Al Qaeda: The Bogeyman?

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,542
Reaction score
30
Points
48
Location
Scotland
Has Al Qaeda become another Bogeyman?

The day after the bombings in Madrid, despite what was apparently a lot of pretty good evidence that ETA were involved, the UK tabloids were all pretty insistant that we consider that Al Qaeda was behind the attack.

It seems that al Qaeda is becoming another Bogeyman: a name to scare children to sleep...be good or al Qaeda will get you...

What good evidence is there that Al Qaeda were involved? None. Nil. Zero.

Yet the media nowadays seems to insist that all acts of terrorism must be blamed first on Al Qaeda, before the evidence is even sifted through.

Let's not create a Bogeyman out of them.
 
Al Qaeda - it's the new Soviet Union. It's "us" against "them" and I agree with you entirely on that one. For instance if the IRA or Chechens did a terrorist attack you'd assume it was them - but now it often falls to the hands of Al Qaeda. What's more worrying is people instanteneous believe it is them without question of evidence.

A recent example being the Moscow swimming pool that collapsed. On BBC News 24 before they had any additional information they blamed it on Al Qaeda even though it was an accident.

Al Qaeda will remain the Bogeyman until some educated awareness is developed and I don't see that happening in a hurry...
 
I will agree Al Qaida is the new monster of Boogey man in the world of politics. It is my understanding Al Qaida claimed responsibility for the bombing and the explosive detonators are typical Al Qaida and not those used by Eta.

Unlike past Boogey Men such as the Soviet Union Al Qaida does not have a real home base we can go after. They are mobile. Their attacks are both bold and simple. Getting a list of known terrorists is almost useless as Al Qaida uses new recruits, people with no criminal record to do their bidding.

While Al Qaida uses religion as the method to whip up the crowd, such tactics could not work is there wasn't such a rift with the haves and have-nots.

Bush tells us they hate us for our democracy, but in reality knows its about the control of vital natural resources in the Middle East. Democracy is more important in Iraq, then Haiti for example.
 
Hostage situation

Al Qaeda as the new Bogeyman is like an international hostage situation.

And the tragedy is that unlike modern police method of dealing with hostage takers, which is to contact them and talk with them, to find some kind of compromise to diffuse the tension and save lives, the Western Powers led by the U.S.A. are not interested in talking.

Worse, if any attempt is initiated by people, they might end up in Guantanamo for being unpatriotic, even traitors.

Do we have any non-government groups trying to contact the Al Qaeda people, like their head, Osama bin Laden, to talk.

How can anyone dare take such a step, when the mighty U.S.A. will haul him to Guantanamo in no time at all.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Sorry, but after Bali and Madrid I don't give a damn how or why Osama bin Laden is captured. He deserves the old, old execution of being hung, drawn & quartered or stuck in front of those lives he has blighted by an untimely loss.

He doesn't understand talking, all he understands is death and violence.
Terrorism is nothing more than a cowardly act. For years the UK has condemned the IRA for terrorism and the loss of innocent lives but at least they usually gave a warning of the explosion of a bomb and innocent lives could be saved as a result of the warning. Al Qaeda don't even give a warning. There's just innocent lives lost and in the name of what? Politics? Religon? Does it really matter when they target the innocent?
 
suanni said:
Sorry, but after Bali and Madrid I don't give a damn how or why Osama bin Laden is captured. He deserves the old, old execution of being hung, drawn & quartered or stuck in front of those lives he has blighted by an untimely loss.

He doesn't understand talking, all he understands is death and violence.
Terrorism is nothing more than a cowardly act. For years the UK has condemned the IRA for terrorism and the loss of innocent lives but at least they usually gave a warning of the explosion of a bomb and innocent lives could be saved as a result of the warning. Al Qaeda don't even give a warning. There's just innocent lives lost and in the name of what? Politics? Religon? Does it really matter when they target the innocent?
I don't believe it is a cowardly act. Don't get me wrong- I do not approve of terrorism, but really what takes more guts? Smashing an airplane into a building knowing you are going to die, or sitting comfortably in a ship lobbing missles at a third world nation that can not retaliate?

Terrorism- especially where one gives their life is an act of desparation. What is it that makes people so desparate that they would want to take their own lives and the lives of others along with them? These are not mentally ill people as far as I can tell. Until those issues which cause terrorism are addressed terrorism will continue.

The bombs that fell in Iraq are the bombs that fell on Spain. I am sure France and Germany are sitting back right now saying, "I told you so." Spain and England due to their geography are much easier targets for Al Qaida to attack than the US.

The people of Spain are correct in blaming their leadership in following the US into war. My guess is England is next on the list.

Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that.- MLK
 
The point about Al Qaeda as a bogeyman, though, is that they are - and will continue to be blamed - on every act of terrorism for quite some time.

The issue of an Al Qaeda link still seems forced - the only claims of responsibility seem opportunistic at best - though I am quite sure that the US media will emphasis the possibility of a connection to Osama bin Laden.

Yes, it's not usual for ETA to work in this manner, but we've seen in Northern Ireland how terrorist groups can splinter and even work agaisnt each other - not least the "Real" IRA splitting from the Provos, and the factionalism in the UDF.

Perhaps some element of Al Qaeda really is responsible - but I would rather wait for some real evidence to be forwarded before seeing blame pointed out. ETA are still very much in the dock for far stronger evidence than anything attributed to Al Qaeda so far.
 
In Madrid it was a cowardly act. Bombs planted in rucksacks detonated by mobile phones dumped upon the train. Those who planted the bombs were nowhere near when the bombs exploded. Those who planted the bombs were not hurt, it was the innocent who were hurt.
The 2 Towers and other 'suicide bombings' were they cowardice? They were executed in faith and ordered by a man who believes only his way is right. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the faith of suicide bombers is such that by dying in the name of their God they will instantly go to 'heaven', matters not of the murders of the innocent that have been committed in the act. And once again this was done at the directions of their leader.
England has been a terrorist target for years. England has suffered at the hands of the IRA for years. Northern Ireland has really suffered for years by the hands of terrorists.
Terrorism is borne from desperation? Maybe but not in this case. This terrorism derives from the belief of one man that his way is right and the rest of the world is wrong. He believes that he is doing the work of God. I note Bin Laden isn't doing the suicide bombings himself.
Hilter had the same beliefs.
 
I said:
Has Al Qaeda become another Bogeyman?
[...]
Yet the media nowadays seems to insist that all acts of terrorism must be blamed first on Al Qaeda, before the evidence is even sifted through.
[...]
Let's not create a Bogeyman out of them.

Of course Al-Qaeda is a bogeyman....that's exactly who they want to be. They no doubt savor every ounce publicity they get and every perception that makes them seem like a bigger monster than before (whether or not its valid).

When scores of people die, people want answers and they want answers now. I think that's the main reason the media rushes to provide theories. Society as a whole wouldn't have it any other way. It has nothing to do with education or a lack of it, but rather it's a basic human emotional need.

[Insert nod to Buddhist philosophies that state "all such fear is illusion and not a true human need" here.]

I'm not seeking to justify Al-Qaeda's bogeyman status. I'm well aware that by granting them that status, we're playing right into their hands. Fear is the source of their power. By conquering fear within ourselves, we actually destroy a small portion of the power of terrorists.

I think you can rest assured, however, that the people actually responsible for determining the source of an attack will be open to all leads, without caring what the media says (except, of course, when or where it hinders an investigation.) Just because the media goes off on a tangent about something, it doesn't mean they have the whole story or represent all involved.

QG
 
Kindest Regards, Brian!
I said:
It seems that al Qaeda is becoming another Bogeyman: a name to scare children to sleep...be good or al Qaeda will get you...
With all due respect, may I posit this: "If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." Or perhaps Ockham's razor will suffice?
 
True, juantoo - but what if ducks are being blamed for the actions of chickens?
 
Bombings still going on

They got Saddam Hussein, but the bombings continue.

The latest news is that the Pakistani military is getting close to Bin Laden, or is it his No. 2 partner.

That might increase the chance of Bush getting a second term. But will it stop the bombings?

This kind of behavior toward terrorists brings to mind the guy who keeps on pushing a door to open it, to no avail. Then someone comes along and pulls it open. Simple.

Time to try something diametrically opposite. Paging: thinking brains.

Susma Rio Sep
 
Kindest Regards, Brian!
I said:
True, juantoo - but what if ducks are being blamed for the actions of chickens?
You are a wonderful and gracious host, I wish in no way to disrespect that. Perhaps it is best I merely state that I believe it is appropriate to pursue the "chickens" and other assorted "fowl" perpetrators (and dare I say cowardly "swine") that feel it is appropriate to brutally murder anonymous innocent civilians. One could make a legitimate argument about targeting political figures, but not everyday people who merely wish to live their lives, and are guilty of nothing more.
 
Back
Top