What Does Al Qaida Mean?

[Max Power]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/...1523838,00.html
Robin Cook, former Foreign Secratary of the U.K.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

So, that's a very interesting definitino of Al Qaida, partially backed up by wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaida
Al-Qaeda (Arabic: "the foundation" or "the base")

And then of course, there's the rest of the article.

Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

 

[deaddude]

So what is your take on the article.

 

[Said1]

So what is your take on the article.

What's your take on the article.

 

[Max Power]

So what is your take on the article.

I think the war on terror is doomed to the same fate as the war on drugs.

 

[dilloduck]

I think the war on terror is doomed to the same fate as the war on drugs.

It will certainly put my feelings that there are a lot of lazy Americans to the test.

 

[Said1]

I think the war on terror is doomed to the same fate as the war on drugs.

If it hadn't been left to fester for so long, things might be different.

 

[Max Power]

If it hadn't been left to fester for so long, things might be different.

Like what?
The closest thing I can think of to the war on drugs is prohibition, and that didn't fester, yet was still a huge failure.

Whoops... hijacking my own thread.

 

[theim]

Well by all means, feel free to visit Spain, where you will be in good company with people who just want to grab their ankles and take it all up the ass.

 

[deaddude]

A war against anything that is as ill defined as "drugs" is probably going to fail. When you have an enemy that is as fluid, diverse, and fragmented as the whole of every drug dealer, buyer, supplier, and cartel in existence, then the enemy is too adaptable. The enemy adapts faster than you, you lose.

The war on terror however is different because of one reason. The army was not in the war on drugs. Where law enforcement has miles of red tape, and limited funding (especially when you are only counting the narcotics division): The army has some of the most highly trained people in various fields, can outsource to private experts, has access to some of the most advanced equipment in the world, a much larger cut of the taxes, and is just generally better equipped to handle the job.

However, terrorism is maybe less defined then drugs. Take for instance Iraq, we are there to perform a mission, the mission itself is basically to protect the Iraqi people from insurgent aggression, and to capture the insurgents when possible. Now that seems strait forward, but how do you define "mission accomplished," there is always going to be another insurgent cell to root out. A pull out date is idiotic for various reasons. However setting reasonable conditions for withdrawl is necessary. For instance If we manage to train x number of Iraqi police, find y weapons caches, secure Iraqis borders to z level then we begin to pull troops out. That would provide all of the definition that we need to win the war Iraq.

 

[deaddude]

What's your take on the article.

That the parts he is quoteing make one good point about a problem, gives no suggestion on solveing it, and so surrounds by a waterfall of insipid bullshit.

 

[dilloduck]

A war against anything that is as ill defined as "drugs" is probably going to fail. When you have an enemy that is as fluid, diverse, and fragmented as the whole of every drug dealer, buyer, supplier, and cartel in existence, then the enemy is too adaptable. The enemy adapts faster than you, you lose.

The war on terror however is different because of one reason. The army was not in the war on drugs. Where law enforcement has miles of red tape, and limited funding (especially when you are only counting the narcotics division): The army has some of the most highly trained people in various fields, can outsource to private experts, has access to some of the most advanced equipment in the world, a much larger cut of the taxes, and is just generally better equipped to handle the job.

However, terrorism is maybe less defined then drugs. Take for instance Iraq, we are there to perform a mission, the mission itself is basically to protect the Iraqi people from insurgent aggression, and to capture the insurgents when possible. Now that seems strait forward, but how do you define "mission accomplished," there is always going to be another insurgent cell to root out. A pull out date is idiotic for various reasons. However setting reasonable conditions for withdrawl is necessary. For instance If we manage to train x number of Iraqi police, find y weapons caches, secure Iraqis borders to z level then we begin to pull troops out. That would provide all of the definition that we need to win the war Iraq.

The war on terror will not end until the ideology of hatred and fear mongering as a way of change ceases to exist. What do you need a definition of "winning the war" for? You just need an excuse for us to withdraw from arab lands ?

 

[Max Power]

A war against anything that is as ill defined as "drugs" is probably going to fail. When you have an enemy that is as fluid, diverse, and fragmented as the whole of every drug dealer, buyer, supplier, and cartel in existence, then the enemy is too adaptable. The enemy adapts faster than you, you lose.

The war on terror however is different because of one reason. The army was not in the war on drugs. Where law enforcement has miles of red tape, and limited funding (especially when you are only counting the narcotics division): The army has some of the most highly trained people in various fields, can outsource to private experts, has access to some of the most advanced equipment in the world, a much larger cut of the taxes, and is just generally better equipped to handle the job.

I don't know how you can describe a drug dealer as fluid, but believe terrorism is not. Terrorists can be anywhere and everywhere, their tools accessible to almost everyone.

Also, why did the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan fail? They were highly trained (though not as trained as our own), with expensive equipment, plenty of money, yet they lost to simple guerilla tactics. It's not always whoever has the most money who wins.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't know how you can describe a drug dealer as fluid, but believe terrorism is not. Terrorists can be anywhere and everywhere, their tools accessible to almost everyone.

Also, why did the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan fail? They were highly trained (though not as trained as our own), with expensive equipment, plenty of money, yet they lost to simple guerilla tactics. It's not always whoever has the most money who wins.

Soviet morale sucked

 

[deaddude]

The war on terror will not end until the ideology of hatred and fear mongering as a way of change ceases to exist. What do you need a definition of "winning the war" for? You just need an excuse for us to withdraw from arab lands ?

I was refering to the war in Iraq, do we plan to have a military presence in Iraq until the war on terror ends? Hopefully not. Also your condition for winning the war on terror is not going to happen for hundreds of years, if at all. You need a definition for winning a war because without one a war against anything as adaptable and fragamented as these terrorist cells are is unwinnable.

Yes I would like to be out of Iraq before the close of the century. Does that make me unpatriotic?

 

[Said1]

Like what?

Good grief, what are you talking about? Specifically, give examples. Do answer questions with questions though, I like that.

 

[dilloduck]

I was refering to the war in Iraq, do we plan to have a military presence in Iraq until the war on terror ends? Hopefully not. Also your condition for winning the war on terror is not going to happen for hundreds of years, if at all. You need a definition for winning a war because without one a war against anything as adaptable and fragamented as these terrorist cells are is unwinnable.

Yes I would like to be out of Iraq before the close of the century. Does that make me unpatriotic?

Easy boy, I never questioned your patriotism. I'd like to be out of there now.

 

[deaddude]

Sorry I am just a little edgy right now.

 

[Said1]

Sorry I am just a little edgy right now.

Shark gettin ya down? :fifty:

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry I am just a little edgy right now.

An ideological war takes a long time unless you fight it like Stalin, Mao or Hitler. America is struggling to keep this thing as PC as we can and we are STILL damned for our "cruelties".

 

[freeandfun1]

So, that's a very interesting definitino of Al Qaida, partially backed up by wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaida
Al-Qaeda (Arabic: "the foundation" or "the base")

And then of course, there's the rest of the article.

Not sure where you went to school, but there is a HUGE difference between "base" and "database". They are not similar at all in meaning. A base is a "foundation" as Wikipedia points out. A database, as you pointed out, is a collection of data. Not sure how the author came to determine that Al-Qaida means "database" other than the fact that he is likely trying to blame the US for OBL's existence.