al qaeda has no longer has a top-down organizational structure.
hmm yes it does. but they are divided in in more different organizations that work together under the same name.
i would say that is a stronger structure then just one top-down organization.
you can kill al-quada leaders today but it wont have effect on the efficiency of the organization as a whole.
It has morphed into more autonomous cells, which make it difficult to quantify, but also lessens its overall ability to accomplish its stated goals.
it's more spread out, therefore it's harder to trace. hence big pieces of al-quada just fell of the usa radar. where it is able to regroup and rearm themselves.
In addition, the arab spring showed that twitter/facebook and democratic action could topple regimes much more effectively than terrorism.
the arab spring also gave al-quada the ability to move to other countries where they befor could not get a foot in the regime.
al-quada used the arab spring to get more people for their cause and to get new weaponry that was given to the "rebels" by western countries.
And, the number of places that al qaeda is welcome throughout the world has shrunk dramatically
that they are not welcome doesn't mean they are not there
polls among muslims
from link:
Muslims questioned in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanonsofar i know did most people in egypt, jordan and turkey never agree whit al-quada. questioning the muslims in these countries about al-quada is kinda playing safe. my guess is that they didn't dare to ask muslims in countries where al-quada had allot of followers in the past or now.
(only in pakistan and thats kinda a safe option aswell. because pakistan now feels the usa drones attacking their civilians because they think al-quada is still there.)
I couldn't give 2 spits about "the dilution of Christian Europe."
me neither, and neither do i give 2 spits about the usa as a whole.
but that doesn't mean there are not allot of people who do.
only a really dumb crazy person would maintain.
the world is full whit dumb crazy people. i would even say that 99% of the world is dumb and crazy in some way.
Would I bomb a marathon to fight for those ideals? No!
you wouldn't but maybe someone els does.
Disagreement with others can consist of polite, rational dialogue.
how true this may be, it sure is not realistic to think this will always happen.
My point was that generally when someone is a pacifist
a pacifist sure wont i'll give you that. but thats just 1 box.
a environmentalist on the other hand.... look at greenpeace for example thats almost a terrorist organization of it's own.
altho i agree whit much that greenpeace stands for. i disagree on most of their actions.
thats what i mend whit not being realistic to setup so many boxes.
ofcours someone that fits in every box you called out wont do this. but it are so many boxes that i have my question marks at how many people actually fit in all of them. maybe 0,1% of the population.
If I was a racist, or a gun-nut, or super religious, or in favor of a tax revolt, I might be concerned that whoever bombed the marathon was doing so in support of one of my causes.
maybe it was a environmentalist..... then you might agree whit him, right?
(altho it is kinda wierd to hit a running event instead of a racing event but still.) if this same would have happened during a nascar race or whatever, then you probably would have reacted the same way.
I might be concerned that whoever bombed the marathon was doing so in support of one of my causes.
breivik attacked christians for a christian cause.
it might 1st look like someone from the opposing side. but it can ofcours also be one amoung yourself. (
a pacifist can also snap)
