|
Benazir Bhutto assassinated (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
nice info
you have just inspired me to learn more...... :)
care to point me to a few articles?? |
Well to be perfectly honest, if you want to find out more about the ISI then the best place to start is probably Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-...e#Controversies
That section deals with all the accusations (obviously go read the sources if you want more info!)
Kashmiri terrorism is not really my speciality (I did write an essay on the Kashmir conflict once upon a time but that focused on India and Pakistan and why the region was so important to each other, rather than go in depth in how the conflict is fought)
However, if you want to learn about the history of Islamist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir, then I cannot recommend a book called "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke. That really is the dog's bollocks of books on al-Qaida. It's basically the story of radical Islam, obviously centring around the background of al-Qaida from the Afghan war up until 9/11 (and beyond). It is absolutely excellent. One of my university tutors talked about it and completely missed the point as some people think he argues al-Qaida does not exist (like Shaolin_Z seems to be suggesting) but what he actually argues is that al-Qaida, the global, structured and far reaching terrorist group does not exist (as the Americans would have you believe), but that al-Qaida (other than Bin Laden's immediate group) exists more as an ideology that encourages other groups sharing the same visions. He argues that the threat from al-Qaida is therefore much much more dangerous than what we think we are dealing with (ie the theory that says cut of the head of the snake and the body will die - well that won't happen!)
Anyway, it's a great history of the Mujahadeen and offers an incite into how all these different groups relate to each other (and how "al-Qaida" is just one of many). |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
but what he actually argues is that al-Qaida, the global, structured and far reaching terrorist group does not exist (as the Americans would have you believe), but that al-Qaida (other than Bin Laden's immediate group) exists more as an ideology that encourages other groups sharing the same visions. He argues that the threat from al-Qaida is therefore much much more dangerous than what we think we are dealing with (ie the theory that says cut of the head of the snake and the body will die - well that won't happen!) |
Thats a very good point. Like in Algeria with the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb.
There is probably a good number operatives working in sleeper cells too. Since their not receiving orders directly from Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, they'll operate separately but contribute towards the same goal. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan
There is probably a good number operatives working in sleeper cells too. Since their not receiving orders directly from Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri, they'll operate separately but contribute towards the same goal. |
Mmmmmmm depends really. The vast majority of Islamist groups have as their aim the overthrow of the government of their own country. That is, after all, the primary objective of Political Islam. Attacking the West is not really a goal to most Islamists, and secondary at best - even for Bin Laden.
So even tho it might be true that "al-Qaida" sleeper cells are undercover in areas like Algeria, they aren't there as part of the global Jihad, they are there to overthrow the Algerian government. It wouldn't suprise me if they merely took the name "al-Qaida" because that name is like a Burberry scarf, its the latest fashion accessory to your modern Islamic terrorist! Al-Qaida might as well be redefined not to mean a specific terrorist group but a generic term for Islamist militant groups. And most Islamist groups took part in the campaign in Afghanistan against the Russians so most probably received training there, hence the catch-all "link to al-Qaida". I'd even go as far as saying that 9/11 and the July London bombs were not the brain child of al-Qaida (ie Bin Laden) but some random terrorist groups or individuals that wanted to commit those attacks and merely went to where they could find support and assistance (the money man Bin Laden).
Why does that mean we are in a more dangerous position? Well it means we have dozens and dozens of seperate terrorist groups around the world, pretty much working to their own agenda, while we are going after just one of those terrorist groups, thinking all the rest will fall away after Bin Laden has gone. Well they won't. There will still be all these terrorist groups operating in their home countries and there will still be groups and individuals that hatch plots to attack the West, and stopping Bin Laden, altho removing one source of support for these types, will not remove the threat at all because they'll still all be out there... |
|
|
| eROs.au |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
Musharraf
I've seen you misspell his name several times. |
I'm assuming his name isn't normally written in Latin characters. Wouldn't it be fair to say that there can be multiple translations? i.e. muhammed, mohammed |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by eROs.au
I'm assuming his name isn't normally written in Latin characters. Wouldn't it be fair to say that there can be multiple translations? i.e. muhammed, mohammed |
Yep you can spell it how you like s long as it sounds the same I guess. Like some muppets spell al-Qaida as 'al-Qaeda'!!
Even worse, Hizballah sometimes gets bastardised into 'Hezbollah'!!! |
|
|
| Omega_M |
| quote: | Originally posted by eROs.au
I'm assuming his name isn't normally written in Latin characters. Wouldn't it be fair to say that there can be multiple translations? i.e. muhammed, mohammed |
yeah but the correct spelling is Musharraf. Masharraf is incorrect. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Well to be perfectly honest, if you want to find out more about the ISI then the best place to start is probably Wikipedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-...e#Controversies
That section deals with all the accusations (obviously go read the sources if you want more info!)
Kashmiri terrorism is not really my speciality (I did write an essay on the Kashmir conflict once upon a time but that focused on India and Pakistan and why the region was so important to each other, rather than go in depth in how the conflict is fought)
However, if you want to learn about the history of Islamist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir, then I cannot recommend a book called "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke. That really is the dog's bollocks of books on al-Qaida. It's basically the story of radical Islam, obviously centring around the background of al-Qaida from the Afghan war up until 9/11 (and beyond). It is absolutely excellent. One of my university tutors talked about it and completely missed the point as some people think he argues al-Qaida does not exist (like Shaolin_Z seems to be suggesting) but what he actually argues is that al-Qaida, the global, structured and far reaching terrorist group does not exist (as the Americans would have you believe), but that al-Qaida (other than Bin Laden's immediate group) exists more as an ideology that encourages other groups sharing the same visions. He argues that the threat from al-Qaida is therefore much much more dangerous than what we think we are dealing with (ie the theory that says cut of the head of the snake and the body will die - well that won't happen!)
Anyway, it's a great history of the Mujahadeen and offers an incite into how all these different groups relate to each other (and how "al-Qaida" is just one of many). |
thanks. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
thanks. |
Just re-read what I wrote and that should be "I cannot recommend a book called "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke enough"!!! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_M
yeah but the correct spelling is Musharraf. Masharraf is incorrect. |
Yea but one's the British spelling and the other's the American spelling... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| George, bin Laden did it!!! |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Yep you can spell it how you like s long as it sounds the same I guess. Like some muppets spell al-Qaida as 'al-Qaeda'!!
Even worse, Hizballah sometimes gets bastardised into 'Hezbollah'!!! |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Just re-read what I wrote and that should be "I cannot recommend a book called "Al-Qaeda" by Jason Burke enough"!!! |
I guess this makes you a, 'muppet'... :toothless |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Anyway, back on topic...
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Oh but they have... |
Apparently not (link). The main suspect blamed by the Pakistani government has denied any involvement in the assassination. Leaving aside for the moment your earlier article claiming Mustafa Abu al-Yazid had accepted responsibility, the vast majority of news sources tying the assassination with al-Qaida went along with the Pakistani government's claims that Baitullah Mehsud was behind the attack. It would be very odd for him to deny the accusation if he was in fact behind the attacks.
But looking at Mehsud closer, it illustrates perfectly what I have been saying about the nature of al-Qaida above. "Al-Qaida accused" was the gist of pretty much every headline on 28th December when the Pakistani government made the claims. So Mehsud was clearly one of these "linked to al-Qaida" types. Where does that link come from? Mehsud is a pro-Taliban commander of a Pakistani Islamist militia. His troops regularly cross the border into Afghanistan to fight occupation forces there. The reason there are so many militant groups in the tribal areas of Pakistan is because that's where they were all base by the Pakistani and American governments when they assisted their efforts to fight the USSR. The area is full of the remnants of the militias that fought in that war and as we know, al-Qaida were only a small group in that war at best and outcasts from the Mujahadeen at worst on account of being Arabs. The radicalised tribal areas of Pakistan contain the remnants of the militias from Paksitan that fought in that war and Mehsud is one of the tribal cheifs of that area. Mehsud fights to help the Taliban in Afghanistan, but the Taliban and al-Qaida are not one and the same. The Taliban gave shelter to al-Qaida (ie Bin Laden and his close group of associates) and as Bin Laden rose to notiriaty, pressure was put on the Taliban to hand him over. They refused and since then the world decided that Bin Laden controlled the Taliban, so anybody that had ever fought in Afghanistan on the side of the Taliban against the Russians, or had been provided a safe haven to set up training camps etc, are now referred to as "al-Qaida", rather than Taliban allies. I can find no real link between Mehsud and Bin Laden, other than they are both allied to the Taliban. But why would Mehsud, who commands 20,000 fighters, be taking orders from Bin Laden in his own country? |
|
|
|
|
