Al Qaeda Takes a Big PR Hit

[Peachy Carnehan]

The Link

Al Qaeda Takes a Big PR Hit
by James Dunnigan
October 28, 2005

A new poll by the Pew Research Organization, revealed that support for al Qaeda, in Moslem nations, was declining. In only one Moslem country, Jordan, was support for Islamic terrorism increasing (from 55 percent in 2002, to 60 percent now.) More typical was Morocco, where support for al Qaeda dropped from 49 to 26 percent. In Lebanon, only two percent of the population supported al Qaeda.

Jordan’s attitudes are influenced by the fact that most of the population considers themselves Palestinian (or at least descended from Palestinian refugees). Jordan has also seen very few al Qaeda attacks. This is mostly due to the efficient police force, who are dominated by the Bedouin minority that runs the kingdom. One aspect of that control is to allow people to say, and believe, what they want. While the Palestinian majority may not like the monarchy, they know that the Bedouins would respond violently to any uprising. That has happened often enough in the past half century to convince most Jordanians that, while you can shout nasty things at the king, don’t take a shot at him. That said, the current king of Jordan, and his late father, went out of their way to be nice to their Palestinian citizens, as long as there was no violence against the government. The occasional violation of this understanding is met with a swift, and sometimes violent, response. Jordan is not a police state, but it is very well policed.

The rest of the Moslem world has come to see al Qaeda as an aimless and violent group, who appear to have no realistic goals. That, plus the al Qaeda fondness for bloody attacks against Moslem civilians, turns most people off. The Pentagon Information Warfare operations against al Qaeda had something to do with this shift in opinion, but those operations cannot be discussed in detail without weakening their effect.

[First Crusader]

Assuming this Dunnigan guy is right, this could be a sign of an increasing number of moderates in Islam. That's a good thing!

[Shaun]

well hopefully AL-qaeda will soon have no support.

[First Crusader]

well hopefully AL-qaeda will soon have no support.

Sadly, that is very unlikely. There are still a lot of militants out there to support it.

[RZZZA]

Al Qaeda is only one specific extremist muslim group....its not all encompassing, I' sure there are plenty of other dangerous islamic militant extremist groups out there, just because Al Qaeda happens to be losing power just means another group will grow in power in the future. We aren't close to exterminating islamic fanaticism (or any kind of religion fanaticism for that matter) and we wont be any time soon.

[Mack Daddy]

About time.

[Atheist Peace]

Now if western countries would stop invading muslim countries and running recruiting drives for terrorists, we might be on to something!

[First Crusader]

Now if western countries would stop invading muslim countries and running recruiting drives for terrorists, we might be on to something!

Now if Muslim terrorists learn to stop blowing up westerners who retaliate with invasion, we might be on to something!

[Atheist Peace]

Now if Muslim terrorists learn to stop blowing up westerners who retaliate with invasion, we might be on to something!

Yeah, those terrorists who attacked the US, from Afghanistan were so devastated when Iraq was invaded and millions of recruits were made for them!

[Peachy Carnehan]

Now if western countries would stop invading muslim countries and running recruiting drives for terrorists, we might be on to something!

You might be right! Especially considering such groups did not exist before!

[Kanaric]

well hopefully AL-qaeda will soon have no support.

That would be impossible, all militant religious groups at least have some support at all times. If they dont its because their was a breakoff group that was more popular.

Besides that, America hasn't had any involvement with Al Qeada for well over a decade and a half, making this claim especially absurd.

What about Bin Ladin receiving US support in the 80s? Their are still people alive who we supported, its the 80s not the 50s.

Really? Care to name who these new groups are?

You DONT believe their is more than one newer terrorist groups that are anti-american? ROFL LMFAO OMFG!!!!! :laughing:

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Yeah, those terrorists who attacked the US, from Afghanistan were so devastated when Iraq was invaded and millions of recruits were made for them!

These claims are baseless. If true (a better source would really be nice), this story only shows how completely wrong this ridiculous claim actually is.

[First Crusader]

These claims are baseless. If true (a better source would really be nice), this story only shows how completely wrong this ridiculous claim actually is.

Perhaps you're right. Assuming our military doesn't get blown to smithereens in the Iraq war, I doubt most of those insurgents are going to get a permanent job in Al Quada or another terrorist group.

However, I think our embarrassing performance could make the U.S. the laughing stock of the Middle East!

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

However, I think our embarrassing performance could make the U.S. the laughing stock of the Middle East!

There was nothing pathetic about our "performance." We took Iraq, a nation roughly the size of France in a matter of a week or two. We did it with next to no casualties, while using only a minimal amount of force.

No nation in the Middle East, or anyone in the world, for that matter, is really looking at the occupation as some sort of failure. Militaries across the world will be trying to copy what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The occupation, in spite of the image, has itself been successful. Let's actually take the reports of violence in Iraq and compare them to past wars. Let's take a look at the political situation. There is little to no basis for calling the occupation a failure of any kind. It's simply the product of constant, sensationalist media coverage that doesn't really give a damn about reporting the true situation.

[First Crusader]

No nation in the Middle East, or anyone in the world, for that matter, is really looking at the occupation as some sort of failure. Militaries across the world will be trying to copy what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think we screwed up the occupation part - but this is getting a touch off topic, so lets forget it for now.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

I think we screwed up the occupation part - but this is getting a touch off topic, so lets forget it for now.

The occupation, in spite of the image, has itself been successful. Let's actually take the reports of violence in Iraq and compare them to past wars. Let's take a look at the political situation. There is little to no basis for calling the occupation a failure of any kind. It's simply the product of constant, sensationalist media coverage that doesn't really give a damn about reporting the true situation.

The casualties taken are so light it's almost laughable to here people run their mouth on a Civil War in Iraq, or any real hope of America failing in securing Iraq.

[First Crusader]

The casualties taken are so light it's almost laughable to here people run their mouth on a Civil War in Iraq, or any real hope of America failing in securing Iraq.

For a Roman legion, or the French Foreign Legion, the casualties are indeed laughable. But for a volunteer military like our own, the casualties are devastating.

Later, I think I'll make a different thread for it, so lets save the debate for that.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

For a Roman legion, or the French Foreign Legion, the casualties are indeed laughable. But for a volunteer military like our own, the casualties are devastating.

I can quote American military commanders stating that they withstand these casualties till the end of time. There is absolutely nothing "devestating" about these casualties. Besides that, both the Roman Legion and the French Foreign Legion were/are volunteer forces, just as America's is.

And I don't see this as off topic at all, since the Iraq War is directly related to this event.

[First Crusader]

I can quote American military commanders stating that they withstand these casualties till the end of time. There is absolutely nothing "devestating" about these casualties. Besides that, both the Roman Legion and the French Foreign Legion were/are volunteer forces, just as America's is.

And I don't see this as off topic at all, since the Iraq War is directly related to this event.

Put your arguments here, please.
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36519

[Erik]

Al-Qaida used to have a virtual monopoly on anti-US terrorism.
But during the last few years they have gotten many new competitors.
So it's only natural that they lost some share of the ever competitive terrorist market, even if the branch as a whole prospers.

And you also have to consider the effect of government backing.
Al-Qaida was created and funded by the US government, and this gave them a good early start.
With the ending of US-support Al-Qaida has lost a major advantage over it's competitors.