regional cells have been planning most of the attacks, I think that the central Al Q. leadership has 2 qualities/capabilities that propogate their success, first the inability of the world to capture or kill them gives rise to the popular notion that the world cannot capture or kill them. Therefore, since they have measured success in operating with impunity, what prevents any other follower from joining their ranks? Second, while the regional cells have the manpower to conduct attacks,they lack the same international appeal and financial complexity that enables them to fund operations on the same level as the "base". Ultimately, Zawahri is not only a key ideological figure in the movement but as I stated earlier, he more than a figurehead, he's considered one of the top masterminds of Al Q operations. Replace him with a 100 or a 1000 new fighters and I doubt Al Q would be any better off.

The problem could be defined as the system of terror. As in the system of terror creates the attacks. This system is fed by disatifyed young people and perpetuated by people who derive power from the system (the leadership). But the leadership are part of the system also. In this sence the indidual is actually not important the system is. Fair enough if you could reduce the system to only include the people who ARE willing to blow themselfs up. The leadership isn't mostly, but these people whould continue to organise themselfs locally. But by removing all leadership at all levels which essentially just want to create power for it'self you could stop the generation of people willing to blow themselfs up. Unfortunatly you would litrally need to remove the whole system as any element i.e. one person could organise/mould local disatisfied people into people willing to give up their life for "the cause".

Of course AL Q has brought this to new heights by basicly corperatising the "bussiness" of terrorism. Learning lessons as it goes and applying new therorys and adapting. This is applied across all sections of the system from getting new recuits, organisation, tactics(practical applications(bomb types so on) and strategic(recently debateably changing the goverment of a EU nation). Creating infastructre as it goes which suports the development and creater sophistacation progressivly across all elements.

This sytem is only getting stronger learning more and becoming more established. In the future I see it attacking us by making us reduce our civil libertys and human rights to levels which are tanemount to victory for them. But by removing or eroding any trainning structure or litrature and any and all infastructre (comunication, managerial, trainnning or otherwise). It is possible to reduce the sophtication of the attacks and the overall system. But I say again it's the system which needs to be attacked, bombers + cells are nothing, one or two important fiqures are nothing(overall not a bad thing obviously, but eg the BBC just got a new head guy changed much has it?). Degration of the system elements that has to be the aim. It needs to be systematic it needs to be a rival system which is smarter and has a better strategy.

PS I wrote this really late at night(or should that be early....) forgive me if some of it doesn't make sence.

As much as I hate to say it, I continue to grow stronger in my conviction that the "optimistic" view of fighting terrorism isn't going to cut it. Capturing a few leaders of a particular terrorist organization will have an effect upon their ability to carry out attacks - in the short run, anyway. However, it does nothing to combat their will - their sheer unshakeable determination - to win at any cost. Over a long enough timeline, they will obtain and use weapons of mass destruction completely regardless of our attempts to stop them.

Unless we can match that will - that willingness to do anything, anything, in order to achieve our goals, then we will not win the war against terrorism. Morality has no place in this theater of combat. They do not hesitate to kill innocents in order to acheive their goals. Neither should we. Terrorism will stop only when each and every terrorist or would-be terrorist is either dead or so utterly horrified at even the thought of resistance that they do not consider revenge an option. It pains me to say it but there is no other solution, and the longer we procrastinate in a futile attempt to find a solution which we find morally acceptable, the greater the inevitable sacrifice will be - and the greater risk that the terrorists will obtain more devastating weaponry.

These are grave times indeed. Times which not only require us to be prepared to give our lives, but to be prepared to sacrifice our very morality. If we are not, then mark my words - we will be defeated, and the future itself will be forever lost.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter As much as I hate to say it, I continue to grow stronger in my conviction that the "optimistic" view of fighting terrorism isn't going to cut it. Capturing a few leaders of a particular terrorist organization will have an effect upon their ability to carry out attacks - in the short run, anyway. However, it does nothing to combat their will - their sheer unshakeable determination - to win at any cost. Over a long enough timeline, they will obtain and use weapons of mass destruction completely regardless of our attempts to stop them. Unless we can match that will - that willingness to do anything, anything, in order to achieve our goals, then we will not win the war against terrorism. Morality has no place in this theater of combat. They do not hesitate to kill innocents in order to acheive their goals. Neither should we. Terrorism will stop only when each and every terrorist or would-be terrorist is either dead or so utterly horrified at even the thought of resistance that they do not consider revenge an option. It pains me to say it but there is no other solution, and the longer we procrastinate in a futile attempt to find a solution which we find morally acceptable, the greater the inevitable sacrifice will be - and the greater risk that the terrorists will obtain more devastating weaponry. These are grave times indeed. Times which not only require us to be prepared to give our lives, but to be prepared to sacrifice our very morality. If we are not, then mark my words - we will be defeated, and the future itself will be forever lost.

totally agree..i think Osama knowing him and ayman r not safe has prepared other leaders to take over and give em orders n plans of what to do if anything happens to them..do if both were caught nothing much will change..infact it will be a good tool for recruiting people to avenge thier leader...i am egyptian who lived in egypt for 18 years almost..el zawahri is the founder of the terrorist cell in egypt..this cell did alot of harm. and when they attacked tourists in luxor, our tourism went down the drain...after this happen the minister of internal affairs was fired and a guy that worked for the secret service came in..he cleaned out the country..if u looked like a terrorist,had a beared,new a terrorist,freind or family of a terrorist u were thrown in jail without any ifs or buts or what are u doin..sure enuf we cleaned the country and hadnt have any threats in recent years..thats the only way i could think of getting rid of terrorism,through extermination.

Hmmmm...ok, so i guess all of you still think that bringing down the "mastermind" of Al Q. is going to decrease the Al Q's strength? Believe me, the attacks will increase and increase and increase even more. And I hope you realize that when i say: "Will Increase", this doesnt mean: We'll hear more attacks similar to Spain's last sad attack. No, i am talking about small attacks, attacks that may kill only 2-4-6-8 people, but those are still attacks, those still kill people and if they dont kill them physically, they surely kill them morally. Ah, am pretty sure we will start hearing bout more n more attacks.

One more thing: So to fight terrorism, we have to wipe out all the terrorists and the terrorists wanna-bes? In other words exterminate an entire race. Race? yes, race, why? Well, when the US captures Saddam, Al Zwahiri, Ousama bin Laden and kills Saddam's sons, and all other arabic/muslim leaders, how do you think Arabs' reactions are? Oh, Yay, they killed them, we're now free? Uhmm, not really, A LOT OF ARABS (n i permit myself to say this because i lived in the country, talked and still talk to arabs about it) are seeing all these as attacks against their own people. So, this is going to create a sort of hatred which is the reason why you would go on killing those people? just because the US thought it was "fighting terrorism"?
I dunno, but there's something weird about this "wipe out"

And to make things clear tranceaholic, u really think the cells are gone now? You really think you exterminated all terrorists in Egypt? Al Q. has done what it wanted to do in Egypt and has no business there anymore. That is why there has not been any activities in Egypt, not because they were exterminated.

Now, just to wrap this up: Al Q's power MIGHT BE weakened because of Al Zwahiri's capture and Al Q. MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO PLAN OTHER GREAT ATTACKS, but one thing for sure, the small cells are the ones that are gonna be reacting soon and violently.

Anyway, let's just sit and watch what will happen in the near future...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Morality has no place in this theater of combat. They do not hesitate to kill innocents in order to acheive their goals. Neither should we. Terrorism will stop only when each and every terrorist or would-be terrorist is either dead or so utterly horrified at even the thought of resistance that they do not consider revenge an option.

Excelent idea.......... ehh perhaps not. "They do not hesitate to kill innocents in order to acheive their goals. Neither should we." your seriously sugesting killing inoccent people? Firstly terroist attacks apart from the major operations which require the infastructre I alluded to earler are actaually not that effective more people dies from car crashes. And for your inocent killing policy to bear any fruit you'd need to kill the whole middle east. How do you think they are going to react to you randomly killing off their brother and sisters? And by making that statement your saying that a weastern life if far more value than a middle eastern life. Which is just plain wrong. All this talk of "These are grave times indeed. Times which not only require us to be prepared to give our lives, but to be prepared to sacrifice our very morality. If we are not, then mark my words - we will be defeated, and the future itself will be forever lost." you are not Winston Churhill ohh and just as a point of note he once sanctioned the use of chemical weapons(mustard gas I think it was) on some "troublesome arab villages" in a place called Messopantainia............ now called Iraq. Please get a bit of perspective yes 9/11 was a disaster as was Madrid but these attacks relyed upon extensive infastructure. Take that away and these kind of huge attacks are not possible. Small operations in other countries yes but the national style attacks are not. Also apart from 9/11 and Madrid Al Q has been ineffectual in attacking most of the west really. And as said before these attacks did require a hell of alot of infastructure not lots of "would be terriorists" half the middle east is full of "would be terroists" and to be honest the US has quite a few itself. You cannot eliminate every terroist you just have to eliminate the ablity to construct large cordinated attacks.

Edit: I also suggest that Egypt has actually through that policy and through allowing American troops to train there distanced it'self from the rest of the middle east. Alot of people in the middle east see actions like that as a betrayal.

Deejiuana, I would like to know what you think should be done in light of the terrorist situation.

According to you, going after leaders is both racist and ineffective. The only time you have talked about successfully getting rid of al-Qaeda is when you say that in Egypt they "did what they wanted to" and then "moved on." Are you saying that we should just let them do the same throughout the rest of the world? Are you really saying that instead of going after leadership and terrorist cells, we should let them have their way and hope they "move on?" I'm sorry but this is rediculous. If you think the world will sit on its hands as terrorists impose their will on democratic countries in hopes they will "move on," then you also believe terrorism has won.

Al-Qaedas ideologies, posted many times before, are not met until America is defeated and Muslim extremist governments are in place in at least the middle east, maybe abroad. If the only way to get rid of al Qaeda is to die trying to prevent this, then I'm all for it. There is no way that I, or the rest of the democratized world will allow al Qaeda to "do what they want to," instead of trying to remove the threat. I'm sorry that you lived in a country that fell to the wishes of terrorists, but I guarantee that will not happen in America, and hopefully not western Europe.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.