poppycock really.. Ideological and strategic threats are much more dangerous than operational threats.. Case in point is that of Nawab Akbar Bugti who was taken out by Pakistani army to put a lid on the Baluchistan separatism despite him not being an operational threat.. And you will find other dime a dozen examples as well
Nawab Akbar Bugti was an operational and ideological threat - he was not hiding anonymously - he was leading, financing and controlling his band of thugs, which is why he was in hiding with them in the mountains - his role is in no way comparable to that of OBL post US invasion of Afghanistan. He was more comparable to the role OBL had in AQ before the invasion of Afghanistan.
Had Bugti survived and gone into hiding, his role would have more than likely diminished (from an operational perspective) - his ideological role would depend on how he well he would have been able to promote himself as a 'Baluch savior'.
Never said operational functioning has no impact.. Guess you missed the word "Only" in my post above..And about Mehsuds, well, may be Pakistan chose wrong figureheads to take out..
Who else should Pakistan have taken out other than the figures mentioned in the TTP? There was no other 'figurehead or leader' in the TTP. The fact of the matter is that the training of bombers, the logistical operations (transporting bombers/attackers, arranging for financing, arranging for resources, explosives, weapons, chemicals etc.) is what allows these groups to continue functioning, and not some guy in hiding, running from one place to the next ...
Thats pretty much a terrorist apologist view point. While circumstances are taken into account when you talk about a crime, but always using circumstances as an excuse just doesnt cut it.. Because with this approach, you can pretty much justify every think in the world..
It is a 'realists' point of view - just because you don't like the argument does not mean it is invalid. I am not pointing to a 'specific crime/event', I am pointing out that the growth of most religious extremist organizations has been due to the factors mentioned. Of course you could actually try and argue against why the factors I mentioned are not responsible ...
No one here has the proofs to prove or disprove what Pakistan's ex ISI chief said. So a thread on PDF can not be basis to accept or reject a hypothesis. And the allegations are not mine.. they are, I repeat, from the ex chief of ISI..
Since you admit that there is no 'proof' to support the former ISI chiefs allegations, then please do not repeat unsubstantiated rubbish again.
BTW, the thread on PDF has pointed out the flaws in his allegations - that is the point of discussion. If you ever find any supporting evidence, please post it in the relevant thread to prove us wrong. Till then, the fact that Butt's claims are unsubstantiated and speculative stands.
Am sure.. just like you will find people arguing both sides of everything.. Does not make that right now.. does it..
No, what makes it 'right' is supporting arguments and facts, which have been provided in this and previous posts.
What basis are you arguing he did not.. Are you privvy to internal functioning of Al Queda (if you are then please accept my apology for every time i have pissed you off
).. Otherwise Can you illustrate that he did not have any ideological or operational impact on functioning of Al Queda.
I am arguing that OBL had no operational or ideological impact on the functioning of AQ based on US reports themselves - OBL was isolated, he was not using any means of electronic communication, his funds had dried up, even his 'rants' were extremely infrequent and the audio tapes delivered through complicated systems of couriers to avoid him being tracked down.
And he certainly was not a 'trainer/planner' of any standing.
All of the above points to a man who had little to no role in running the AQ organization.
