quote:

---

Originally posted by jmcginn

quote:

---

I'm afraid that you, @tomic and I will have disagree on this subject.

---

I guess so.

quote:

---

How I am trying to force western values on any culture is beyond me by classifying an organization which does not conform to the definition of a militia/military is beyond me.

---

I never said you were, I am just saying you are either 1) misapplying the definition or 2) inconsistently applying it.

quote:

---

One cannot logically say that Al Queda is a governing body.

---

One also cannot say the U.S. revolutionaries nor the Contienental Congress were either until they won their war.

quote:

---

A violent instrument of change, but not a governing body nor a military/militia.

---

A violent instrument of change in the current governments of the region??? Sounds just like the definition of a revolutionary militia. As such it still fits the definition of militia much better than criminal org.

quote:

---

...engaged in the wholesale murder of civilians and intimidation so that their goals are unopposed. Even in the region, this form of conflict is unusual.

---

So what??? I didn't say their methods were wholesome or common, but their goals are those of a revolution in the entire Middle East not making a load of cash illegally.

quote:

---

I still maintain that Al Queda does not take orders from any specific organization interested in direct goverance of a country or region.

---

As far as I can tell Al Queda takes its orders from the leaders of Al Queda. Just like U.S. revolutionaries took their orders from the leaders of the U.S. revolution.

quote:

---

1) Must take orders/be under direct control from a specific organization interested in direct governance of a country or region.

---

The leaders of the Al Queda fit this description of this org. to a "T".

quote:

---

a) US Revolutionaries took orders from the Continental Congress which was interested in becoming the direct governance of the colonies.

---

And who were the members of the Contiental Congress???? They were the leaders of the U.S. revolutionaries. U.S. revolutionaries who were the leaders of the U.S. revolution made up the Contiental Congress and all members of the C.C. were members of the U.S. revolution. You keep trying to make the C.C. seem like some totally distinct group from the U.S. revolution that were simply giving orders. The leaders of the Al Queda including Osama play the role of C.C. in our comparison. I still don't see the difference.

quote:

---

b) Al Queda takes orders only from their own hierarchy. Opposes all political groups that does not conform to their view of Islam and Islamic law.

---

Right and U.S. revolutionaries only took orders from their own freaking hierarchy, we just give it a distinct name, the Contienental Congress. So what if they oppose all political groups but their own, the American revolutionaries opposed all governments ruling over America except for the one they hoped to install.

quote:

---

Does not interfere with governance by a political group. Will attack that political group if it strays outside thier religious views.

---

What their current activities are do not reflect their goals, which is one big giant Islamic government over all of the Middle East. They are having a hard time at success so they do they what they can.

quote:

---

Hopefully, this clears up the confusion.

---

Sadly it does not. I still cannot see how you can take any definitions of militia and criminal org. and apply one to the U.S. revolutionaries and another to Al Queda unless those definitions include one is the U.S. and the other is not.

quote:

---

Whether they fit the title "revolutionary" is immaterial. The question is do they fit the title militia or military.

---

Sadly they fit the definition of militia to a "T". A militant in the struggle for revolution. These are militants and they are in a stuggle for revolution. Your ability to discern a difference between them and other groups that have struggled for revolution via violence baffles me.

---

quote:

---

Governing body is the lawful political arm or rebellion political group interested in direct governmental control of a region.

---

quote:

---

Militia/military is the militant arm that is under the direct control of aforesaid governing body.

---

quote:

---

Revolutionary is a militant in the struggle for revolution.No disagreement here.

---

quote:

---

You have improperly linked the terms "revolutionary" and "militia".

---

quote:

---

I have established that Al Queda has

1) No interest in direct governance which disqualifies them as a governing body

---

quote:

---

2) Does not take orders from any governing body which disqualifies them as a militia

---

quote:

---

3) Is pushing for societal change through militancy which qualifies them as revolutionary.

---

quote:

---

Al Queda's members exist only in one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jmcginn

quote:

---

Governing body is the lawful political arm or rebellion political group interested in direct governmental control of a region.

---

Al Queda's leaders fall in the second part of this definition.

quote:

---

Militia/military is the militant arm that is under the direct control of aforesaid governing body.

---

No disagreement here.

quote:

---

Revolutionary is a militant in the struggle for revolution.No disagreement here.

---

quote:

---

You have improperly linked the terms "revolutionary" and "militia".

---

A militia that is under the governing body leadership that is rebelling and trying to overthrow the existing government(s) is a revolutionary militia. Al Queda's fighting members fall into this group nicely.

quote:

---

I have established that Al Queda has

1) No interest in direct governance which disqualifies them as a governing body

---

No you have asserted such, but this goes directly in contradiction of what their main stated goals are for the region. They are interested in establishing a fundamentalists Islamic government for the entire region of the Middle East with their own fundamentalists clerics and leaders in control. Al Queda has more than just militants, it also has quite a large structure of clerics and non-militants as members and most importantly as leaders.

quote:

---

2) Does not take orders from any governing body which disqualifies them as a militia

---

No you again have falsely asserted this. Again they take orders from their own governing body or the leaders of Al Queda, some are militants, some are not. Note that the governing body does not have to be a congress or council, it can be a single dictator.

quote:

---

3) Is pushing for societal change through militancy which qualifies them as revolutionary.

---

I agree. They are a revolutionary militia.

quote:

---

Al Queda's members exist only in one.

---

Pure hoppy cock. There are members of Al Queda who are definitely part of its governing body and their stated goal is to rule over the Middle East with their own government. The members who follow their orders and/or carry out military actions are part of its militant branch and thus are revolutionary militia members.

Your only difference that you can state between Al Queda and the U.S. revolutionaries as far as one being a militia and the other a criminal org. is your assertation that Al Queda does not have a governing body nor is interested in ruling over the region in question. This assertation does not stand up to the facts and is something you have definitely not established as you claim.

---

quote:

---

Al Queda's leaders do NOT fall under the second part of the definition. They have no interest in direct governance of the region.

---

quote:

---

The principal aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Furthermore, it is bin Laden's goal to unite all Muslims and establish, by force, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jmcginn

quote:

---

Al Queda's leaders do NOT fall under the second part of the definition. They have no interest in direct governance of the region.

---

Bull shit. That's one of their freaking main goals, to rule over the entire region. If Al Queda was as successful as it wanted to be it would gladly install a central govenrment over the entire region of the Middle East with Al Queda leaders and clerics at the top of this government. Sadly for them they are not nearly as successful as they want to be so they are left hanging out in friendly countries trying to recruit new members until they reach their critical mass to take over the Middle East and overthrow all the other governments in the region and replace it with one of their own design. I never said they were acting as a militia under the Taliban, they are acting as a militia under Al Queda leaders. The reason they didn't try and replace the Taliban with their own government is because:
1. They couldn't
2. The Taliban was friendly to their cause and it made sense to use it as a staging area.

However if some how they managed to carry out their grand cause and the Taliban was still around ruling Afganistan then either the Taliban would subject themselves to the new Middle East Islamic kingdom maybe as a ruling province or the Taliban would be taken out.

This article gives a detailed history of Al Queda, Osama, and the goals of Al Queda. (emphasis mine)
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terror-qaeda.html

quote:

---

The principal aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Furthermore, it is bin Laden's goal to unite all Muslims and establish, by force, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.

---

Now if that doesn't qualify as being interested in setting up one's own government than I don't know what in the hell does. These facts totally disagree with your assertations that they are not interested in direct governance of the region. The fact that they have not been very successful does not take away from their own stated goals nor does the fact that they have other goals as well (destroy all western influence in the region and Israel as well). They still have a primary goal to rule the entire region.

---

quote:

---

I see. So the examples I provided you consider bullshit.

---

quote:

---

How Al Queda was acting as the Taliban's militia is beyond me.

---

quote:

---

Al Queda only listens to Bin Laden and he isn't interested in direct governance.

---

quote:

---

The part you emphasied did not say that Al Queda wanted to rule this region. Only that they seek to overthrow governments and have a vision of the region ruled by Islamic extremist clerics.

---