Once we are done in Afghanistan and Iraq

skibikeclambake

Active member
We will be going to Africa.

http://www.military.com/news/article/al-qaidas-strength-in-africa-growing.html

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida's terror network in North Africa is growing more active and attracting new recruits, threatening to further destabilize the continent's already vulnerable Sahara region, according to U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials.

The North African faction, which calls itself Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), is still small and largely isolated, numbering a couple hundred militants based mostly in the vast desert of northern Mali. But signs of stepped-up activity and the group's advancing potential for growth worry analysts familiar with the region.

The rapid recent rise of the al-Qaida group in Yemen - which spawned the Christmas airliner attack - is seen by U.S. officials and counterterrorism analysts as evidence that the North African militants could just as quickly take on a broader jihadi mission and become a serious threat to the U.S. and European allies.

The Mali-based militants have yet to show a capability to launch such foreign attacks, but are widening their involvement in kidnapping and the narcotics trade, reaping profits that could be used to expand terror operations, officials and analysts said.

Several senior U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials spoke about AQIM on condition of anonymity to discuss internal analysis.

Those advances have set off alarms within the counterterrorism community, which watched as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula quickly transformed over the past year from militants preoccupied with internal Yemeni strife to a potent group recruiting and training insurgents for terror missions inside the U.S.

That threat was underscored by the failed Christmas airliner attack, which officials say was planned and directed by Yemeni insurgent leaders.

A key fear is that as AQIM expands, its criminal and insurgent operations will continue to destabilize the fragile governments of heavily Islamic North Africa, much as it has in Mali. The Maghreb includes the North African nations of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania.

As a result, the U.S. has been working to boost poverty-stricken Mali's defenses. Last year, the U.S. gave $5 million in new trucks and other equipment to its security forces, and Pentagon funds also have been approved to provide training.

But others suggested that non-military aid is also needed.

"For too long, al-Qaida's growth in this critical region of Africa has been overlooked," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., on Monday. "Our embassy presence in many of these countries is quite limited, which handicaps our ability to better understand a region that has become a terrorist safe haven. We need a greater non-military, on-the-ground presence devoted to this part of the world in order to better understand local dynamics, identify emerging threats and prevent future attacks."

Several senior U.S. defense and counterterrorism officials spoke about AQIM on condition of anonymity to discuss internal analysis.

Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution Saban Center and a former CIA officer, said that the North African terror group has a larger area to operate in and a wider Islamic population pool to draw from, but has not launched the kind of large-scale attacks initially feared when it became an al-Qaida affiliate three years ago.

"Now, if it is beginning to reorganize, recruit and develop, because of this international potential, it could become a much more dangerous threat," Riedel said. "And if there is a role model in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, that is very disturbing."

Born as an Algerian insurgency in the early 1990s, the group was largely defeated and driven into a swath of ungoverned desert land - about the size of France - in northern Mali. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the group reached out to al-Qaida in an effort to survive. AQIM was officially recognized as an al-Qaida affiliate by Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. Both the U.S. and the European Union have designated AQIM a terrorist organization.

The group has since absorbed some of al-Qaida's techniques for roadside bombs and suicide attacks. Occasionally it has issued videos and statements on jihadi Internet forums.

In December 2007, for example, the group attacked the U.N.'s Algerian headquarters, killing 37 people, including 17 U.N. staff members.

At the same time, AQIM has increased its recruiting efforts, drawing insurgents from Mauritania, Nigeria and Chad, officials said. The recruits are trained in small arms and roadside bomb construction, officials said, then return to their home countries to plan and execute attacks.

The spike in recruiting and training, along with the increase in kidnappings and other crimes, has made the region more insecure and unstable in just a year, several officials said.

The militants often partner with local criminals, who kidnap tourists then sell them to AQIM, which then demands ransoms, officials said. Those alliances cement contacts between the criminal groups and AQIM, broadening its reach and membership.

The kidnappings have had mixed results. Last week, the group released French hostage Pierre Camatte after holding him for three months. The move was spurred by a Mali court decision that released four jailed AQIM members.

Some hostages have been killed - including Edwin Dyer, a British tourist who was captured with three others including two U.N. envoys. Britain had refused to pay ransom to the group.

So far, the group has not moved beyond kidnappings to push al-Qaida's global jihad aims, creating tensions between the offshoot organization and core al-Qaida leaders in Pakistan, said Haim Malka, deputy director for the Center for Strategic and International Studies' Middle East program.

"They have not yet become more globally focused, they've stayed in the Sahara region and they've failed to make inroads in other parts of North Africa," he said. Malka cautioned that the group's broadening efforts to work with local criminal networks on kidnappings may give the appearance that it is expanding more than it actually is.

Despite the group's limited reach, British and American authorities have issued strong warnings against travel to northern Mali, saying there is a "high threat from terrorism" and from criminal acts and kidnappings.
 
If we really want to continue on freeing people from oppression and bringing democracy to the world, North Korea's up next.
 
wow thats very interesting. You would think it would occur to people a lot earlier though. I mean after we've had planes shot at in Chad and embassies attacked in Algeria it should be obvious.
However, I feel like since the area is so unstable the people, just like in somalia with the pirates, look towards anyone for relief (or blame for that matter.) "Al-Queda blames America? Hell maybe theyre right!" One mans terrorist will always be another mans freedom fighter i guess
 
but why do people think this is funny to say and keep throwing zoolander references into threads a million times a day?
 
comon, its impossible to stop all possible terrorists with a bomb, gun, knife or roflcopter. somehow you can just as well do nothing
 
That was my next guess, more and more people are being recruited in Africa. Their lack of structure and government is a key place to recruit and train terrorists. Since the war on terror started, Africa support significantly decreased from the US.

I just hope the candian government doesnt gets too involed...
 
At the moment, the only 2 countries I have a problem with are North Korea and Myanmar(Burma) .

The 1st one caus Kim Jong il is alienating his people, brainwashing them, starving them to death, but like Mao Zedong did to chinese people back in 1966, but way worse.

The 2nd is Myanmar because... hey juste because comunist dictatorship is very wrong in my book.

Now I'm not saying someone should invade them, but we definitly should find a solution to change this.
 
true but, how can those be the only countries you see a problem with when Sudan and Somalia continue to function (or not function) the way they do?
 
a lot of problems come from us thinking that everything else than a democracy with a good industry and service sector is the only way to have a country running.
of course a lot of stuff is going wrong in africa, but too much efforts were made to establish democracies, which isnt the most urgent concern. like in the cold war where russia and the US fighted against each other through subsidiary armies all over the world, just to make a few more countries communist/capitalist.
 
africa has a lot of natural resources, easily exploitable by foreign corporations due to relaxed environmental laws and corruption. america is just using al ciada as a front to position itself to be in a position to manage those resources.
 
if the mayans were talking about anything with the "end of the world" and what not they meant we destroy ourselves. we're done.
 
I think the movie Charlie Wilson's War sums all of this up the best.
Seriously, watch the movie, and listen to the warnings he gets at the end of it.
"We went in, and 'changed the world'.....and then we fucked up the end game."
 
Turn that shit into a parking lot before we have to send Americans in there. Do we develop bombs for fun and just not use them?
 
North Korea is not nuclear capable yet. If North Korea had a nuke we would see a pretty large shift in the balance of power in that region and that is something that countries like Japan, South Korea, the US and China would not tolerate. Basically, North Korea will probably get its nuclear plants attacked before they are nuclear capable. The only tests that have been going on really are for ICBM's.
 
wont happen imo, why go to Africa when our precious oil is in the middle east, we fight these wars for our oil, and if you say otherwise tell me why we went to iraq and took down saddam, because he doesnt have anything to do with 911
 
they do have the bomb. they even announced it. it was on the news. they did two tests. the bombs were very weak though. doesn't mean they couldn't rig up a dirty bomb and sail a fishing boat into a japanese harbor with one.

 
Too bad, we are already involved in countries all over Africa: Djibouti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, and Liberia.

If we fight these wars for our oil than why are we in Afghanistan?

I think your perspective is a little short sited.

 
a lot of people don't realize that the wars are beyond the "it's all for oil!" stage. It's not 2004 anymore.
 
Whether they actually have nukes or not is not known, and the fact that they claim to have nuclear weapons means nothing. Again, if they actually had powerful nuclear capabilities we would have already seen some sort of action on the part of either Japan or South Korea.
 
there are seismology graphs in that region to prove there was a large detonation. twice. they put it as 0.6 kilotons.

do some research.
 
It all depends of public opinion and which war the US government can sell. North Korea if they can sell that as a legitimate threat or North African countries where the threat of al-Qaeda is real or the suffering there justifies action.
 
to the guy above, maybe you should do your research. And no, it has not been established. They have tested nuclear weapons, the first test in 2006 was extremely weak and it has been concluded that there were problems with the detonation device. A nuclear device was also detonated in 2009, estimated to be about 5 times smaller than the bomb that was dropped by the US. Just because they have exploded nuclear devices does not mean that they have developed a fully functional nuclear bomb that would render them "immune" which was stated above. They are also most likely far from having the technology needed to attach a nuclear weapon to a missile. These are all indications that they are still in the development process, and are still far from having a full fledged nuclear arsenal that would be threatening to other countries.
 
to show how wrong you are, you said that north korean reactors would be bombed before they even had a chance to go fully operational. well, they built two functional reactors.

not knowing this fact proves you don't know what you're talking about. and it also makes me wonder how wrong you are on the other issues of this topic.

so keep believing what you want.
 
your all fucked in the head for trying to come up with conspiracies for our brothers sons and friends losing their lives
 
How wrong I am? First of all, you stated that North Korea was immune from attack, which is absurd and untrue. I'm assuming you just left a class where you were taught about mutually assured destruction, which in this case does not exist.

I said that their nuclear facilities would be attacked before they were fully functional. They have had nuclear programs operational since at least the late nineties, so yes they have an operational development program, however the program as of yet has not been able to produce full fledged nuclear weapons.

If North Korea had the ability to produce nuclear weapons that posed a serious threat, which it probably will sooner or later, they would have already been attacked and that is the strongest evidence against them having full fledged nuclear capabilities. If you look at a country like the United States and see their prior reasoning for launching invasions this standpoint makes sense.
 
i'd hardly call the military industrial complex a "conspiracy." i know it's painful but the truth is the government is the entity here that's fucked in the head because it's them who keep deciding to send our brothers sons and friends to their death for unnecessary conflicts. i dont mean to get on your case but why do you think we're in iraq?
 
they wouldn't attack them if they thought they were going to get a 'full fledged nuclear' weapon...(whatever that means), considering any device that they have now is strong enough to render seoul uninhabitable for the next 25 years, albeit the physical destruction wouldn't be as severe as say hiroshima. i believe thats enough of a deterrent already for countries thinking about attacking north korea.

attacking them would be an act of war, considering the korean war never ended and they have enough artillery aimed at seoul to complete the physical destruction that their 'fledgling' nuclear bomb couldn't.

and im kind of concerned with your certainty that the united states would attack north korea just because they have a nuclear weapon. it really comes down to more then a nuclear weapon on why or why not they would attack. kim jong il wouldn't do anything to jeopardize the legacy of his families reign in that country. also china has as much to lose as south korea if they went into a war. there would be a mass of refugees heading towards their north border and they would no longer have a communist north korea as a buffer between them and the democratic west. strategically, this would open up a whole new front along chinas border.

this isn't iraq we're talking about. this is the little cousin of a china, and the west wouldn't risk destabilizing the region by getting into a proxy war with them.
 
Yeah, but we'd never willingly go to war with China and they wouldn't willingly go to war with us. Both sides would lose too much money. The US and China are, in an economic viewpoint, almost completely intertwined. If China collapses, so does the US and vice versa.

On the whole, I don't think the US or anyone will move into North Korea unless there is an EXTREME risk of Nuclear weapons being used against the south.
 
usa and china are far to intertwined and connected to go to war. It's gotten to the point that we almost couldn't go to war with each other, not due to any political or geographical reason, but because our militaries literally wouldn't be able to function if we were at war with each other.

I've never quite understood the fear between USA and China. It's like the cold war, only neither country absolutely hates the other.
 
I got a question. How did they find the mail bombs that were supposed to be sent to Chicago? If they were packed inside printer cartrages, how'd they find the explosives?
 
LOL. Go team 'MURICA! World Police!

Keep rackin up that debt guys.

But on topic, yes the media has been villanizing Yemen lately. It will be Iran or Africa.
 
ehh i wouldnt be so sure about that. they've said things along the lines of "we totally hate you guys, but we sort of depend on each other" before.

PS NOT saying they're the only hostile ones here. not at all
 
Back
Top