Dear Wurm...

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I think you are looking to deep for your answer here...The simple explanation is as follows: AQ is not stupid. #1 They know that Americans as generous as we are would not tolerate another 9/11. If it were to happen, Bush's approval ratings would go up as the country would rally around him and scream from the rooftops to nuke the middle east and not rest until every muslim in the world was a pile of ash.

#2 Further, I find in difficult to believe that these are your thoughts on this matter...Why would AQ attack other countries yet, not try to strike the U.S.??? The most hated country in the world (in their AQ's eyes and the don't want to attack it?) What is your theory DR?It's highly unlikely that the us could nuke the middle east,or even iran.Firstly,they would be nuking their own supply of oil,without which their military would be severely handicapped.It would be quite pointless to nuke any oil producer unless the us military could occupy their oilfields and maintain production.Since the us,with a population of almost 300 million and the largest military budget in the world,has been unable to subdue iraq,with a population of 25 million and armed only with light infantry weapons and IEDs,then I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the us could ever hope to conquer the entire middle east and maintain oil production.
Secondly,such an action would instantly drive the price of oil sky-high.The saudi oil minister has said publicly that even a conventional attack on iran will push the price of oil to $250 a barrel.The resulting inflation would destroy the economies of the west virtually overnight.
Thirdly,it would unite the moslem world under the leadership of the extremists who are currently in a minority.Sunnis,shiites and all the other branches of islam would be joined together in a way that no islamic leader has ever been able to achieve.
Fourthly,it would alienate whatever support the us currently has.Europe,china,japan,india,australia,canada,russia etc. are not going to allow the us to destroy the economies of the world and start WWlll.
Fifth...any support that bush has would disappear the instant americans realise they have no jobs,no food,no effective military and probably most importantly...no fuel for their cars.
It might make you feel good to sound tough,but it's gibberish.Absolute drivel.
The frightening thing is that there are enough fundamentalist extremists who believe in the rapture,the showdown at armageddon,rivers of blood etc.,to push for this scenario to occur.
Fortunately there are enough sensible people in the world to prevent this happening.

We both live in countries where guerilla warfare raged for the past 30 odd years.
You and I both know that guerilla tactics don't go in for "once off spectaculars" (as they're euphemistically referred to as).
Guerilla warfare is born out of the "long war mentality".....
Yeah, but FARC, ETA, IRA are all indiginous to their place of battle. Not so with AlQ in the USA. Their challenge is totally different.
.

...The frightening thing is that there are enough fundamentalist extremists who believe in the rapture,the showdown at armageddon,rivers of blood etc.,to push for this scenario to occur...To think that these people have the president's ear. Really, it just show how insane things have become that we can even contemplate such a thing....
.

...then I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the us could ever hope to conquer the entire middle east and maintain oil production....[etc.]That is the conventional thinking, and well-placed it is. But since when has logic, hard-won lessons, or good old horse sense ever stopped the Bu$hCo's? They will drive on until the US is depleted of resources to fuel their wars, or until they're stopped by an external force, such as the courts (not likely), Congress (not likely), the People (slightly likely), or a bullet or bomb (hopefully).

I read somewhere that dubya is privately scathing about the "religious right".I can't find the article though it fits with his character.His "born again" christianity doesn't really fit either.He certainly has never demonstrated any of the christian virtues.
He's a total cynic manipulating the ignorant to get what he and his cronies really worship...power and money.I hate to think who is going to replace him when his second term is up...can't see the neo-cons letting go of power at all and I think they are capable of almost anything,short of actually destroying the world.
Well,I hope he's a hypocrite about all this born-again/rapture/armageddon nonsense! :eek:

"Since the us,with a population of almost 300 million and the largest military budget in the world,has been unable to subdue iraq,with a population of 25 million and armed only with light infantry weapons..."

The Iraq war per se was a stroll the second time round. That's why I opposed it in the first place. I recall Iraq just about managed to fire a few skuds at Kuwait and the army slowly melted away.
American casualties started to become a factor because I think Bush made one major mistake (excluding the invasion itself). He sent ill-prepared U.S. marines into Iraq to act as policemen in cities and villages where all hell had broken loose - looting, rioting, crime e.t.c.
Eventually there was time for Iran to smuggle more sophisticated bombs into the zone of conflict as the insurgency grew in size but, then again, I suppose Iran had many reasons to fear an invasion in the near future.
Conclusion: Bush's handling of the Iraq war to my mind was a botch up job. I wonder why he didn't try and secure some kind of democratic transition within the country straight away and then begin to pull troops out and leave the Iraqis to get on with it. Soldiers simply aren't trained to act as peacekeepers.
Besides, I still can't figure out why Bush overthrew S.H. given the fact S.H. at least held the country together and didn't allow Al Quaida to take root within its borders.
Now, Iran I think is different. Iran does pose a threat to global security whereas Iraq never did.


It's highly unlikely that the us could nuke the middle east,or even iran.Firstly,they would be nuking their own supply of oil,without which their military would be severely handicapped.It would be quite pointless to nuke any oil producer unless the us military could occupy their oilfields and maintain production.Since the us,with a population of almost 300 million and the largest military budget in the world,has been unable to subdue iraq,with a population of 25 million and armed only with light infantry weapons and IEDs,then I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the us could ever hope to conquer the entire middle east and maintain oil production.
Secondly,such an action would instantly drive the price of oil sky-high.The saudi oil minister has said publicly that even a conventional attack on iran will push the price of oil to $250 a barrel.The resulting inflation would destroy the economies of the west virtually overnight.
Thirdly,it would unite the moslem world under the leadership of the extremists who are currently in a minority.Sunnis,shiites and all the other branches of islam would be joined together in a way that no islamic leader has ever been able to achieve.
Fourthly,it would alienate whatever support the us currently has.Europe,china,japan,india,australia,canada,russia etc. are not going to allow the us to destroy the economies of the world and start WWlll.
Fifth...any support that bush has would disappear the instant americans realise they have no jobs,no food,no effective military and probably most importantly...no fuel for their cars.
It might make you feel good to sound tough,but it's gibberish.Absolute drivel.
The frightening thing is that there are enough fundamentalist extremists who believe in the rapture,the showdown at armageddon,rivers of blood etc.,to push for this scenario to occur.
Fortunately there are enough sensible people in the world to prevent this happening.

Yeah, but FARC, ETA, IRA are all indiginous to their place of battle. Not so with AlQ in the USA. Their challenge is totally different.
.

Actually if you look at guerilla warfare, you'll see that groupings like the Provisional IRA "brought the battle" to the British in many locations which were not indigenous to it's (IRA's) location.

Operations were enacted in a variety of locations : Northern ireland, Republic of Ireland, mainland Britain, Spain, West Germany, Holland.
Bombings took place in each and all of these locations against British targets.
I believe FARC adopt the same guerilla tactic.

Paramilitary organisations don't restrict their operation to specific locations.

This is why AQ's solitary attack on US soil seems out of the norm.
If AQ were responsible for 9/11 (and I remain open minded on this) - it seems to run against conventional guerilla tactics to perpetrate only one operation on one day.
Conventional guerilla warfare tactics suggest that a rnage of oeprations in a variety of locations is more the norm.

...Operations were enacted in a variety of locations : Northern ireland, Republic of Ireland, mainland Britain, Spain, West Germany, Holland.
Bombings took place in each and all of these locations against British targets.
I believe FARC adopt the same guerilla tactic.

Paramilitary organisations don't restrict their operation to specific locations......Really, the vast majority of IRA operations were Ireland or the UK. Close at hand, culturally very similar. Even Holland isn't too far afield. FARC, comparable situation.

This is totally different than trying to attack the US from bases of operations in Yemen, and Afgh. If they tried to establish operations in the USA, with the goal of "conventional guerilla tactics" they would have scored a few paltry successes before being found-out and eliminated.

I'm not going to source this (for now)... but my understanding is that AQ deliberately chose to work in secret, for as long as it took, to develop a crushing blow.

They didn't have a realistic alternative.

Really, the vast majority of IRA operations were Ireland or the UK. Close at hand, culturally very similar. Even Holland isn't too far afield. FARC, comparable situation.

This is totally different than trying to attack the US from bases of operations in Yemen, and Afgh. If they tried to establish operations in the USA, with the goal of "conventional guerilla tactics" they would have scored a few paltry successes before being found-out and eliminated.

I'm not going to source this (for now)... but my understanding is that AQ deliberately chose to work in secret, for as long as it took, to develop a crushing blow.

They didn't have a realistic alternative.

Guerilla warfare - guerilla organisations - work on the basis of "cells".
Cells can be located in a variety of regions and locations.

I didn't suggest that AQ try to launch operations from Afghanistan against the USA.
As with other guerilla orgs - AQ had a cell/agent located in the USA prior to 9/11.
This is standard guerilla tactics.
Sleeper/sleeper cells await the instruction to carry out operations.

What I am suggesting is that the 9/11 operation - doesn't fit the conventional guerilla tactics.
9/11 was the sole attack on USA which has been blamed on AQ.
Is it realistic to assume that a guerilla org would only launch only one attack, on one day, against it's mortal enemy?
Going by other orgs, it isn't realistic to assume this.

That's why I am keeping an open mind on 9/11.

Guerilla warfare - guerilla organisations - work on the basis of "cells".
Cells can be located in a variety of regions and locations.

I didn't suggest that AQ try to launch operations from Afghanistan against the USA.
As with other guerilla orgs - AQ had a cell/agent located in the USA prior to 9/11.
This is standard guerilla tactics.
Sleeper/sleeper cells await the instruction to carry out operations.

What I am suggesting is that the 9/11 operation - doesn't fit the conventional guerilla tactics.
9/11 was the sole attack on USA which has been blamed on AQ.
Is it realistic to assume that a guerilla org would only launch only one attack, on one day, against it's mortal enemy?
Going by other orgs, it isn't realistic to assume this.I guess I really have to spell it out.

First. AQ is not a guerilla organization. And it's not attempting the kind of armed campaign that typifies guerailla war. It's main function is as a terrorist organization, and thus relies on cells/agents, as you mentioned.

The IRA, like Chechen rebels, use guerilla tactics against occupying armies on their own lands, and terrorist strategies against the slightly more distant capitals of London and Moscow.

AQ's job of placing cells in, say, New York, is so much harder than the IRA placing cells in London, or Chechens placing cells in Moscow. Look at the vast distances AQ must surmount, both cultural and geographic.

For that reason, AQ has chosen to make the most of their limited opportunities by focusing on the big bang. If they burned their matches with a bunch of little car bombs, they would be found and routed out, having acheived not much.

Here are some hard facts for you Dd:


Shortly after the events of 9/11, the FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers. The http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm) FBI press release (http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm) of September 27th, 2001 contained names, photographs, aliases and other information. Places of birth, date of birth and other personal details were presented in news media throughout the world.

Officials said they reached that conclusion after assembling information from the flights' passenger lists; pay telephone records; phoned reports from passengers aboard the hijacked flights and evidence taken from the rental car found at Logan Airport. http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/national/13INQU.html)


However as soon as the list of "hijackers" was published, doubts began to arise. Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20th, "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened."

Despite this, the FBI subsequently were adamant that they were clear on hijackers' identities: ( http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/investigation/1103investigation.html) AP,11/03/2001 (http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/investigation/1103investigation.html))

FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday investigators have established the true identities of all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers and have found places outside the United States where the plot was hatched. ...

We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible, Mueller said.

The FBI has confirmed that the hijackers' names released in late September are the true identities of all 19 men, said a law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The names were those listed on the planes' passenger manifests and investigators were certain that those were the names the hijackers used when they entered the United States. But questions remained about whether they were the hijackers' true identities, partly because some of their names are common in the Arab world and some of the hijackers fraudulently obtained state identification cards before the hijackings.

Investigators now believe the names released on Sept. 28 are the hijackers' real names.


Subsequently at least seven or eight of the WTC Hijackers have been found alive to be alive, including at least 2 of the alleged Flight77 (http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Flight77.shtml) hijackers.


http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif Seven of the WTC Hijackers found alive! (http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/wtc/wtc-hijackers.htm) ( http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html)Cached (http://propagandamatrix.com/seven_of_the_wtc_hijackers_found_alive.html))
http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif Alleged hijackers - Alive and Well (http://www.stormtronic.co.uk/9-11/Alleged%20hijackers%20-%20Alive%20and%20Well.htm)
BBC, http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif Hijack 'suspects' alive and well. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm) September 23, 2001. Reports as alive: Waleed Al-Shehri, Abdulaziz Al-Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, Khalid Al-Midhar
http://www.911review.org/img/moin-www.gif Hundreds dying as US missiles and bombs hit Afghan cities and villages (http://muslimmedia.com/archives/world01/afgwar-die.htm)
Adnan Zakaria Bukhari, Captain Saeed al-Ghamdi, Captain Abdalrahman al-Omari, Amer Kamfar, Marwan al-Shehhi, Amer Abbas Bukhari ( died a year previously when the small plane he was flying crashed in Florida).


World Messenger. http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html) Alleged Hijackers Alive and Well (http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html)
Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Mohand Al-Shehri, Abdul Aziz Al-Omari and Salem Al-Hazmi. Khalid Al-Mihdhar, Walid al-Shehri, Marwan al-Shehhi.


Islam Online, http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/17/article11.shtml) Saudi Suspects in U.S. Attacks Were Not in the U.S. (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2001-09/17/article11.shtml) September 17, 2001. Abdul Rahman Said al-Omari, Ahmad Ibrahim al-Ghamdi, Fayez Mohammad al-Shehri, Amir Bokhari (deceased)
http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html) Dead Saudi Hijack Suspect Resurfaces, Denies Involvement (http://allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html) Waleed Al-Shehri
Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, has twice been forced to admit on CNN that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers". http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story) LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092101probe.story) The Director of the FBI http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif said on September 20 (http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/agcrisisremarks9_20.htm) in response to the question: Do you still have a high level of confidence that you can accurately identify the hijackers?

MR. MUELLER: I know I said at the outset that I had a high level of confidence on the identities of the hijackers. We have several hijackers whose identities were those of the names on the manifests. We have several others that are still in question. So it's ... the investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others.


We get the feeling that the FBI haven't a clue as to who the hijackers are. Curiously, that didn't stop the military pathologists from http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif identifying them as dead (http://www.arlingtoncemetery.com/pentagon-unidentified.htm):

(November 21, 2001) The remains of five people killed in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon were damaged beyond identification in the massive explosion and fire after a hijacked airliner crashed into the building's west side, officials said. Investigators have identified remains of 184 people who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but they say it is impossible to match what is left with the five missing people. Brenda Lynch, of Manassas, learned that investigators had determined there are no identifiable remains of her husband, James T. Lynch, a civilian electronics technician who worked in the Navy's command center, an office that lost 26 workers.

No remains were recovered from two other victims who were working at the Pentagon: Ronald John Hemenway, a Navy electronics technician who was a native of Kansas City, Kan., and Rhonda Rasmussen, of Woodbridge, an Army civilian budget analyst. The fifth unidentified victim was a passenger on the hijacked plane. A spokesman for the FBI declined to disclose the name of the victim. For Golinski, it was a long wait. She had been staying close to home for two months, hoping for word on her son.

"It took them an inordinately long period of time to come to this conclusion," she said. "All we heard was that he was missing. That's all we heard until Friday."

The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.

The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains.


The military says that the un-dead hijackers http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/12/15dafbstaffmakepr.html) were identified (http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2001/12/15dafbstaffmakepr.html)by a process of elimination:

(December 15 2001) Dover Air Force Base morticians have isolated the remains they think are the five hijackers in the Pentagon attack and will keep them as evidence for the FBI, a base spokesman said Friday.

Genetic information from the five does not match any DNA samples on file at the Pentagon or obtained from family members of the crash victims, he said.


Unlike those victims, the institute has no DNA samples from the hijackers' relatives to compare with DNA drawn from the remains. This has prohibited them from putting names to the remains.

The remains were flown to Dover from the crash scene in the days following the attack.

Maj. Jon Anderson said the hijackers' remains were identified through a process of elimination.


We suspect that the un-dead hijackers are keeping a very low profile, hoping to avoid a process of elimination:

The FBI never corrected its list of "hijackers" since September 27 2001, and never added dates or places of birth, this despite all of the hijackers having had INS visas. It's as if the FBI doesn't really care, or have been told not to care, which is disconcerting for those who want to believe in the "official" story. From Paul Thompson's http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaykhalidandnawaf.html) essay on Khalid and Nawaf (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaykhalidandnawaf.html):

By connecting the dots left by previous media reports, it becomes clear that there is much more to these two than has been officially acknowledged. The truth is that the case of Alhazmi and Almihdhar has been a tremendous embarrassment to the Bush Administration - and it could prove even more embarrassing if the media starts asking real questions.


And from http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaykhalidandnawaf.html) Paul Thompson's timeline (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaykhalidandnawaf.html):

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohald Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari, Waleed Alshehri and Ahmed Alnami have either been exempted from involvement in these attacks or their identities are being seriously questioned. As for others such as Amer Kamfar and Adnan and Amer Bukhari, their names have ceased being mentioned as possible suspects, one of whom had died approximately two years ago.


Even more fascinating is the analysis by Dr. Thoman Olmstead http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm) Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77 (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm). Under the Freedom of Information Act, he applied for an http://911review.org/img/moin-www.gif (http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm) obtained (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm) the autopsy report from the US military Armed Forces Institute of Pathology: there are no hijackers on the list.

If the FBI are mistaken as to the identity of the hijackers, then the entire OsamaBinAsset (http://www.911review.org/Wiki/OsamaBinAsset.shtml) legend begins to unravel.

Article w. supporting links (http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml)

I guess I really have to spell it out.

First. AQ is not a guerilla organization. And it's not attempting the kind of armed campaign that typifies guerailla war. It's main function is as a terrorist organization, and thus relies on cells/agents, as you mentioned.

The IRA, like Chechen rebels, use guerilla tactics against occupying armies on their own lands, and terrorist strategies against the slightly more distant capitals of London and Moscow.

AQ's job of placing cells in, say, New York, is so much harder than the IRA placing cells in London, or Chechens placing cells in Moscow. Look at the vast distances AQ must surmount, both cultural and geographic.

For that reason, AQ has chosen to make the most of their limited opportunities by focusing on the big bang. If they burned their matches with a bunch of little car bombs, they would be found and routed out, having acheived not much.

In relation to the "cell structure", IRA, AQ, FARC all use this structure.

I disagree with your statement about AQ not being a guerilla warfare movement.
The IRA were described as a terrorist organisation.
The IRA were in fact a guerilla organisation.

All paramilitary org's have structures in the major cities in the world including your country.

In relation to the "cell structure", IRA, AQ, FARC all use this structure.

I disagree with your statement about AQ not being a guerilla warfare movement.
The IRA were described as a terrorist organisation.
The IRA were in fact a guerilla organisation.

All paramilitary org's have structures in the major cities in the world including your country.
Regardless of what we call them, there's no reason to think that AQ wouldn't adapt to circumstances in ways that violate the traditional paramilitary playbook.

I think there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the official 9-11 story, but AQs apparent deviance from IRA, ETA, and FARC tactics, etc, in it's American operations, is not one of them.

Way off topic but...who viewed the thread "babes gallery"? So far I've resisted.I'm guessing it's either spam or a link to porn.Either way I think someone somewhere is making some money if I click on it,so I haven't.
I'm pure at heart as well,of course.
:D
So what is it? :D

Way off topic but...who viewed the thread "babes gallery"? Haven't checked it out lately, but it sounds like fun!~

I think there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the official 9-11 story, but AQs apparent deviance from IRA, ETA, and FARC tactics, etc, in it's American operations, is not one of them.Dd, apparently my post above was too much for you to read? If you had done so, you'd see that your position on Al Qaeda/OBL is not credible.

Dd, apparently my post above was too much for you to read? If you had done so, you'd see that your position on Al Qaeda/OBL is not credible.What? My post was real short. And if you'd read it, you'd see that it leaves the door wide open for the info you peddled in your post.

What? My post was real short. And if you'd read it, you'd see that it leaves the door wide open for the info you peddled in your post.The info I "peddled" is accurate and true. Not much of that going around here lately.

The thing about Chechnya: Whether people over here realise it or not, Putin cracked the Chehnyan problem. That's how it seems to me. Chechnyans were a guerilla organization. They initially beat Russian troops back in Grozny and the west (typically the BBC) was spinning out the message they couldn't be beaten e.t.c.
Still, it was Putin who decided to deal with the terrorist threat to Moscow with tough tactics. I'm not saying the tactics were necessarily ethical but it inevitably worked.
Chechnyan attacks in Moscow are far rarer at present. The army simply went in and disarmed the militants and guerilla bandits were basically overwhelmed.
Had the Russians listened to the U.N., they'd have suffered a break-up of the C.I.S. as a whole and the terrorism would have continued.
Putin has criticized the west for being too flimsy and too tolerant of the terrorist issue. That's why Putin is so popular in Russia. Terrorists who attack Moscow and kill civilians know what they're up against if they cross the red line.


I guess I really have to spell it out.

First. AQ is not a guerilla organization. And it's not attempting the kind of armed campaign that typifies guerailla war. It's main function is as a terrorist organization, and thus relies on cells/agents, as you mentioned.

The IRA, like Chechen rebels, use guerilla tactics against occupying armies on their own lands, and terrorist strategies against the slightly more distant capitals of London and Moscow.

AQ's job of placing cells in, say, New York, is so much harder than the IRA placing cells in London, or Chechens placing cells in Moscow. Look at the vast distances AQ must surmount, both cultural and geographic.

For that reason, AQ has chosen to make the most of their limited opportunities by focusing on the big bang. If they burned their matches with a bunch of little car bombs, they would be found and routed out, having acheived not much.

The thing about Chechnya: :mad: :mad: Where did (or should) Chechnya come into this thread? Once again Crappy, you keep hijacking every other thread that gets posted here on politics...or for that matter, any OTHER topic. I myself am sick of it, and I call on the mods to start cracking down.

What the fuck is the point of raising a topic if 4 posts later we're talking about rebels in S. Russia, or Jew's intentions from 1948, or Madonna shoving a cross up her cunt?? Some degree of drift is understandable, but it is well past the point of toleration on YBSB....In My Humble Fucking Opinion.

:mad: :confused: :p