• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

useful analysis of Al Qaida

Glad to hear it.
Hopefully what new anti imperialist movements in the middle east emerge (or movements that capture this sentiment at least) are les psychotic and divisive, and can focus their violence upon legitimate targets (ocupation forces), and bring something to the table politically that isnt psycotic intolerance.
 
I would take this article with a grain of salt. I've been following Al-Qaeda relatively closely since the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and there have been numerous expert accounts of Al-Qaeda being at a 'critical point' in their survival. If there is one thing the organization knows how to do, it is adapt.

Al-Qaeda has never experienced the pressures being brought on it right now, but it had expected this after September 11th. It has a proven capacity to regenerate new cells, its networks are intertwined in the socio-economic, politcal and religious fabric of Muslims living in atlease 80 different countries, Their unprecendented mobility, movitivation and capacity to generate funds have posed daunted to challengers to international security.

The U.S has conducted the most effective state response to Al-Qaeda: to target their leadership and cripple its command and control. However, Al-Qaeda needs to be pictured like a Medusa, with various 'snakes' representing either different direct action cells, financial backers, religious leaders, or government organizations (such as the ISI)

Although Al-Qaeda has been just about crippled in Afghanistan but it's overseas infastructure remains relatively untouched, especially in Indonesia. Their reach is global and only a multinational approach to destroying both its physical infastructure and its ablities to generate funds can bring about results that are permanent.

We have done a good job so far, but to dismiss them as a bunch of unorganized 'Ay-Rab's' would be a grave mistake.

I wish I had more time to expand up on this..I will try to at a later time.

Also often overlooked and equally scary is Hezbollah. This is what causes me the most concern if there was an attack on Iran, the activation of Hezbollah cells across the globe.
 
Blunt said:
Al qaida was initially funded by the US Government
Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Do not confuse the funding of Al-Qaeda with the U.S' support of the mujahideen fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Granted many of the Arab foreign fighters who we supported eventually went on to create and join Al-Qaeda, we never directly funded Al-Qaeda.
 
The dangerous part about Al-Qaeda is there ability to recruit from cyberspace. It seems more and more cells from around the world rarely actually meet another Al-Qaeda member outside of there cell. Funding, propaganda, ideological justification are all possible by accessing extremists websites. Muslim book shops with there [under-counter literature] are rife and help feed the feeling of discontent from many western Asian et el communities. The members of the 7/7 cell are a good example of the far reaching abilities of there poisonous tentacles.

Paul
 
gunner said:
The dangerous part about Al-Qaeda is there ability to recruit from cyberspace. It seems more and more cells from around the world rarely actually meet another Al-Qaeda member outside of there cell. Funding, propaganda, ideological justification are all possible by accessing extremists websites. Muslim book shops with there [under-counter literature] are rife and help feed the feeling of discontent from many western Asian et el communities. The members of the 7/7 cell are a good example of the far reaching abilities of there poisonous tentacles.

Paul
Click to expand...


Good points. Take into account though that their technological innovation is also one of their greatest weaknesses. Communicating via internet, or by any other means of electronic communication is the NSA's wet dream. They can pick up any electronic dispatch transmitted anywhere in the world with ease.

I recently read an article that they have the technology that can pick up the signal given off by each particular keystroke to tell what someone is typing from a far distance away. Sort of like the technology where you can hear what someone is saying through a window by picking up the vibrations of the glass.

Al-Qaeda has proven to continue to come up with relatively simple and effective ways to avoid detection though. One method I found that was ingeniously simple was that they would create a hotmail account or any other type or free e-mail, write up instructions or a message and store it in the mailbox as a draft, never to be sent across the internet. Now terrorist number 2 would log into that account from some other place and retrieve the message stored as the the draft. Clever.


Watch the movie 'Body of Lies' Great movie that also highlights just a fraction of the technology being implemented in The War Against Terrorism.. or should I say "Overseas Contigency Operations"
 
Last edited:
gunner said:
The dangerous part about Al-Qaeda is there ability to recruit from cyberspace. It seems more and more cells from around the world rarely actually meet another Al-Qaeda member outside of there cell. Funding, propaganda, ideological justification are all possible by accessing extremists websites. Muslim book shops with there [under-counter literature] are rife and help feed the feeling of discontent from many western Asian et el communities. The members of the 7/7 cell are a good example of the far reaching abilities of there poisonous tentacles.

Paul
Click to expand...

It may seem that way, but it is actually more scary if terrorists can recruit through human contact. US intelligence services are adept at monitoring digital channels of communication, but intercepting human relationships is much more complicated and tedious.
 
Tubub said:
It may seem that way, but it is actually more scary if terrorists can recruit through human contact. US intelligence services are adept at monitoring digital channels of communication, but intercepting human relationships is much more complicated and tedious.
Click to expand...

No my friend "it is that way" Of course face to face meetings are continuing, but your naive if you think the intelligence community are on top of the cyber-problem. For every 10, 50 or 100 sites shutdown, you have the same amount reappearing. Its a tool developed for minimum cost with far reaching abilities.

Paul
 
Polynikes said:
I recently read an article that they have the technology that can pick up the signal given off by each particular keystroke to tell what someone is typing from a far distance away. Sort of like the technology where you can hear what someone is saying through a window by picking up the vibrations of the glass.
Click to expand...

We must of read the same article. IIRC its in "The Secret History of al-Qa,ida" Abdel Bari Atwan, an insightful book.

a few extracts from the book

"The internet has become a key element i al-Qa,ida training planning and logistics, and cyberspace a legitimate field of battle. some commentators have gone as far as to declare that al-Qa,ida is the first web-directed guerrilla network

"In the 39 principles of Jihad. No34 extols 'performing electronic Jihad by participating in internet forums to defend Islam and to explain and recommend the duty of Jihad to all muslims etc"

Paul
 
gunner said:
No my friend "it is that way" Of course face to face meetings are continuing, but your naive if you think the intelligence community are on top of the cyber-problem. For every 10, 50 or 100 sites shutdown, you have the same amount reappearing. Its a tool developed for minimum cost with far reaching abilities.

Paul
Click to expand...

Your naive if you think that cyber space is a bigger threat than human contact. A digital threat is the NSA's wet dream... they love tapping phones, intercepting e-mails, disrupting websites. All things they have learned to do and have proper equipment to execute. On the other hand, rudimentary methods of communication like hand written letters delivered through human carrrier or human contact are much, much harder to intercept and really can't be intercepted through technology. That's why Al Qaida uses letters and human contact for operations while they use cyber space for propaganda purposes. If they are going to recruit someone through cyber space, it is by way of inspiration and not through actual meeting, conversation, or anything of that nature.
 
Last edited:
Polynikes said:
Do not confuse the funding of Al-Qaeda with the U.S' support of the mujahideen fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Granted many of the Arab foreign fighters who we supported eventually went on to create and join Al-Qaeda, we never directly funded Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...

There's actually no evidence that we even funded the foreign jihadists rather we supported the indigenous Afghani mujahadeen like Ahmad Shah Massoud.
 
Polynikes said:
I recently read an article that they have the technology that can pick up the signal given off by each particular keystroke to tell what someone is typing from a far distance away. Sort of like the technology where you can hear what someone is saying through a window by picking up the vibrations of the glass.
Click to expand...

It's called TEMPEST:

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST]TEMPEST - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Agent Ferris said:
There's actually no evidence that we even funded the foreign jihadists rather we supported the indigenous Afghani mujahadeen like Ahmad Shah Massoud.
Click to expand...

I'm generally not in the business of splitting hairs when it isn't necessary.

My usage of the term mujahideen is correct by that it is encompassing of Muslims who fought against the Soviets, many who were foreign.

Also the word 'support' isn't limited to strictly financial aid, but also includes intelligence sharing, logistics, etc. So we did in fact support the foreign fighters and turn a blind eye to Islamic Fundamentalism because it wasn't viewed as the primary threat.
 
Tubub said:
Your naive if you think that cyber space is a bigger threat than human contact. A digital threat is the NSA's wet dream... they love tapping phones, intercepting e-mails, disrupting websites. All things they have learned to do and have proper equipment to execute. On the other hand, rudimentary methods of communication like hand written letters delivered through human carrrier or human contact are much, much harder to intercept and really can't be intercepted through technology. That's why Al Qaida uses letters and human contact for operations while they use cyber space for propaganda purposes. If they are going to recruit someone through cyber space, it is by way of inspiration and not through actual meeting, conversation, or anything of that nature.
Click to expand...

Where have i suggested cyberspace is bigger, better, or anything other than a different tool they use? Its an option that's all.... I still stand by what i said reference NO matter how good interception technology is, there are ways around it without being that computer savvy.
To give an example we had a young white Western individual who 'through the Internet' was able to carry out and execute a bomb plot entirely through websites. There was absolutely NO face to face meetings. He tried to blow up a populated cafe.
Once again of course face to face meetings are common practice but there extremely limited, specifically by Geographical borders and they take time, money and effort to bare fruition.

Paul
 
Polynikes said:
I'm generally not in the business of splitting hairs when it isn't necessary.

My usage of the term mujahideen is correct by that it is encompassing of Muslims who fought against the Soviets, many who were foreign.

Also the word 'support' isn't limited to strictly financial aid, but also includes intelligence sharing, logistics, etc. So we did in fact support the foreign fighters and turn a blind eye to Islamic Fundamentalism because it wasn't viewed as the primary threat.
Click to expand...

And at the time probably supported it for the right reasons.

Paul
 
gunner said:
Where have i suggested cyberspace is bigger, better, or anything other than a different tool they use? Its an option that's all.... I still stand by what i said reference NO matter how good interception technology is, there are ways around it without being that computer savvy.
To give an example we had a young white Western individual who 'through the Internet' was able to carry out and execute a bomb plot entirely through websites. There was absolutely NO face to face meetings. He tried to blow up a populated cafe.
Once again of course face to face meetings are common practice but there extremely limited, specifically by Geographical borders and they take time, money and effort to bare fruition.

Paul
Click to expand...

All I am saying is that cyber space is not as big of a threat as you think. It certainly is dangerous, but terrorists could not effectively recruit members through any digital form of communication without interception or disruption. This kid sounds like he just looked up how to make a bomb and got what he was looking for... still a threat, no doubt
 
Polynikes said:
I'm generally not in the business of splitting hairs when it isn't necessary.

My usage of the term mujahideen is correct by that it is encompassing of Muslims who fought against the Soviets, many who were foreign.

Also the word 'support' isn't limited to strictly financial aid, but also includes intelligence sharing, logistics, etc. So we did in fact support the foreign fighters and turn a blind eye to Islamic Fundamentalism because it wasn't viewed as the primary threat.
Click to expand...


From what I understand that is incorrect to the point that we did not directly support the foreign fighters though support may have come through the CIA to the ISI who in turn supported the foreign fighters. The only mujahadeen who I'm aware of evidence for U.S. direct support are the Afghani mujahadeen.
 
Polynikes said:
Also the word 'support' isn't limited to strictly financial aid, but also includes intelligence sharing, logistics, etc. So we did in fact support the foreign fighters and turn a blind eye to Islamic Fundamentalism because it wasn't viewed as the primary threat.
Click to expand...

No. The CIA used the ISI as a channel to fund the mujihadeen. Pakistan decided to fund men like Hekmatyar as a political move instead of Massoud, who was an ethnic Tajik and not as much of a religious extremist. There excuse for doing this was that Massoud made a treaty with the Soviets sometime in the early 80s, and he could not be trusted as a rebel fighter. This of course wasn't true, and one reason he pushed for a treaty was because Hekmatyar had sent men to disrupt his supply lines and he needed to deal with them...

Pakistan supported Islamic extremists as way of influencing Afghan politics and trying to bring about a friendly and similar government in Afghanistan. The CIA tolerated the ISI and the extremists for one reason: To kill Soviets.

In the words of William Pieckney: "I would put my arms around Gulbuddin and we'd hug, you know like brothers in combat and stuff, and his coal black eyes would look back at you, and you just knew that there was one one thing holding this together and that was the Soviet Union"(Interview with William Pieckney, January 14, 2002, Tysons Corner, Virgnia[SC])
 
Tubub said:
All I am saying is that cyber space is not as big of a threat as you think.
Click to expand...

Or a bigger threat than YOU think.....

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom