Thread: Who Won the First Battle: Al-Qaeda or USA

Knowing that Political Asshattery Rants (credit to TH) don’t really matter in the real world and are strictly for the entertainment of Maggots, I present you all with a poll.

The question: Who has won the first battle? Al-Qaeda-Islamic Jihadism or The USA

USA:
- Capture and detention or termination of several prominent leaders of Al-Qaeda
- Uprooting of Taliban (fuck those guys)
- “Liberation” of Iraq and termination of Saddam Hussein
- Strong military presence in Iraq and the Middle East (already established Persian Gulf War I)
- Froze Al-Qaeda funding or greatly diminished funding

Al-Qaeda:
- Destruction of World Trade Center on 9/11/2001
- Bleeding of USA resources to the tune of >$1B/wk (not to mention allies) resulting in huge leverage of our economic power. $600 billion spent, > 4,000 USA soldiers dead, > 30,000 wounded
- Meltdown of USA and Western Financial Markets
- Exacerbating rift in USA politics and the significant loss of political capital internationally
- Destabilized Pakistan
- Enabled Iran to gain power in Mid East.(Shia/Sunni balance of power)

Other discussion points:
- Are there significant points bullet points on either side that are not mentioned above. I would think there are since I am just a political asshat.
- Was the “decider” a decisive factor in the outcome?
- What strategic decisions might have changed the outcome of the first 30 yrs of full on war (1979)?
- What tactical decisions might have changed the outcome of the last few years of full on engagement?

I don’t know quite what to think But I voted at least…

And I know USA/West will prevail, various reasons.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

The question: Who has won the first battle? Al-Qaeda-Islamic Jihadism or The USA

AQ won the first four battles because they successfully hit us and we never hit back.


-The first WTC bombing
-Khobar towers
-Nairobi Embassy bombing
-USS Cole

Good point and good examples

The U.S. won. Hands down. Massively. No contest.

But it really wasn't a fair fight: We were the only ones who could cause the U.S. that much damage.

Both sides can claim Pyrrhic victories.

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

The U.S. won. Hands down. Massively. No contest.

But it really wasn't a fair fight: We were the only ones who could cause the U.S. that much damage.

so sad...

I agree with Rubicon's points, and would add:

• When Bush failed to stand on the steps of the Capitol Building, just him and a podium, by noon on 9/11 and announce to the world that America is strong as fuck and would bring these cowardly Saudi fucks to justice, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Powell embarrassed himself and his country at the UN with that pathetic presentation, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Bush said "You're with us, or you're against us", Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When the military got poor Afghani's to turn people in for cash, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Bush et al, comically failed to find Bin Liner right away, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Bush and Cheney invaded Iraq, Al-Qaeda won - and grew exponentially.
  
• When Bush started using the Constitution as toilet paper, Al-Qaeda.
  
• When Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" while floating on the USS Lincoln, which was just off California but had the press area arranged so photos couldn't show the shore, apparently so that people would think he was in the Gulf, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Bush was re-elected after everything he'd done, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Bush hid the coffins of the fallen soldiers as they made their final trip home, Al-Qaeda won.
  
• When Bush and Cheney used paid mercenaries instead of red, white, and blue American soldiers to guard anyone remotely important and do anything remotely important, Al-Qaeda won.

I can't see anything the US won with regard to Al-Qaeda or 9/11, but it sure lost a lot...but it doesn't need to be lost forever. Reclaiming it is up to the American people.

Originally Posted by Summit

Both sides can claim Pyrrhic victories.

How can there be a Pyrrhic victory if you're using voluntary suicide bombers?

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

...but it doesn't need to be lost forever. Reclaiming it is up to the American people.

Cliff, go find one, jump.

Originally Posted by Cliff Huckable

How can there be a Pyrrhic victory if you're using voluntary suicide bombers?

When the attack leads to your host country conquered by the enemy, your command structure fucked, your commanders killed, and you are sneaking around from cave to cave.

Pearl Harbor was a Pyrrhic victory for Japan and this was apparent to them even by mid 1943.

That didn't stop US learning experiences like Tarawa, or arguably needless battles like Peleliu or Iwo Jima.

In W's delusional mind, he probably imagined himself and his father as Douglas McCarthur with Iraq being the Philippines. It didn't have to be. Iraq is an Iwo Jima, an originally unnecessary and bloody battle that we now cannot afford to lose.

Continuing my analogy, I would compare the present dilemma of resource allocation between Iraq and Afghanistan to the situation in New Guinea and Guadalcanal in late 1942.

I dunno how Pakistan fits in... OK, enough drunken analogies.

I do know that AQ has had no successful attacks inside the US since 9-11-01.

More Scotch!!!

You should probably add for US.

-Froze much of Al-Qaeda's funding.


For Al-Qaeda you should probably add.

-Destabilized Pakistan
-Enabled Iran to gain power in Mid East.(Shia/Sunni balance of power)

All I am reading here:
Rubicon is obtuse.


That being said, hope we get mad pow this year!

Originally Posted by rideit

That being said, hope we get mad pow this year!

Sorry, I already got dibs.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

USA:
- “Liberation” of Iraq and termination of Saddam Hussein

That wasn't a blow against AQ. It was unrelated. Sadly, it helped them in the end.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

Al-Qaeda:
- Destruction of World Trade Center on 9/11/2001

Although implied, you forgot the people who died in those buildings.


I think AQ took the first battle. I agree with DW. Cliff's comments have validity, but its oh-so-easy to say what went badly with no idea how to make it go goodly.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

AQ won the first four battles because they successfully hit us and we never hit back.


-The first WTC bombing
-Khobar towers
-Nairobi Embassy bombing
-USS Cole

Ask the Sudanese and the Taliban if that's true or revisionist bullshit. Several hundred people died and our POTUS was accused of "Wagging the Dog."

Originally Posted by Tippster

Ask the Sudanese and the Taliban if that's true or revisionist bullshit. Several hundred people died and our POTUS was accused of "Wagging the Dog."

Carelessly launching a bunch of missiles doesn't count for much in my book. It's like shooting arrows at a swarm of bees. It was a half hearted effort, sloppily executed. If you consider that "striking back", we'll have to agree to disagree.

Al Qaeda <3's hot butt mud.

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

good examples

No, not all of them.

Khobar towers was NOT an AQ hit, as it was actually carried out by the Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (Saudi Hezbollah).

-Astro

Originally Posted by Rubicon

-Khobar towers

Pfffffft. Try again.

-Astro

Originally Posted by Tippster

Ask the Sudanese and the Taliban if that's true or revisionist bullshit. Several hundred people died and our POTUS was accused of "Wagging the Dog."

when he "fought" back he was accused of wagging the dog.


maybe if he didn't have Unocal running his foreign policy in Afghanistan back then we could have had a more effective policy regarding both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Pretty sure that Newt and the boys were even trying to keep him from doing anything at all. They sure as hell wouldn't have signed off on invading a sovereign state (or two) and gave him a whole bunch of shit for committing acts of war. Then they accused him of wagging the dog.

Make up your mind. Either he did something good or he did something bad. Just agree that "he did nothing against Al Qaeda" is absolutely not true.

I don't really know fer sure who's "won" thusfar, but I do know a sure-fire way we could destroy all those damn A-Rabs: convince tippster that they are all made of chocolat doughnuts and drop him in Afghani-Paki-Raq. Problem solved.

Thought I'd contribute to the discussion;

Great thread!

OK, hope you all appreciated that?

Originally Posted by AstroPax

No, not all of them.

Khobar towers was NOT an AQ hit, as it was actually carried out by the Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (Saudi Hezbollah).

-Astro

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Pfffffft. Try again.

-Astro

Guess it depends on who you talk to.

"William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, in an interview in June 2007, said that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers