Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    'Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a ****?' - Just a quote from a website :L It says that the term 'Al-Qaeda' comes from the Arabic colloquialism "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" which means 'I'm going to the toilet'! Lolz :P

    Anyway that's not the real point here...

    After doing some follow-up research from something I read online, I'm slightly confused as to whether 'Al-Qaeda' really exists. I was wondering if some of the TSR brains could help me out.

    "Al-Qaeda," states Cook, "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." 'Cook' being a politician who resigned in protest over the war in Iraq.

    I'm very dubious about the idea it doesn't even exist. I mean it has a wikipedia page! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda And wikipedia is NEVER EVER wrong!

    Anybody shed some light on the doubts behind its existence?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It exist. If it didn't exist it would mean the US created them for propaganda use. If that's true, I don't see the need for them to. Who are they bombing or fighting? Innocent civilians? Agents?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The West is fighting against a group of Bronze Age ideal-supporting, Islamofascist-adoring terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Whether they're called 'al Qaeda' or 'a terrorist organisation named after a toilet' is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that we're combating terrorism, and finally putting an end to these backward scum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, it's all a cover up to steal oil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im confused. Clearly Al Qaeda does exist. I can see how it could be said that due to the disparate nature of the group it could be said not to be a true 'organisation', but nnonetheless it's there on the ground.
    • Offline

      16
      We're fighting against Islam fused with Left-Fascist ideology.

      Islamic fundamentalism is a creation of Islam, and its inherent absolutism, faulty structure and political dogma. I can’t think of many things as poisonous as that combination.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      It does exist. Its actual existence is disputed only by certain fringe elements who need conspiracy theories to maintain their points. The dispute is with the nature of 'Al Qaeda', not its existence. Jason Burke, one of the most "revisionist" scholars on this issue, does not even shy away from calling this stream of Islamic fanaticism 'Al Qaeda'. He simply argues that it consists of numerous, indeed hundreds, of fragmented groups and individuals, as opposed to the traditional (i.e. Rumsfeldian) perspective of it being a coherent organisation with all its operations and hierarchies directed and united under Osama bin Laden. While I sit in between these two perspectives, I think the whole debate has little bearing on what our view towards it should be. Its nature as a bloc rather than a unit doesn't make it any less of a threat.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Stalin)
      The West is fighting against a group of Bronze Age ideal-supporting, Islamofascist-adoring terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Whether they're called 'al Qaeda' or 'a terrorist organisation named after a toilet' is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that we're combating terrorism, and finally putting an end to these backward scum.
      youve spent too much time on tsr and reading books, i suggest watching some youtube videos with some actual truth and substance to it. you are no worse than a religous convert.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Suetonius)
      It does exist. Its actual existence is disputed only by certain fringe elements who need conspiracy theories to maintain their points. The dispute is with the nature of 'Al Qaeda', not its existence. Jason Burke, one of the most "revisionist" scholars on this issue, does not even shy away from calling this stream of Islamic fanaticism 'Al Qaeda'. He simply argues that it consists of numerous, indeed hundreds, of fragmented groups and individuals, as opposed to the traditional (i.e. Rumsfeldian) perspective of it being a coherent organisation with all its operations and hierarchies directed and united under Osama bin Laden. While I sit in between these two perspectives, I think the whole debate has little bearing on what our view towards it should be. Its nature as a bloc rather than a unit doesn't make it any less of a threat.
      And do you know that saudi arabia, the country that harbors the majority of extremists is funded on a level relative to israel by the united states?
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by Cringe)
        And do you know that saudi arabia, the country that harbors the majority of extremists is funded on a level relative to israel by the united states?
        What do you mean? The Saudi Arabian government? Or the whole damn country? Ar you referring to commercial transactions, or "donations"?
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cringe)
        And do you know that saudi arabia, the country that harbors the majority of extremists is funded on a level relative to israel by the united states?
        What relevance does that have to the point I was making? I was talking about the nature of 'Al Qaeda', not the Saudi connections to it. Indeed, I don't dispute that there may be some sinister links between the Saudi secret police and fanatical Islamist groups. I know that they were once backers of the Afghan 'Hezb-e Islami' and the Taliban, as well as certain "insurgent" elements in Iraq after 2003. I also know that many Saudi business tycoons divert funds to elements of Al Qaeda in a range of countries. It's also true that 'Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula' - which operate in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen - perhaps constitutes the biggest terrorist threat to the United States and the West today (as well as the stability of the Yemeni government). Nevertheless, your starting point is wrong. Saudi Arabia is not sustained by U.S. funding. It's sustained by global oil purchases. You will indeed find that the United States has been overtaken this year by China as the biggest recipient of Saudi oil. It's both absurd and disingenous to call the - relatively few - 'Al Qaeda' elements that sparked from Saudi connections a fault of the U.S.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Suetonius)
        What relevance does that have to the point I was making? I was talking about the nature of 'Al Qaeda', not the Saudi connections to it. Indeed, I don't dispute that there may be some sinister links between the Saudi secret police and fanatical Islamist groups. I know that they were once backers of the Afghan 'Hezb-e Islami' and the Taliban, as well as certain "insurgent" elements in Iraq after 2003. I also know that many Saudi business tycoons divert funds to elements of Al Qaeda in a range of countries. It's also true that 'Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula' - which operate in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen - perhaps constitutes the biggest terrorist threat to the United States and the West today (as well as the stability of the Yemeni government). Nevertheless, your starting point is wrong. Saudi Arabia is not sustained by U.S. funding. It's sustained by global oil purchases. You will indeed find that the United States has been overtaken this year by China as the biggest recipient of Saudi oil. It's both absurd and disingenous to call the - relatively few - 'Al Qaeda' elements that sparked from Saudi connections a fault of the U.S.
        All valid points but you're missing the crucial one : al qaedas ideology is based on a sect of islam called wahabism which is completely different to any other islamic ideology. The majority of wahabis come from saudi arabia, why havent they been invaded yet?
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cringe)
        All valid points but you're missing the crucial one : al qaedas ideology is based on a sect of islam called wahabism which is completely different to any other islamic ideology. The majority of wahabis come from saudi arabia, why havent they been invaded yet?
        I wouldn't say the fact that Saudi Arabia is Wahhabist means that it can be held directly responsible for 'Al Qaeda' (who, if we're talking about the bin Ladenist types, are more committed to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb who was of course an Egyptian). Similarly, Iran's mullahs are Twelver Shia: but you wouldn't attribute every action of the Iraqi Dawa Party - who share that ideology - to them. In the same way, as much as Hezbollah are an Iranian proxy: all of their actions cannot be attributed to Iran (especially considering Wikileaks has exposed a much greater Syrian involvement in their dealings). It's akin to saying that the Ustashe was under the complete control of Hitler. Considering 'Al Qaeda' is far more disparate and vague than these abovementioned groups, as well, the simple "ideology = connection" point doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

        I simply don't think the jus ad bellum for an invasion of Saudi Arabia is strong enough. I most certainly do advocate regime change in that country. But the terrorist links are sketchy (and are most certainly dwarfed by the links between our other so-called ally, Pakistan, and terrorism). In the history of the country's existence, it has never invaded, occupied, annexed or plundered a neighbouring state. It has never committed acts of genocide. And it has never had any - and doesn't have any plans to develop - WMD. In essence, the only justification for an invasion of Saudi Arabia would be to remove an abhorrent regime which, while desired, should be pursued through other channels first.
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Cringe)
        youve spent too much time on tsr and reading books, i suggest watching some youtube videos with some actual truth and substance to it. you are no worse than a religous convert.
        Spent too much time drinking and shagging during my first three months of university; but don't hate, bro, appreciate.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by S129439)
        'Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a ****?' - Just a quote from a website :L It says that the term 'Al-Qaeda' comes from the Arabic colloquialism "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" which means 'I'm going to the toilet'! Lolz :P

        Anyway that's not the real point here...

        After doing some follow-up research from something I read online, I'm slightly confused as to whether 'Al-Qaeda' really exists. I was wondering if some of the TSR brains could help me out.

        "Al-Qaeda," states Cook, "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." 'Cook' being a politician who resigned in protest over the war in Iraq.

        I'm very dubious about the idea it doesn't even exist. I mean it has a wikipedia page! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda And wikipedia is NEVER EVER wrong!

        Anybody shed some light on the doubts behind its existence?
        Yes it does, you can go into any basement in any country and call your self Al-Qaeda in that Basement and America will rush to spend millions of dollars develop weapons and a strategy to invade the entire country in which that basement is

        I doubt a Central Al-Qaeda command chain exists


        FBI Training Terrorist
        http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rtland30m.html

        FBI sending agents to radicalize a mosque

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...e-2153057.html


        Bomb destined for germany found in Nambia was a 'Test' by a us company which is front for the CIA
        http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-20/w...ty?_s=PM:WORLD

        The only terrorist in the world is America spreading global consumerism and promoting a culture more interested in Lady Gaga than Julian Assange
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        In a word; yes. I would elaborate, but really, its already been explained.
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by S129439)
        'Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a ****?' - Just a quote from a website :L It says that the term 'Al-Qaeda' comes from the Arabic colloquialism "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" which means 'I'm going to the toilet'! Lolz :P

        Anyway that's not the real point here...

        After doing some follow-up research from something I read online, I'm slightly confused as to whether 'Al-Qaeda' really exists. I was wondering if some of the TSR brains could help me out.

        "Al-Qaeda," states Cook, "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." 'Cook' being a politician who resigned in protest over the war in Iraq.

        I'm very dubious about the idea it doesn't even exist. I mean it has a wikipedia page! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda And wikipedia is NEVER EVER wrong!

        Anybody shed some light on the doubts behind its existence?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by joshphillips999)
        In a word; yes. I would elaborate, but really, its already been explained.
        (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
        We're fighting against Islam fused with Left-Fascist ideology.

        Islamic fundamentalism is a creation of Islam, and its inherent absolutism, faulty structure and political dogma. I can’t think of many things as poisonous as that combination.
        (Original post by Suetonius)
        I
        (Original post by Cringe)
        All valid points but you're missing the crucial one : al qaedas ideology is based on a sect of islam called wahabism which is completely different to any other islamic ideology. The majority of wahabis come from saudi arabia, why havent they been invaded yet?
        (Original post by sandys1000)
        Im confused. Clearly Al Qaeda does exist. I can see how it could be said that due to the disparate nature of the group it could be said not to be a true 'organisation', but nnonetheless it's there on the ground.
        (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
        It exist. If it didn't exist it would mean the US created them for propaganda use. If that's true, I don't see the need for them to. Who are they bombing or fighting? Innocent civilians? Agents?
        (Original post by Stalin)
        The West is fighting against a group of Bronze Age ideal-supporting, Islamofascist-adoring terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Whether they're called 'al Qaeda' or 'a terrorist organisation named after a toilet' is irrelevant. What's relevant is the fact that we're combating terrorism, and finally putting an end to these backward scum.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        Of course it does. I think the confusion amongst some arises from the fact that Al Qaeda is unlike any terrorist organisation we have dealt with before. It is not fighting for control of a particular nation state like the twentieth century terrorist groups we are used to (IRA, PLO etc.), rather, it is fighting as a globalised network spreading an ideology and using terror as an end in itself in order to prevent people from doing what they have a lawful right to do.

        Fighting the new kind of terrorist organisation requires a change in strategy, and the powerful nations should harbour their might into spreading liberty to those countries which do not know of liberty, as was the case in Iraq.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        saying the name *whispers al Qaeda* is like saying Voldermort, so you don't say it.

        you just say the group that should not be named.
       
       
       
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • Poll
      What newspaper do you read/prefer?
      Useful resources
    • See more of what you like on The Student Room

      You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

    • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

      Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

      Quick reply
      Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.