AQ aiding Syrian rebels?

August · 07-31-12, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krashkart

According to some fighters the FSA doesn't know how to fight and win. AQ on the other hand has plenty of experience in fighting (and winning), and that is quite attractive to many who would prefer to win a battle rather than just waste ammunition.

What battle has AQ ever won? Sure they're good a car bombs but fighting a battle against real troops? They've gotten their hats handed to them every time.

krashkart · 07-31-12, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

What battle has AQ ever won? Sure they're good a car bombs but fighting a battle against real troops? They've gotten their hats handed to them every time.

Good point. According to the article, AQ is much better at getting things done than the FSA is. That's what I meant to convey.

Skybird · 07-31-12, 08:10 AM

AQ is no field army, and thus should not be measured by performance in field battles. It is a mix of guerilla and terror, political, social and religious involvement. They amkew the West investing horren dious sums of money worldwide to boost security anbd engage in miliutary actions. That means they are very well potent enough to make us sacrificing a solid ammount of our economic and financial ressources for the military, because of them.

Same could be said about the Taliban, who also seem to suffer defeats in open field battles - still are short of becoming the unconditional victor in the Afghanistan war.

In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.

Winning battles is one thing, and not even the most important one. Winning the one battle that decides the war - that is the only battle that counts. Winning the war in the end, by battle or by other means. To evade making the deciding mistake, the last error in the war.

One can win battles, and still lose a war. AQ's triumph is that in it'S wake a massive surge of radicalisation and fundamentalisation swept through the Islmaic world, giving us headaches whereever Islam is present. That they have almost seized to exist as an organisaiton, means nothing, since they always were more a thinking school, and ideology anyway. AQ is no organsiation, it is an idea. That is what makes it so dangerous, so hard to combat, so terroristic and so motivating for others who are not AQ at all. Many attemtped or carried out terror strikes of the past ten years were motivated by AQ, but the attackers having had no formal link to anything called AQ.

AQ is no field army that parades on the meadow and waits to get shot into pieces. This is no symmetric war.

August · 07-31-12, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.

Actually the North Vietnamese Army and the Chinese won the war. The Vietcong were destroyed during the Tet offensive and replaced by regular NVA units and leaders.

Skybird · 07-31-12, 08:37 AM

Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".

August · 07-31-12, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".

Don't dance for joy when you say that.

The truth is that the Vietcong won like the Iranian communists won after the 79 revolution. They were used as cannon fodder then stabbed in the back. If you want to believe they "won the war" then that's your business but it doesn't make it accurate.

Skybird · 08-02-12, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Don't dance for joy when you say that.

I don'T, I just precisely call the outcome by its name. Your side lost, the enemy's side won. Reasons leading to the result are not important. The final scoring is what decides it. Ideas, motivations, hopes, and the like - do not change the final standing. They won, America lost. They took the prize, America fled from the stage in disarray.

That is no triumphing by me. It's just the historical reality.

Sailor Steve · 08-02-12, 10:21 AM

Skybird restated his original intent very clearly when he posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost".

His original point was unmistable: Vietnam won, America lost. August never addressed that point, but created a new one, then claimed that it was Sky's original point.

Quote:

Who cares what the final standing was? That's not the issue.

This is changing the subject to suit your own ends at its finest.

Hottentot · 08-02-12, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

His original point was unmistable: Vietnam won, America lost.

His original three paragraphs were:

Quote:

AQ is no field army, and thus should not be measured by performance in field battles. It is a mix of guerilla and terror, political, social and religious involvement. They amkew the West investing horren dious sums of money worldwide to boost security anbd engage in miliutary actions. That means they are very well potent enough to make us sacrificing a solid ammount of our economic and financial ressources for the military, because of them.

Same could be said about the Taliban, who also seem to suffer defeats in open field battles - still are short of becoming the unconditional victor in the Afghanistan war.

In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war.

This is a direct comparison between the AQ and the Viet Cong, and therefore in my opinion a statement that the VC won the war with their tactics, similar to those of AQ (or the other way around, the AQ is winning with the same tactics as the VC).

Only in the second post, after the difference was made between the NVA and the VC, did it become "your enemy" instead of the VC. Again, as I see it, the question is not if America lost or not, because no one has said it didn't. It is if the guerilla tactics caused that loss or not.

August · 08-02-12, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Skybird restated his original intent very clearly when he posted

His original point was unmistable: Vietnam won, America lost. August never addressed that point, but created a new one, then claimed that it was Sky's original point.

This is changing the subject to suit your own ends at its finest.

This is why I keep you on ignore Steve. I never addressed that point? Well bullcrap. Try looking at post number 6 of this thread and again in post 14 where I very clearly say that the NVA (and Chinese) won the war.

Skybird said VietCONG, not "VietNAMESE" and even that argument is highly debatable since the South Vietnamese were Viets too and they certainly ended up loosing, not only the war, but their country as well.

TLAM Strike · 07-31-12, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

What battle has AQ ever won? Sure they're good a car bombs but fighting a battle against real troops? They've gotten their hats handed to them every time.

Well AQIM and Ansar Dine took three key cities in Mali a few months ago then kicked their former Tuareg allied out of them.

August · 07-31-12, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Well AQIM and Ansar Dine took three key cities in Mali a few months ago then kicked their former Tuareg allied out of them.

I stand corrected then.

07-31-12, 08:10 AM	#3
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	AQ is no field army, and thus should not be measured by performance in field battles. It is a mix of guerilla and terror, political, social and religious involvement. They amkew the West investing horren dious sums of money worldwide to boost security anbd engage in miliutary actions. That means they are very well potent enough to make us sacrificing a solid ammount of our economic and financial ressources for the military, because of them. Same could be said about the Taliban, who also seem to suffer defeats in open field battles - still are short of becoming the unconditional victor in the Afghanistan war. In Vietnam the Vietcong also lost every ground battle and offensive it tried - and still won the war. Winning battles is one thing, and not even the most important one. Winning the one battle that decides the war - that is the only battle that counts. Winning the war in the end, by battle or by other means. To evade making the deciding mistake, the last error in the war. One can win battles, and still lose a war. AQ's triumph is that in it'S wake a massive surge of radicalisation and fundamentalisation swept through the Islmaic world, giving us headaches whereever Islam is present. That they have almost seized to exist as an organisaiton, means nothing, since they always were more a thinking school, and ideology anyway. AQ is no organsiation, it is an idea. That is what makes it so dangerous, so hard to combat, so terroristic and so motivating for others who are not AQ at all. Many attemtped or carried out terror strikes of the past ten years were motivated by AQ, but the attackers having had no formal link to anything called AQ. AQ is no field army that parades on the meadow and waits to get shot into pieces. This is no symmetric war. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

07-31-12, 08:37 AM	#5
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,708 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Your enemy won, you lost. Everything else is just technical hairsplitting to avoid the statement: "they won, we lost". __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode