Al Qaeda Bombs Algiers For Supporting Israel And Occupying Iraq

[WildCat]

The story (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDIj0dNX7Uvo&refer=home):
Two suicide bombings rocked the Algerian capital, killing as many as 62 people in the nation's worst attack since Islamist massacres in the 1990s.
An al-Qaeda group claimed responsibility for the bombings in a statement published on an Islamist Web site, according to SITE, a U.S.-based group monitoring extremist Internet messages.

Now, I wasn't aware that Algeria supported Israel or the Iraq war, but I have been assured by many here that that is al Qaeda's real motivation and they really aren't interested in restoring a Caliphate and forcing the whole world to adopt their extremist ideology.

Surely, if Algeria had just stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and didn't support Israel they would have avoided this, but their actions forced al Qaeda to reluctantly attack and kill as many innocent civilians as possible. They had no choice, really.

And there clearly isn't any terror threat, since Algeria's govenment still stands.

Matteo, I'm sure you can find some way to blame this on America, get to work on that.

[geni]

Now, I wasn't aware that Algeria supported Israel or the Iraq war, but I have been assured by many here that that is al Qaeda's real motivation and they really aren't interested in restoring a Caliphate and forcing the whole world to adopt their extremist ideology.

You are aware that the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb is just a rebranded version of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (you can tell the name isn't in french)? They have slightly different aims from other groups useing the al Qaeda name.


Surely, if Algeria had just stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and didn't support Israel they would have avoided this, but their actions forced al Qaeda to reluctantly attack and kill as many innocent civilians as possible. They had no choice, really.

I think it had more to do with the millitry canceling elections.


And there clearly isn't any terror threat, since Algeria's govenment still stands.

May not follow. There are certian events during the civil war that we never did get to the bottem of.


Matteo, I'm sure you can find some way to blame this on America, get to work on that.

Nah nothing to do with the US this time (well other than makeing the rebranding worthwhile). Algeria was one of those nice quiet sort of communist militry dictatorships for years but then the price of oil fell and marx kinda went out of fashion. So the militry decided to hold elections. The islamists won the elections. Militry decided they didn't like this. So there was a civil war. After a few years a group called the GIA appeared. The GIA went around massecuring villages and the like and made the islamists so unpopular that the militry was able to win the war. At some point the the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat split off with the idea of being good rebels and only attacking militry targets. The GIA suffered from a mixture of haveing it's learders killed off and it's network in france knocked out when the french cracked down before the football world cup. I doubt it exists in any meaningful form any more. Meanwhile the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat continued to cause low level trouble and latter rebranded themselves to the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb in order to try and secure more funding and wider support.

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo, I'm sure you can find some way to blame this on America, get to work on that.

Why should I?

[WildCat]

You are aware that the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb is just a rebranded version of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (you can tell the name isn't in french)? They have slightly different aims from other groups useing the al Qaeda name.
And why would al Qaeda care to allow them into the fold?

I think it had more to do with the millitry canceling elections.
And what exactly is al Qaeda's dog in that fight?

May not follow. There are certian events during the civil war that we never did get to the bottem of.
That was sarcasm...


Nah nothing to do with the US this time (well other than makeing the rebranding worthwhile). Algeria was one of those nice quiet sort of communist militry dictatorships for years but then the price of oil fell and marx kinda went out of fashion. So the militry decided to hold elections. The islamists won the elections. Militry decided they didn't like this. So there was a civil war. After a few years a group called the GIA appeared. The GIA went around massecuring villages and the like and made the islamists so unpopular that the militry was able to win the war. At some point the the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat split off with the idea of being good rebels and only attacking militry targets. The GIA suffered from a mixture of haveing it's learders killed off and it's network in france knocked out when the french cracked down before the football world cup. I doubt it exists in any meaningful form any more. Meanwhile the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat continued to cause low level trouble and latter rebranded themselves to the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb in order to try and secure more funding and wider support.
I'm well aware of all that. I also think that al Qaeda's interest in Algeria is it sees it as an opportunity for their fanatical brand of Islam to take root (the re-branding of the local group into al Qaeda is great for recruiting, as you said) and overthrow the government. And suddenly al Qaeda has a friendly country in a geographically convenient place to train suicide bombers and other various jihadists from the large Muslim population in Europe.

[WildCat]

Why should I?
I was certain that the man who claimed US support for Pol Pot could find a way, but I overestimated you.

[geni]

And why would al Qaeda care to allow them into the fold?

Can't really stop them and it makes them appear bigger.


And what exactly is al Qaeda's dog in that fight?


the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat is prepared to use their name. Less officialy the goverment isn't arab.



I'm well aware of all that. I also think that al Qaeda's interest in Algeria is it sees it as an opportunity for their fanatical brand of Islam to take root (the re-branding of the local group into al Qaeda is great for recruiting, as you said) and overthrow the government. And suddenly al Qaeda has a friendly country in a geographically convenient place to train suicide bombers and other various jihadists from the large Muslim population in Europe.

You can't establish a stable islamic state in algeria you would have to repacify the Berbers every few years.

[WildCat]

Can't really stop them and it makes them appear bigger.
Oh, I think they do actually control the use of their name. Just because a gang is horizontally organized doesn't meant there is no control at all of the various factions. There are always certain basic rules to abide by. There was similar skepticism that Zarqawi's group in Iraq was really a part of al Qaeda - until the communications between them were discovered.

You can't establish a stable islamic state in algeria you would have to repacify the Berbers every few years.
Al Qaeda has some experience in fomenting civil wars that further their aims, in fact it's a successful tactic of theirs.

[gumboot]

You can't establish a stable islamic state in algeria you would have to repacify the Berbers every few years.


Personally I don't think it's possible to reestablish the Caliphate. For some odd reason that hasn't stopped Islamic Radicals from trying for the last century or so.

-Gumboot

[Darth Rotor]

Personally I don't think it's possible to reestablish the Caliphate. For some odd reason that hasn't stopped Islamic Radicals from trying for the last century or so.

-Gumboot
All that is necessary for the re-establishment of the Caliphate is for enough good men to stand by and do nothing.

DR

[danielk]

I don't think it actually matters whether the original al-Qaeda group controls the use of their name or not.

If they do, freeing Palestine is either not the real goal or not the only goal of al-Qaeda.
If they don't, freeing Palestine is either not the real goal or not the only goal of the set of groups we call al-Qaeda.

Our ultimate goal is not to split hairs over the definition of al-Qaeda, but to stop terror. Thus we cannot just assume the name al-Qaeda is not used legitimately by groups other than the core group, and therefore ignore their goals. This holds true even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that the original al-Qaeda only wants to free Palestine.

q.e.d.

[Oliver]

Why is everything called "Al Qaida" now?

Sorry, but the Al Qaida Harp is getting boring and ridiculous.

[geni]

I don't think it actually matters whether the original al-Qaeda group controls the use of their name or not.

If they do, freeing Palestine is either not the real goal or not the only goal of al-Qaeda.
If they don't, freeing Palestine is either not the real goal or not the only goal of the set of groups we call al-Qaeda.

Our ultimate goal is not to split hairs over the definition of al-Qaeda, but to stop terror. Thus we cannot just assume the name al-Qaeda is not used legitimately by groups other than the core group, and therefore ignore their goals. This holds true even if we assume, for the sake of the argument, that the original al-Qaeda only wants to free Palestine.

q.e.d.

Algeria has nothing to do withpalestine

[danielk]

Algeria has nothing to do withpalestine
Er, that was kind of the point.

ETA: To clarify; it was actually a premise of my argument.

[geni]

Why is everything called "Al Qaida" now?

They are not. There might be a few GIA cells left in algeria.

Outisde algeria you have the likes of Hammas, Islamic jihad, Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammad, Islamic Courts Union etc

Jemaah Islamiyah may be allied with Al Qaida but don't share the name.

[geni]

Oh, I think they do actually control the use of their name. Just because a gang is horizontally organized doesn't meant there is no control at all of the various factions. There are always certain basic rules to abide by. There was similar skepticism that Zarqawi's group in Iraq was really a part of al Qaeda - until the communications between them were discovered.


Zarqawi's group was new the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat isn't.


Al Qaeda has some experience in fomenting civil wars that further their aims, in fact it's a successful tactic of theirs.

Sure but in this case I doubt their aim is to gain territory they can use as a base.

[fuelair]

The story (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDIj0dNX7Uvo&refer=home):


Now, I wasn't aware that Algeria supported Israel or the Iraq war, but I have been assured by many here that that is al Qaeda's real motivation and they really aren't interested in restoring a Caliphate and forcing the whole world to adopt their extremist ideology.

Surely, if Algeria had just stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and didn't support Israel they would have avoided this, but their actions forced al Qaeda to reluctantly attack and kill as many innocent civilians as possible. They had no choice, really.

And there clearly isn't any terror threat, since Algeria's govenment still stands.

Matteo, I'm sure you can find some way to blame this on America, get to work on that.
And you mustn't leave Oliver out either!!!

[Crossbow]

The story (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDIj0dNX7Uvo&refer=home):


Now, I wasn't aware that Algeria supported Israel or the Iraq war, but I have been assured by many here that that is al Qaeda's real motivation and they really aren't interested in restoring a Caliphate and forcing the whole world to adopt their extremist ideology.

Surely, if Algeria had just stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and didn't support Israel they would have avoided this, but their actions forced al Qaeda to reluctantly attack and kill as many innocent civilians as possible. They had no choice, really.

And there clearly isn't any terror threat, since Algeria's govenment still stands.

Matteo, I'm sure you can find some way to blame this on America, get to work on that.

Wow!

How amazing that 'wildcat' is spouting a great deal more nonsense than he usually does.

First, Algeria does not support Israel.
Second, Algeria has stayed out of Saudi Arabia.
Third, Algeria has stayed out of the Iraq War.
Fourth, Algeria has stayed out of the Afghanistan War.

Do yourself a favor and check your facts better!

[danielk]

Er...

[rwguinn]

Wow!

How amazing that 'wildcat' is spouting a great deal more nonsense than he usually does.

First, Algeria does not support Israel.
Second, Algeria has stayed out of Saudi Arabia.
Third, Algeria has stayed out of the Iraq War.
Fourth, Algeria has stayed out of the Afghanistan War.

Do yourself a favor and check your facts better!
May I recommend this link?
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/Nakassis&Snedeker_2002.pdf

[WildCat]

Wow!

How amazing that 'wildcat' is spouting a great deal more nonsense than he usually does.

First, Algeria does not support Israel.
Second, Algeria has stayed out of Saudi Arabia.
Third, Algeria has stayed out of the Iraq War.
Fourth, Algeria has stayed out of the Afghanistan War.

Do yourself a favor and check your facts better!
Sometimes you think the sarcasm is so obvious as to be idiot proof, but then someone comes along and shows you can't underestimate idiots.

[Matteo Martini]

I was certain that the man who claimed US support for Pol Pot could find a way, but I overestimated you.

??
I did not claim that.

[Matteo Martini]

May I recommend this link?
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/Nakassis&Snedeker_2002.pdf

Link not working

[NoZed Avenger]

[from Wildcat]:I was certain that the man who claimed US support for Pol Pot could find a way, but I overestimated you.

??
I did not claim that.


Post no. 32 from this thread ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100646 ):

[by M Martini]: Therefore the US did support Pol Pot.
Just my point.


Just to be clear for my understanding: Making the "point" that "the US did support Pol Pot" definitively is not making a cliam that the US did support Pol Pot.



Do words mean different things according to what time of day it is or something? The previously quoted post from you was just made on December 13th, for crying out loud -- less than two days from the one just above that denies ever having said that.

[NoZed Avenger]

Bump.

[NoZed Avenger]

Bump.

[Tailgater]

Wow!

How amazing that 'wildcat' is spouting a great deal more nonsense than he usually does.

First, Algeria does not support Israel.
Second, Algeria has stayed out of Saudi Arabia.
Third, Algeria has stayed out of the Iraq War.
Fourth, Algeria has stayed out of the Afghanistan War.

Do yourself a favor and check your facts better!

You did an excellent job supporting his nonsense. :D

[Tailgater]

Link not working


Beyond Sarcasm: Intonation and Context as Relational Cues in
Children's Recognition of Irony

[boooeee]

Beyond Sarcasm: Intonation and Context as Relational Cues in
Children's Recognition of Irony


Thanks. That was so helpful.

[rwguinn]

Thanks. That was so helpful.

Ya gotta start somewhere...

[BPSCG]

Why is everything called "Al Qaida" now?

Sorry, but the Al Qaida Harp is getting boring and ridiculous.Oliver, I really hate stereotypes, so would you please knock off playing the arrogant, world-weary European sophisticate whose primary objection to a wrong is that it's boring?

If you find al Qaeda boring, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to post here. Go start a Ron Paul thread or something.

[Metullus]

??
I did not claim that.Tell me you are joking...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3240178#post3240178

[NoZed Avenger]

Tell me you are joking...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3240178#post3240178


I'm kind of hoping he will come and explain that, myself.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3249082&postcount=23

[NoZed Avenger]

I'm kind of hoping he will come and explain that, myself.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3249082&postcount=23



Although I have to say it is looking like we'll never know why saying that the US supports Pol Pot is not saying that the US supports Pol Pot.

[Tailgater]

I'm kind of hoping he will come and explain that, myself.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3249082&postcount=23

Ask in the "Time to kick Iran" thread.;)

[Mycroft]

Wow!

How amazing that 'wildcat' is spouting a great deal more nonsense than he usually does.

First, Algeria does not support Israel.
Second, Algeria has stayed out of Saudi Arabia.
Third, Algeria has stayed out of the Iraq War.
Fourth, Algeria has stayed out of the Afghanistan War.

Do yourself a favor and check your facts better!

<snicker!>

[NoZed Avenger]

Ask in the "Time to kick Iran" thread.;)

I placed a request for an answer in a semi-related thread. We'll see.

[Matteo Martini]

Post no. 32 from this thread ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100646 )

Just to be clear for my understanding: Making the "point" that "the US did support Pol Pot" definitively is not making a cliam that the US did support Pol Pot.

Do words mean different things according to what time of day it is or something? The previously quoted post from you was just made on December 13th, for crying out loud -- less than two days from the one just above that denies ever having said that.

Plain and simple.
I do not claim that the US supported Pol Pot ( at least, not directly ).
If you read the title of the thread, I wrote " Did the US support Pol Pot? " with the question mark, in an attempt to discuss the matter, not to force my opinion on this.
And, from what we have understood, while the US may not ( have not? ) supported Pol Pot directly, but they gave political support to Pol Pot` s KR when they had to retain a seat in the UN and, according to what we have found, they seem to have supported ( at least indirectly ) the KR, when they resisted the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia

My sentence: " Therefore the US did support Pol Pot. " was in direct response to GazPacho` s comment " One of those options was supporting Cambodians who resisted the Vietnamese invasion, even if they were supporters of the KR. ".
I admit that my sentence was imprecise, as I should have written ( more precisely ), "Therefore the US did support Pol Pot` s Khmer Rouges".
Thank you for giving me the oppurtunity to clarify this point

[Matteo Martini]

Tell me you are joking...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3240178#post3240178

Please, see my reply above.

[WildCat]

Apparently the only way for the US to avoid meeting MM's definition of "support" for a state is to be at war with it.

Once you understand this you realize his posts aren't particularly controversial.

[Metullus]

Please, see my reply above.Clear as mud.

[Matteo Martini]

Clear as mud.

What is not clear?

[WildCat]

Why is everything called "Al Qaida" now?

Sorry, but the Al Qaida Harp is getting boring and ridiculous.
Because it was an attack by al Qaeda, and even al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri is defending the attack now (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/03/zawahiri.message/index.html):

They also referred to attacks by al Qaeda and affiliated groups that have killed scores of civilians in Muslim nations, such as Algeria, Iraq and Morocco.

...
Al-Zawahiri defended a December attack in Algeria -- hospital sources said it killed 60 people -- because one of its targets was a United Nations building and the "United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims," according to the transcript.
I think that should be enough proof that al Qaeda is in fact involved in North Africa. But de'nile is also a river in North Africa... ;)