Al Qaeda: Under New Management

Remove all ads!

A quick question for all of you:

Do you think that the new leader of Al Qaeda will become as dangerous as Osama, after all, he was able to unite the severly weakened army, and put them back to a significant number.

 

First of all... who IS that new leader you're talking about ?

And by more dangerous..... do you mean if he will have a more expensive carpet in the cave he'll have to hide for the rest of his life ?

You talk like Osama Bin Laden is dead, do you know something we don't ?

 

It's impossible to tell if bin Laden is dead or alive. It's sure he's still the leader if he lives. A new guy could even be able, but not likely as talented as Osama. Or charismatic. Such people aren't born often. For good or for bad...

 

I never said Osama is dead, Osama just isn't controlling the Al Qaeda anymore.

 

I personally doubt, that Osama Bin Laden ever was the "leader" of Al-Qaeda. As far as I know, an detailed organigram of that organisation is yet unknown.

I think, Osama Bin Laden was the chef of PR-relations, if I may say that. The spokesperson, because he was the guy who looked best in the Videos. I don't think that someone will be able to replace him as the guy in the Al-Queda videos. But I don't think, that his dead has any influence on the abiltiy of Al-Queda to act.

But I was always under the impression, that Al-Queada was a very loose organisiation. The Saudi-Arabians focussing on the Americans, whereas the Egyptians (Luxor ) and Algerians have other priorities, but worked together for the sake of synergy.

 

Do you have some inside information; How can you be so sure that Osama isn't the head of Al-Queida anymore;
And i believe that although Osama is most propably not the strategic mind of this organisation but he was the one who provided the money and that for sure made him at least one of the person who called the shots

[ May 29, 2003, 13:32: Message edited by: Mithrantir ]

 

Osama was the money, not much more, not much less. He liked the attention and I am sure that the other guys in the leadership circle was happy with having someone else be the target.

 

About the money I am not so sure, either. Yes, he was the one with the best connections to the giantic money source Saudi-Arabia. But even in this case he may be replaced. But an organisation, in my view, can not only depend on one man alone. If you change the CEO or any other leading member of a company, does that automaticly mean, the company is going bancrupt ?

 

Yago,

It does if that CEO or chairman brought on board all the dosh.

Osama brought in (conservative est) $300m. You can buy a lot of nasty toys and fund a lot of training with that.

 

Viking, yes he had a lot of cash. But his family has tried to get rid of him and take away form him as much money as they could. He propably still has millions. The problem is for me, that, so's my view, he was very important as charismatic figure, which had because of his family connectionds to millionairs all over the middle east, connections which helped him fund raising. Not his personal wealth but his abilty to act as fund-raiser, may have made him so important. But I still doubt, that his a unreplacable figure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1670089.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1603178.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1560834.stm

I believe not that a "single" person is able to do that. That's a big movement of very bright and well educated people. If "one" person comes or goes, it doesn't make a big difference in my view. Ironically, the Egyptians hate Zawahri and he had to flee Egypt and take over Al-Qeada in at the end of the 90's.

 

Mithrantir, it was put on several newspapers, quite a while ago, that Osama's head of security would take over from him. So far he has orchestrated several "succesful" suicide bombings. And has greatly affected the economy here in South East Asia, however I think it is more connected to the Bali bomber sentenced to death, rather than those countries carrying US sympathies.