|
Benazir Bhutto assassinated (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
Oh, I don't know. Whether or not it is organized with any discernible command structure is debatable, but the fact that there is a transnational organization is not. Putting the Middle East aside for a moment, a new melding of several national and regional terrorist and separatist organizations in northern Africa under the common banner of al-Qaeda was organized much to the surprise of Western intelligence services. Many of these groups which posed little threat to Western interests are now receiving more attention as there appears to be significantly more resources pouring into their funding and more coordination between formerly disparate groups. To top it off, Zarqawi is alleged to have released a statement declaring the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb to be the newest al-Qaeda subsidiary, and went so far as to claim a "blessed union" between the two groups. But we are seeing the movement operate in a wide swath of countries from desert states like Mali, Algeria, Niger, and Mauritania to, more significantly, Nigeria, Senegal, and the political void that is Chad. |
[edit: My bad, I thought you were being a prick for no reason and I thought I clicked on the Ron Paul thread. I haven't slept yet.] You're posting in the wrong thread . That was the other one [Bhutto]. I've already posted a response to it there.[/edit] Supposedly bin Laden admitted to 9-11 too, but analysis of the "video evidence" brings it's authenticity in to question. I'm sure you're one of those retards who believes the pancake theory. Militant groups are nothing new and existed pre-9-11 before the Al-Qaeda myth was propogated or contrived. What's your point? I recall acknowleding the one you made in this thead. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You're posting in the wrong thread . That was the other one [Bhutto]. I've already posted a response to it there. Supposedly bin Laden admitted to 9-11 too, but analysis of the "video evidence" brings it's authenticity in to question. I'm sure you're one of those retards who believes the pancake theory. Militant groups are nothing new and existed pre-9-11 before the Al-Qaeda myth was propogated or contrived. What's your point? I recall acknowleding the one you made in this thead. |
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
:conf: |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
LOL, yeah, sorry. Check out my edit [in the previous post].
EDIT: Apparently you posted in the RP thread too, I thought I clicked on that but I didn't. So it confused me in to thinking that you were reactively defending Q for some weird reason and I kind of snaped in response to it. I apologize once again. Hopefully you'll get a chuckle out of it though :D. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, yeah, sorry. Check out my edit. |
Haha, I thought I was going crazy.
In any case, I don't buy into the demonification of al-Qaeda by the West as a fully functional, fully operational global jihad movement, but I do think there are elements of transnational cooperation between a variety of quasi-independent groups united under one banner in order to gain legitimation at the local level. Whether or not Zarqawi has any control over these organizations is debatable, but whether or not they use the al-Qaeda mantra themselves is not. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
Oh, I don't know. Whether or not it is organized with any discernible command structure is debatable, but the fact that there is a transnational organization is not. Putting the Middle East aside for a moment, a new melding of several national and regional terrorist and separatist organizations in northern Africa under the common banner of al-Qaeda was organized much to the surprise of Western intelligence services. Many of these groups which posed little threat to Western interests are now receiving more attention as there appears to be significantly more resources pouring into their funding and more coordination between formerly disparate groups. To top it off, Zarqawi is alleged to have released a statement declaring the al-Qaeda Organization of the Islamic Maghreb to be the newest al-Qaeda subsidiary, and went so far as to claim a "blessed union" between the two groups. But we are seeing the movement operate in a wide swath of countries from desert states like Mali, Algeria, Niger, and Mauritania to, more significantly, Nigeria, Senegal, and the political void that is Chad. |
Not sure about that. There is a hell of a difference between groups under the command of al-Qaida to groups "linked" to al-Qaida.
Bin Laden's primary role in the grand scheme of things was to provide means and facitlities for other groups to receive military/geurrilla training. They were never under Bin Laden's command. The aim was that these groups would receive training to go back to their own country's and take over from the governments there and eventually lead to the reestablishment of the Caliphate. But the recent Afghan war changed that as it's no longer possible to realistically maintai the camps to the same extent as before 2001 due to the NATO occupation. It would be almost impossible for Bin Laden to provide military training to groups or to help them carry out attacks.
Instead, Bin Laden's role has changed. Now he is seen as the spiritual leader of the extreme Islamist Jihadi groups who share his beliefs and aims (as opposed to the more common localised Islamist groups such as Hamas or Hizballah). Bin Laden can encourage attacks and call for attacks, and those groups sharing his view are more than happy to say "we are al-Qaida", but this is in ideological terms, not physically belonging to Osama Bin Laden's group.
There could be groups all over the world that received training in one of Bin Laden's Afghan camps before 2001, and that might earn them the privilage of being a group "linked" to al-Qaida, or they may refer to themselves as being affiliated to "al-Qaida", but that does not mean they are under the command of Osama Bin Laden, which imo is a more worrying position to be in - a position not helped in the slightest by America hell bent on the idea that by taking out Bin Laden they take out all Islamist groups in the world - it won't, they all need addressing individually... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
LOL, yeah, sorry. Check out my edit [in the previous post].
EDIT: Apparently you posted in the RP thread too, I thought I clicked on that but I didn't. So it confused me in to thinking that you were reactively defending Q for some weird reason and I kind of snaped in response to it. I apologize once again. Hopefully you'll get a chuckle out of it though :D. |
Sweet, you have a sense of humour and I didn't completely embarass myself or start an unecessary confrontation :p. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Not sure about that. There is a hell of a difference between groups under the command of al-Qaida to groups "linked" to al-Qaida.
|
Right, I think is is actually what I was getting at - bin-Laden and al-Qaeda may act as figureheads that have united a lot of groups that would not otherwise have any need or inclination to cooperate with one another. Whether there is any control over these different groups, or coordination, is doubtful. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Sweet, you have a sense of humour and I didn't completely embarass myself or start an unecessary confrontation :p. |
Eh, mistakes happen. No biggie. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Lashkar-e-Toiba (click) |
Pakistan banned them in 2002...
| quote: | | The group was founded in the late 1980’s with the help of the Pakistani government (which also opposes the Indian presence in Kashmir) as the armed wing of the Markaz al-Dawa wa al-Irshad, an Islamic social welfare group. LET, which was also inspired by Osama bin Laden, continues to maintain close ties with Al Qaeda. Intelligence services have discovered that, before its camps were destroyed by the United States in 2001, Al Qaeda frequently hosted and trained LET operatives. Conversely, since the destruction of those camps, LET has hosted Al Qaeda trainees and other Islamic militants, including Shahzad Tanweer, one of the suicide bombers in the July 7, 2005 London Underground attack, according to British authorities. Additionally, senior Al Qaeda leaders, such as Abu Zubeida have been arrested at LET compounds. |
They are also Al-Qaeda allied, which further supports my opinion that the Pakistani government does not currently and directly use suicide tactics, and I still don't believe they are responsible for the Bhutto assassination.
We'll let Scotland Yard do the investigative work, we'll see whose right!!;) |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Pakistan banned them in 2002... |
And? Did all their members suddenly disappear into thin air?
| quote: | | They are also Al-Qaeda allied |
Most of the Islamist militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan will have had a few work outs at "al-Qaida" training camps at some stage in their history, all of which had the support and assistance of the Pakistani government. So being trained up at "al-Qaida" training camps is as much proof they are "allied" to Pakistani authorities as it is proof they are allied to Osama Bin Laden
| quote: | | which further supports my opinion that the Pakistani government does not currently and directly use suicide tactics |
For a start, that wasn't what your 'opinion' was, you were earlier trying to suggest that because a suicide bomber was used, that exonerates Pakistani authorities because only al-Qaida use suicide bombers. It has been pointed out to you, several times now, that the ISI have assisted and used terrorist groups, that use as a method suicide bombings, in their proxy war against India. Therefore, you cannot say that elements of the Pakistani authorities would not have access to suicide bombers if they wanted one
| quote: | | and I still don't believe they are responsible for the Bhutto assassination. |
That is because you cannot comprehend the difference between Musharaf, the President of Pakistan, and "elements of the Pakistani authorities" (or government if you will). You seem to think that the Pakistani government is some kind of harmonious being like what we are used to in our own countries, but you need to get out of that trap because that is not how it works in other countries. You will find that across the Middle East and in Pakistan, there is a sharp contrast between the government (ie politicians etc) and the militray and the intelligence services. There is a hell of a lot of independence there and a lot of rivalry. The ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) has been described as a 'state within a state'. The ISI ran the Mujahadeen during the Afghan War and therefore have links and influence with pretty much every Islamist group that fought there. The ISI contained a great number of Islamist sympathisers and altho Musharaf purged most of them from their ranks following 9/11 (and their new found allegiance with America) many remained. Bhutto was hated by both the Islamists (for obvious reasons) and by the ISI who she accused of rigging elections and was about to produce evidence of such. IMVHO, I think elements of the ISI conspired with Islamists and jointly got rid of her (altho that is not to suggest al-Qaida, ie Bin Laden, had any involvement, because I doubt they did) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Supposedly bin Laden admitted to 9-11 too, but analysis of the "video evidence" brings it's authenticity in to question |
yeah, perhaps if you freeze one particular frame of the entire video, otherwise you're on crack. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
That is because you cannot comprehend the difference between Musharaf, the President of Pakistan, and "elements of the Pakistani authorities" (or government if you will). You seem to think that the Pakistani government is some kind of harmonious being like what we are used to in our own countries, but you need to get out of that trap because that is not how it works in other countries. You will find that across the Middle East and in Pakistan, there is a sharp contrast between the government (ie politicians etc) and the militray and the intelligence services. There is a hell of a lot of independence there and a lot of rivalry. The ISI (Pakistan's intelligence service) has been described as a 'state within a state'. The ISI ran the Mujahadeen during the Afghan War and therefore have links and influence with pretty much every Islamist group that fought there. The ISI contained a great number of Islamist sympathisers and altho Musharaf purged most of them from their ranks following 9/11 (and their new found allegiance with America) many remained. Bhutto was hated by both the Islamists (for obvious reasons) and by the ISI who she accused of rigging elections and was about to produce evidence of such. IMVHO, I think elements of the ISI conspired with Islamists and jointly got rid of her (altho that is not to suggest al-Qaida, ie Bin Laden, had any involvement, because I doubt they did) |
nice info
you have just inspired me to learn more...... :)
care to point me to a few articles?? |
|
|
|
|
