As far as I see it, there are 2 groups within Al Quaeda. The smart and articulate powerful leaders at the top of the chain, and the dumb, easily controlled religious fanatics who've known nothing else in life than to die for radical Islam.
I agree with this analysis, however I think the top rulers can not get away with anything, they still have the goals of ridding the middle east from foreign influence. BUt ofcourse, I do not support that goal, nor the goal of establishing a Muslim state, that would be even worse than letting the church run stuff over here, but it is a much more human cause than "kill all the infidels" which is what people think their goal
Goal, not way to that goal.
And I remember your previous argument "Isn't that what America is doing?" Americans (at least the great majority) do NOT condone nor believe killing civilians is right in any sense of the word. Nor do American leaders. America has no desire to rule the world, and no one will rule the world.
Yet it is a fairly large bit of the warfare they are involved with, torturing people for confessions, which will inevitably mean torturing innocent for false information, and it is obvious that a number of civilians have died in the Iraq war. Because civilians die in war.
You might say "but those are incidental to the goal" but so is the terrorist attacks aimed at civilians simply sometihng that must be done in order to reach their goal. It is infact in modern wars when they do occur between states on not states and some kind of milia (and even oftn then) commonplace to target the civilian populance especially, the last time this was done at a truly large scale since it was the last large war of that kind war WWII where civilian food supply, buildings etc etc would be bombed. This tactics was not employed against Iraq since there was "no fight" so to speak, but still there was no general or commander who was not aware that a certain number of civilians deaths was inevitable.
Fanatic religious fundamentalists like Al Quaeda have no qualm about riding a bus of explosives into schools, hospitals, cafes, and other civilian targets. This is NOT warfare, this is terrorism.
And yet I believe it was in the war in Balcan in the 90s american bombs were targeting schools, hospitals... Terrorism, or warfare?
Should they change their directives and target PURELY military positions, then you could call them an honorable enemy. But since that is not the case, I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt.
Why it seems you give the US military no benefit of the doubt... Which I do, after all their aim is more defendable and generaly they do have SOME scruples, but doing the "bad guy good guy" dun work. Only works with UN troops really.
Americans should not (and rarely do) seek and destroy civilian lives if there is no military advantage. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are obvious counter points to this claim, and was a less than desirable result of a long war. However, it did the end WWII. Al Quaeda, however, sparked war through civilian casualty, breaking every moral, ethical, and legal rule there is in the book.
Well since Al Qaida do not have a military in a traditional sence they cannot get militaric advantages, they can however have tactical and political advantages, such as 9/11 which probably made them fairly popular in some camps. And ofcourse unpopular in others.
Anyhow, they do fight dirtier, simply because they do not have the means of not doing so, and because they don't know any better, but they are much closer than you might think.
They cannot be ignored even if considered but a splinter, for wounds the sizes of pin drops can get infected by the most vile of diseases. To argue they have no great effect on the world, and that the civilian deaths at 9/11 were negligible is fucking disgusting. Those were people's family and loves. How many lives will you accept from terrorist actions before it outweighs car accidents?
Yet they were, ofcourse a counter act was unavoidable, but there is a difference in doing SOMETHING and doing ANYTHING.
But yeah, 3000 people is pretty negligable, I feel sorry for the family of those who died, but they should get sympathi not revenge, you don't go killing 30 000 innocent people vaguely related to the victims
How do you excuse one's actions by claiming another is just as guilty of it?
No no, I don't, I am merely pointing out that another IS just as guilty, if you said "AQ kills civilians they are evil! go et em!" I might say that others do aswell, and while it is sitll bad, it is hardly unique or deserve of such "special treatment".
Should we all take up arms against the United States, looking down on them from our moral high ground? Everyone makes mistakes, but at least the American military is proud enough to rebuild, fund, and support every country they've ever waged war against.
This is true, and it is to be commended, I do wonder if they rebuilt Vietnam? Ofcourse a counter balance to that would be the wars where america supported the enemy of the Soviets, such as Afghanistan, which was perhaps not that succesful.
Do you see Al Quaeda giving back to Iraq? Afghanistan? Do you see them handing out walkie talkies to civilian community leaders or importing glass for schools? Parachuting food to the helpless? Infact, most (if not all) conventional armies do this. And so what if their intention is for keeping a clean record? I doubt very much victims of catastrophe care why they are receiving aid.
Well it should be noted that Hizbollah did give out aid and help people afted Israel invaded them, but then they are not nearly as much a terrorist organizatoin as people call them, they are pretty honourable, in the Lebanon war definatly more so than Israel, and really have defentable goals, unlike Al Qaida (they want to get back the land which Israel took from them)
There's been plenty of attacks around the world that you are ignoring. Whether they were definitely al-Qaeda, or other muslim terrorist groups, seems irrelevant to me. Efforts should still be made to find them and stop them.
Certainly, the question just is how important this should be, I am all for stopping crime, but I don't think we should have the military bombing the ghetto chasing down gang members.
[Quute]Offhand, there's the Madrid bombing (that's TWO in Europe, jeez dude) bombings in India(some Indian guys I know really like Bush, because al-Qaeda bombed a school in India a while back), Bali in Indonesia, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia. [/quote]
And it's still incredibly insignificant. Just because the murder is done with a bomb does not actually make it worse than a knife, or a gun, because I bet my ASS more people have died in normal murders in those nations, perhaps even cities, since then, yet there is no uproar, because that is just the old fashioned crime.
Something can be done about al-Qaeda. How do you propose to do something to stop car accidents, cancer, and heart disease?
Improve traffic safety, it's not that impossible, eliminating it completely, pretty hard, but there are alot of easily avoidable traffic deaths, people no wearing seatbelts, drunk driving etc
Cancer, Have more regular checks for it, if you find a cancer tumor quickly it can usually be removed without serious damage
Heart attack, Get people off their fucking couch and make them stop eating fat all the time, have more gym class in school, mandatory, make sports fun, buy people wiis. Loads of ways
Even easier would be TBC and HIV/AIDS
Anyhow, about the topic, I think everyone is ideallogically opposed to Al Qaida, however from that and placing anti terrorism at the top of the daily business is a long ways away, and it's pretty BS.