They joined with the goal of kicking out the Soviets from Afghanistan. Regardless of their effectiveness on the battlefield, their goals have been met and achieved.
Their goal was to drive out the Soviets and to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan, based on the teachings of Wahabism. This state, led by an ''Amir'' would later be part of a Caliphate encompassing other similar states.
Their goals ''
have been met and achieved''?
AQ wanted the same in Iraq, in Yemen, in Turkey and in other places - the overthrow of secular leaders and the establishment of an Islamic state. They failed miserably .....
Syria has given AQ a new sense of purpose and it will remain to be seen if they actually [for once] achieve all their objectives. At the end of the day despite both wanting to see the end of Assad, the West and AQ have different ideas as to the kind of Syrian government they want formed, in a post Assad period.
Which contradicts your above statement.
How on earth does it ''
contradict'' my statement?? The Arabs played a minor role in the whole thing [which you admitted to in a previous post] and even if there had never been an Arab presence in Afghanistan, the end result would have been the same - the Soviets would still have withdrawn. Again, the serious fighting - the ones that actually produced results over a period - was done by the Afghans and most Afghan groups stayed away from the Arabs because they viewed them as much more trouble than they were worth. For the few Afghan factions that had Arab volunteers amongst its fighters [incuding the Rasul Sayyaf faction], the main value in having the Arabs there was that it led to cash donations and aid pouring in, not the fighting value of the Arabs.
The only people who made it sound as if the presence of the Arabs was a decisive factor was OBL - in several well documented interviews he gave - and AQ propaganda.
None of any serious books written on the subject mentions anything of the kind -
Islam and Resistance in Afghanistan - Oliver Roy
Ghosts Wars - Steve Coll
Taliban - Ahmad Rashid
Soldiers of God - Kaplan
Al Qaeda - Rohan Gunaratna
Your deliberate ignorance on this matter is flabbergasting.
Speak for yourself mate.
''T
he beauty of AQ is that anyone can wake up in the morning and decide that they are part of AQ. Doesn't make them ''well trained'' or ''better''. And just because a certain group spins the armed Jihad line, it doesn't automatically mean that it is affiliated or is part of AQ.''
I stand by with what I wrote [above] in the previous post. I'm not at all disputing the fact that AQ has a presence in Syria and that they're AQ afilliated groups there. What I dismiss is the simplistic notion that just because a particular faction spins the armed jihad anti-western, anti-secular line and is described as ''jihadist' or ''extremist'', that this automatically means that it is actually part of or affiliated with AQ.
Have you not read any of the links that I have posted earlier?
I
never denied that AQ had a big presence in Syria - has become a major player and is a major problem for Assad - and that Syrian rebel factions have openly declared their ties with AQ.
1. They do have 30-40 years of experience in guerrilla fighting.
2. They are better-trained, and are now considered the best-equiped Al Qaeda affiliate in the world.
1. They are better trained and their commanders have tons of experience. This is evident in Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much the whole Middle East.
I said best fighters in all the rebel factions, not superior to their opponents.
What I do contest is your assertion that the AQ elements are the most ''
experienced'' and are ''
better trained''.
And I still stand by my opinion that being ''experienced'', being ruthless, being more willing to lay down your life compared to fighters in other factions and being more religiously motivated
DOES NOT automatically equate with actually being combat effective and tactically proficient ........
And yes, I'm very aware that the line you're spinning is that AQ elements - by virtue of being ''
better trained'' and ''
experienced'' - are ''
better'' than their counterparts in other factions and not the Syrian army.
That's more evidence and 'facts' than you could have hoped to see. If you're going to continue claiming that I'm not showing you facts, then it's a waste of time discussing the matter.
As for your so called ''evidence and 'facts'', what you've posted are links from the Telegraph and the Washington Post mentioning the presence and major involvement of AQ groups [which I never denied or contested], a Wiki page on Al-Nusra, a Wiki page on AQ and a link containing a short report citing intelligence agencies mentioning that al-Nusra is the best equipped Al Qaeda affiliate in the world. All well and good.
However, when I asked you for
facts [facts you claimed to have given but were ignored by me], I meant actual facts to back up your repeated claim that AQ - by being the most
experienced and
best equipped rebel faction - is actually the ''best'' of all the factions.... This, you have not provided me with.
Just to refresh your memory -
I said best fighters in all the rebel factions, not superior to their opponents.
You keep harping on about AQ's experience. Yes, AQ indeed has decades of experience formenting armed Jihad in various countries
but my stand is that this so called
experience doesn't mean that it has been passed on to the fighters currently in Syria and doesn't necessarily make the AQ fighters the best of all the factions in Syria.
If you noticed, Swerve said something similar -
It may have individuals within it with considerable experience of guerrilla fighting, but - 30-40 years? Where? Against who? Certainly not in Syria. And where is there evidence of organisational continuity, enabling the preservation of organisational knowledge & experience? None is offered by any of the sources.
"Best-equipped" does not equal best. You need to know how to use equipment.
