Terrorist Attack in Casablanca

[Faram]

Multiple bombs
At least 22 dead.
On the same day that Al-Qaida had threathen with more attacks

In Swedish some pics

Cnn has it also

[Stuart Mackey]

Multiple bombs
At least 22 dead.
On the same day that Al-Qaida had threathen with more attacks

In Swedish some pics

Cnn has it also

Well shit, combine that with this.
Gibraltar plan

Nice to know that Bin Ladins boys are humming the Dads Army tune
"Who do you think you are kidding Mr Bush, if you think our terrors done.
We are the boys who will spoil your little war, we are the boys who will make you think again..."

[Stuart Mackey]

also

this on the latest attack

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This probably isn't Al-Qaeda. Morocco has been unstable for a while - There are Islamist groups who have been undermining the Sultan (who is an effective absolute monarch), claiming he's weak, a homosexual, and various other things, trying to gain power. The Sultan responded by trying to play macho-man with Spain over a Ceuta and Melilla. He couldn't intimidate the Spanish into even any very minor concessions, and so now he looks even weaker, and these Islamist groups are trying to take advantage of that, as seen here.

Of course, if they succeed real well in taking advantage of the Sultan's apparent weakness, you could either see an Iran-style theocracy running Morocco soon, or the Sultan throwing a war to try and avoid that. Considering it, I think that's unlikely, but Morocco is in for more of this and some potential serious stability problems.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is not good to say the least.

[Vympel]

One of the previous links claim Al-Qaeda responsibility. Though I do wonder. It could just be out of laziness.

[Colonel Olrik]

Shit. Also, it's too close to home for me to feel confortable. Somehow, I doubt that it is an inside work against the government. I've been there, I even visited Casablanca. You can go anywhere without fear of violence. They like westerners.

[Axis Kast]

The targets appear too linked to al-Qaeda's major favorites. Western government establishments, a Jewish restaruant, and the requesite government target.

The State Department recently accused Iran's Revolutionary Guards of providing safe haven for al-Qaeda, by the way.

[Cpt_Frank]

Oh shit. And the pics they're showing on TV right now look really bad.
You're starting to wonder what's the next target.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Shit. Also, it's too close to home for me to feel confortable. Somehow, I doubt that it is an inside work against the government. I've been there, I even visited Casablanca. You can go anywhere without fear of violence. They like westerners.

Those captured so far have all been Moroccans, however. I grant that the targeting selection is unusual, but the typical screed of the Islamists is directed against foreigners, Jews, etc. Attacking the people who are usually protrayed as jerking the puppet strings of any government of a Muslim country (that sort of propaganda is a universal feature of Islamist organizations) could only be desireable - It shows them as capable of striking the oppressors, while the government is their weak and ineffectual puppet.

That doesn't rule out any Al-Qaeda affiliations, one grants, considering what we call "Al-Qaeda" is in truth more like a confederation of terrorist groups worldwide. However, I suspect this may have been done for local reasons than as part of a worldwide campaign--just like the Riyadh attack was probably directed at weakening the Saudi man on the street's perception of the Royal government more than killing foreigners, showing that the government was incapable of stopping them and certainly incapable of doing the work they had just done.

What may be going on here is a shift in tactics. Instead of specifically targeting areas in the west or visible western targets in the Mid-East, like the U.S.S. Cole or American Embassies, they're going after small things. Cultural centers, consulates, and so on--Or even something like a western-style restaurant frequented by westerners would probably be acceptable. Places not easily defended and yet with enough concentration of foreigners as to draw attention on the government.

The idea, then, would be to create political instability in the governments of the nations that were attacked, making them look weak and ineffectual, unable to respond to the attacks, as Al-Qaeda rebuilds its image of strength by getting away with these attack. Furthermore, they would be dealing with the hated presence of the West, which the governments in question had done nothing about for years or decades, proving their willingness to deal with the infidel while those governments were in the hands of the Zionists and Crusaders. Among those ready to respond to that message it will strike a strong chord.

Essentially, yes, there could indeed be al-Qaeda ties here, and an overriding operational plan. However, if there is, that plan is one focused around the local aims of the subordinate groups: the overthrow of national governments and replacing them with Taleban-style theocracies. They do this, of course, by creating political instability, and in the Arab world I do believe that's precisely what these attacks are intended to cause--Particularly in the two countries where they have now occured. Look at the reaction in the KSA's media, which is neatly vetted by the government before going to print. They're getting rather paranoid for themselves.

[The Albino Raven]

Unfortunately, these kinds of attacks showcase all of the problems with "The War On Terror." No matter how many terrorist havens the US breaks up by invading innumberable amounts of countries, terrorism will continue. Be it direct anti-US terrorism (9/11), indirect anti-US terrorism (Israel) or terrorism in general, it is a force which is somewhat effective as a political tool, and unstoppable. The United States would literally have to control the entire world in a state of complete, autocratic, martial law in order to stop terrorism.

[Montcalm]

Its funny how an arab country that actualy has democracy piss-off these fuckheads fundies.

[The Albino Raven]

Its funny how an arab country that actualy has democracy piss-off these fuckheads fundies.

Democracy? Which country are you referring to? Morocco, with it's sultan, who is considered to be effectively an absolute monarch? Or was it Saudi Arabia, the oldest monarchy in the Middle East?

[Montcalm]

Its funny how an arab country that actualy has democracy piss-off these fuckheads fundies.

Democracy? Which country are you referring to? Morocco, with it's sultan, who is considered to be effectively an absolute monarch? Or was it Saudi Arabia, the oldest monarchy in the Middle East?

Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground of terrorists leaders.

[Darth Yoshi]

Unfortunately, these kinds of attacks showcase all of the problems with "The War On Terror." No matter how many terrorist havens the US breaks up by invading innumberable amounts of countries, terrorism will continue. Be it direct anti-US terrorism (9/11), indirect anti-US terrorism (Israel) or terrorism in general, it is a force which is somewhat effective as a political tool, and unstoppable. The United States would literally have to control the entire world in a state of complete, autocratic, martial law in order to stop terrorism.

Not even that can stop terrorism. You can't be everywhere at once, meaning somewhere, there will be someone who has the means to commit terrorism.

[The Albino Raven]

Not even that can stop terrorism. You can't be everywhere at once, meaning somewhere, there will be someone who has the means to commit terrorism.

Fair enough. Just makes the "War On Terror" seem all the more foolish.

[The Albino Raven]

Its funny how an arab country that actualy has democracy piss-off these fuckheads fundies.

Democracy? Which country are you referring to? Morocco, with it's sultan, who is considered to be effectively an absolute monarch? Or was it Saudi Arabia, the oldest monarchy in the Middle East?

Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground of terrorists leaders.

Very true. Funny though, how the United States isn't suggesting that Saudi Arabia is anywhere near the top of the "target list" for the "War On Terror"

[Darth Wong]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

[Admiral Johnason]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

Unless they are brainwashed, druged up, or doing a dare.

[Montcalm]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

It will be a full time job trying to find out what can make them happy,but two weeks back i watched this program on Radio Canada about terrorists,and on hidden camera one of these islamists said they would be happy when every country on earth is under islamic law.

[Sea Skimmer]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

There is also simply killing everyone in it. Thats about as likely to happen, and far easier to accomplish.

[Axis Kast]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

It’s all a perpetual pile of shit.

Happy people don’t subscribe to government founded entirely on ultraconservative theocracy first promulgated during the Dark Age of Europe. The only other pair of examples of “religious” states in modern history have been Israel and Armenia. Stunning successes both? Hardly. Happy people aren’t forced by circumstance to favor those same governments – which of course squander the limited national wealth with which a foundation might be made for future development - when outside forces conspire to change them. Happy people don’t inhabit a region of the globe in which there is an institutionalized mentality of geopolitical rape. The list goes on.

[Falcon]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

No, happy people wage war outright...

[Uther]

The War on Terror is like the War on Drugs. It is inherently unwinnable. The only long-term solution is to improve the situation of the Middle East. Happy people don't strap bombs to themselves.

Unlikely; I would say that the primary reason the war on drugs is unwinnable (if it is indeed unwinnable) is that a very large percentage of the American people want to use these drugs- you're fighting against a very lucrative business supported by a very large number of American addicts.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is not particularly profitable (especially not to those involved in the suicide attacks Al'Qaeda and its ilk seem to favor) and is unlikely to find a broad base of supporters in the United States.

Stopping international terrorism is considerably more difficult- but if it comes to it, the United States can withdraw its assests from "hostile" territories without any overwhelmingly negative consequences. It would require a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, but I am not convinced this would necessarily be a bad thing. Let Israel fend for itself and the United States would save itself a great deal of headaches.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Stopping international terrorism is considerably more difficult- but if it comes to it, the United States can withdraw its assests from "hostile" territories without any overwhelmingly negative consequences. It would require a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, but I am not convinced this would necessarily be a bad thing. Let Israel fend for itself and the United States would save itself a great deal of headaches.

No, we cannot withdraw our forces from the Middle East. It's simply impossible. Isolationism is not an option these days for our nation, and even if we were not oil-dependent, we would still have to maintain forces in the Mid-East. It's called the Suez Canal.

As for Victory in the War on Terror - Well, we can't defeat Terrorism, obviously; that's a tactic, and you don't defeat a tactic. We can, however, ignore the PC term we've given to the war and think about ways of defeating Islamofascist terrorist organizations. And we can do that by destroying their economic support.