Full Version: Is Al Qaeda getting desperate?
AGaintBean:
It's pretty obvious who's the superior force.
Yes we are the superior force but does the superior force always win. One great example was Vietnam. We were superior in almost all aspects but who won?
They probably are more desperate but I consider that more dangerous. We are in their back yard and they can continue fighting for decades. How long can we afford to stay there and continue to lose lives. The public will only stand for this for so long. 
QUOTE
It's pretty obvious who's the superior force.
Yes we are the superior force but does the superior force always win. One great example was Vietnam. We were superior in almost all aspects but who won?
They probably are more desperate but I consider that more dangerous. We are in their back yard and they can continue fighting for decades. How long can we afford to stay there and continue to lose lives. The public will only stand for this for so long.
Desperate people will do desperate and dumb things. Al-Queda is desperate. They have done a dumb thing: They attacked a Residential Compound in SA that belonged to mostly Middle Eastern nationalies. That caused to be abandoned
The continued attacks have sent a message that Al-Q is in this for the long haul - they are not intimidated. That said, I think anyone reading news and any violent headlines should take the time to verify whether they were Al-Qaida based or based from civil uprising. I would be cautious to lump any and all attacks on an American soldier/emcampments as Al-Qaida based after the Iraqi occupation. To think as such simplifies perspectives too much.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Nov 26 2003, 10:40 PM)
The continued attacks have sent a message that Al-Q is in this for the long haul - they are not intimidated. That said, I think anyone reading news and any violent headlines should take the time to verify whether they were Al-Qaida based or based from civil uprising. I would be cautious to lump any and all attacks on an American soldier/emcampments as Al-Qaida based after the Iraqi occupation. To think as such simplifies perspectives too much.
Al-Queda is just intimidating our allies and other friends to make them either exit the war on terror, denounce the US's war on terror, or both.
Al-Queda may be in it for the long haul, but so are we. We may not be able to eliminate it permanently, but as long as we keep them from killing many as possible, we win and they lose.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Nov 26 2003, 11:40 PM)
That said, I think anyone reading news and any violent headlines should take the time to verify whether they were Al-Qaida based or based from civil uprising. I would be cautious to lump any and all attacks on an American soldier/emcampments as Al-Qaida based after the Iraqi occupation. To think as such simplifies perspectives too much.
I think this is an important point.
"AQ is doing most or all of these attacks" is something that the Bush Administration would like us to try to keep in our minds. They're not really being deceptive here, but they aren't clear on exactly who is doing these attacks... whether it's really the foreign AQ fighters they complain publicly about or whether it's organized remnants of the Republican Guard. In fact, they don't really know, since they really don't have good on-the-ground intelligence. The longer the administration can keep this confusion in the public's minds, the better their chances for claiming this is part of the "War on Terrorism".
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.