Robinette wrote:Robinette wrote:This is a copy of a post from "The recent in depth topics on this site....." This thread, along with "Sexism" were the main reason for it. I thought it might be beneficial to post it here. Enjoy.foolish_yeti wrote:I vow forevermore to keep my conversations trite and shallow.
Omigod, i like totally understand that, furshur, furshur, so like you mean, like, omigod, like only talk about things like shopping and stuff like that, furshur, cause I can totally do that, i mean, come on, like, I'm like really good at that. omigod, this is sooo great, furshur, I'll go first, like, lets talk about, omigod, like my favorite store in the valley, furshur you should know this, cause, like, omigod it's so easy.
Sorry Robinette, the sarcasm button on my keyboard is broken. *smacks head*
AAFitz wrote:you are connecting them every time, but i am using them as two seperate attacks that had negative consequences...obviously they are connected, but i am using them as two [b]seperate examples
I'm aware you're trying to use them as two separate examples, but I'm not sure how you can disconnect things merely for argument's sake. You're then getting into hypothetical situations: "okay we all know a and b are linked....but let's say for a minute that they aren't...etc." I am linking them because, as you have said, they are linked. But for now I'll ignore the States invasion of Iraq and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Okay, so first off I just want to say that there is no concrete proof linking Al-Qaeda to 9/11. There is a possibility it was them, and for the sake of this discussion we'll assume it was them.
And we'll bring the discussion back to the main point you're trying to argue- as you've said other things I've refuted that were offshoots from the initial point you were trying to make- which is easy since there is a lot to talk about considering these issues.
So we'll take a look at 9/11 (again, under the assumption that Al-Qaeda was responsible) and its effects on the Al-Qaeda network- you're main point being that it was a bad move on the part of Bin Laden.
The first loss is that of a sympathetic government, the Taliban. The States has invaded Afghanistan and taken the Taliban out of power (after they put them in power- but that's a whole different story, heh heh). The initial point of the invasion was to capture Bin Laden, with the ousting of the Taliban added after three weeks of bombing, since you can hardly justify the decimation of a region and its people to dismantle one organization. The Taliban by far did not have a stranglehold on the region, and from what major players in Afg. say they were on they're way out anyways. Thus the loss of a sympathetic government, while possibly accelerated by the attacks, was an eventuality to deal with anyways.
The second loss is operationally- in that Al-Qaeda lost many training facilities and commanders. There is no arguing that bombing the hell out of them didn't have a negative impact. This puts a dent in their military operations in the region- I do not know how this effected the organization as a whole in terms of business or media organization, so I can't really comment on losses or gains there. The effects of these loses might be less than in a traditional military, as Al-Qaeda is less hierarchical. Nobody in the organization was some sort of super genius where a replacement cannot be found.
Now let's take a look at the positives for Al-Qaeda stemming from the attacks.
The main effect of the attacks was that it increased anti-American sentiments both in the region and abroad.
The first effect of this would be that the ranks of Al-Qaeda and other organizations working for the same goal would increase. More people in the region and abroad take up arms against the West. This would be counterbalanced by the loss of members in fighting, but I would say that this is a net gain. You're only killing the ones you can find in one country- while others are still in hiding in that country, others are joining in hiding in that country as well as the increase in membership in all other countries.
The second effect of this is to increase global pressure on the states- the majority of the west is anti-America...even in Britain, governmentally one of bush's greatest allies, popular opinion is by far against bush. In fact it seems that the more a country supports bush, the more opposed it's populace is. This has an effect on both what the States can do in Afghanistan, but other countries as well. I am sure more people are aware of the States involvement in Latin America, the Israel-Palestine conflict and many other historical and current examples of America's terrorism. While the majority in these countries do not take up arms against the states, political and popular pressure is mounting.
Looking at these in terms of Al-Qaeda's goals is where we will see the net outcome. I would say that Al-Qaeda's main concern is eliminating western influence in Muslim countries- which at the same time would strengthen Islam states, ultimately into a caliphate.
So did the attack serve to decrease western influence in Islamic countries? In the short term it would appear that it increased western interference. I would say that it did not increase western influence, only made it more overt. In the long term I think it will decrease western influence everywhere. The empire is falling as people wise up to its actions. It took a couple of years of atrocities in Vietnam before protests occurred. In today's world people were protesting even before official invasions began. The overall situation for the States seems to be getting worse and worse. It is hard to find informed people anywhere who are not against what the west is doing all over the world. I'm not saying the attacks were brilliant, I'm not saying it didn't cost Al-Qaeda anything, but overall I think if Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, it has been a positive for their cause.
