Originally Posted by soot

Personally I'm more a pragmatist than an idealist.

I can live with a little bluring of the lines if it focuses attention and gets the job done (or at least gets the job worked on).

Is grouping all radical Salifist Jihadi "brand" al Qa'ida 100% intellectually honest?

No, I don't think so. Not 100%.

Is it an outright lie?

No, I don't think that's the case either.

I do think the term "Islamofacist" is an outright lie, and I do think that many of the al Qa'ida-related scare tactics used by the government are a lie, and I do think that some lying went on in the run-up to OIF when the admin. was pushing some association between Saddam Hussein and al Qa'ida, and I do think the Bush admin lies a heck of a lot more than is good for it or America (no unlike most presidential administrations, but Bush isn't as good at it as most and gets caught a lot more than most).

But I'm okay with using al Qa'ida in the capacity that we're discussing here.

Because ultimately our fight isn't with "terrorism". We both know that. If this were a discussion about the "war on terrror" you and I would be agreeing that terror is a tactic, not an organization, and that waging war on a tactic is silly, etc...etc...etc...

Our fight (America's) primarially is with radical Salifist Jihadi terrorist groups and organizations and I think that al Qa'ida as an operative term describing that group is acceptable so far as public consumption is concrerned.

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

Pragmatically, putting all the disparate groups under one heading, as a on size fits all policy is also ridiculous.

Originally Posted by soot

Operationally I'd agree.

But the operational side of the US government knows, as well as they can, exactly what groups are out there and exactly what differentiates those groups.

For public consumption purposes it seems to be working quite nicely.

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

US public consumption could be. The rest of the world no way. The US is fast disappearing into a delusional dream.

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

US public consumption could be. The rest of the world no way. The US is fast disappearing into a delusional dream.

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

how is the us doing this?

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

and what can you offer to prove that we will disappear?

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

US public consumption could be. The rest of the world no way. The US is fast disappearing into a delusional dream.

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

By stupidity.




Time.

Originally Posted by Steve

I'm still kinda' hoping Danny's going to tell us, again, how Al Qaeda wasn't Al Qaeda until the beginning of 2001. 'Cause that'd be just swell.

Danny? Anything?

No?

Huh...

Originally Posted by Steve

I'm still kinda' hoping Danny's going to tell us, again, how Al Qaeda wasn't Al Qaeda until the beginning of 2001. 'Cause that'd be just swell.

Danny? Anything?

No?

Huh...

Originally Posted by Danny

I believe I have supplied ample evidence to back up my claim that "Al Qaeda" as you know it was only labeled such in 2001. A few small players were in place years before but nobody here is denying that. You seem to be arguing points on emotion alone without any evidence whatsover. I don't find that to be very convincing. You also seem to be so angry that I'm picturing you about to smash your monitor in. Why can't you debate without getting angry?

You should just say that your gut leads you believe the government's version and offer an argument against the evidence provided (even though I'm positive that you have not even looked at it).

Its like you are in a constant denial that your neoconservative government has done anything wrong at all. Its truly amazing.

Originally Posted by Steve

Danny, here's an excerpt from your original post:

What do you think about this BBC documentary that essentially says Bin Laden was never more than a leader of a few thugs and that Al Qaeda doesn't exist?

Now, that suggests that the BBC documentary says that Al Qaeda doesn't exist. Not that it didn't exist prior to 2001, and not that it only existed after 2001, but that "it doesn't exist".

That would be present tense.

Al Qaeda exists. We know that. Only an idiot outfit like the BBC would say otherwise, and only fools would believe it.

So, aside from the fact that Al Qaeda did exist prior to 9/11, we now have an assertion that it no longer exists (remember, that statement is "present tense").

All of it is absolutely absurd and untrue. Remove your liberal-issued rose-colored glasses and take a quick gander at reality, will you?

Originally Posted by Danny

Al Qaeda the "global terrorist network" never existed and still doesn't exist today.

If by Al Qaeda you mean Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri, and a few dozen thugs on goats living in caves then I will have no choice but to give that to you. Are you happy?