Al Qaeda Vs Narcos

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Nietzschean
Who is tougher, meaner, scarier?
Who is better funded?


If Afghanistan and Mexico were neighboring countries and Al Qaeda crashed planes into their buildings as a retaliation for Narcos selling drugs to their Muslim people, who would win in an all out war?

who would you side with if you had to pick?


discuss


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/osama-bin-laden.jpg

http://img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com/996e610b9ff465b078d0463d7d2de3a4/http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5233/narcos788896.jpg

Tzeentch._
I sense some residual butthurt gained from a previous thread wafting around here...

Nietzschean
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I sense some residual butthurt gained from a previous thread wafting around here... me, nah..

I have a one track mind sometimes when I focus on something which leads to side thoughts..

Omega Vision
The Cartels are profit-oriented, Al Qaeda isn't.

The Cartels would give up first.

Archaeopteryx
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Cartels are profit-oriented, Al Qaeda isn't.

The Cartels would give up first.

Precisly why the cartels would win. Says everything about humans

Oliver North
Originally posted by Nietzschean
Who is tougher, meaner, scarier?

Probably AQ, they are willingly to randomly attack civilians, whereas the cartels, though they will attack and kill innocent people, generally do so for at least discernible profit based motivations.

The severity of the violence committed by the cartels is astounding, so maybe they are "meaner", idk.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
Who is better funded?

You would have to define better who you are defining as a narco and who as AQ, but in general I'd say there are probably more disposable resources for the cartels at any given moment.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
If Afghanistan and Mexico were neighboring countries and Al Qaeda crashed planes into their buildings as a retaliation for Narcos selling drugs to their Muslim people, who would win in an all out war?

The problem is, there are effectively zero AQ operatives left in Afghanistan, and few more even in Pakistan. AQ, as a core organization, has been pretty much demolished.

AQ in Yemen (AQAP) or in North Africa (AQIM) certainly have more followers, but both are much more disorganized and lack the same type of international funding structure that existed under the AQ prime with Bin Laden.

Additionally, which Narcos are we talking about? The Sinaloas and the Gulf cartels have much different operational capacities than do the Zetas, and it is far more likely the various cartels would attempt to align with or use AQ against their cartel rivals (because of the profit motivation rather than any sense of nationalism or criminal brotherhood) than band together.

This being said, neither side has a clear win condition. The drug trade and Islamic radicalism have withstood the most powerful armies for decades, a small guerrilla war between two forces that rely on asymmetric tactics can only result in severe blood letting on either side. However, given that AQ cannot stop the drug trade, and the cartels cannot stop Islamic radicalism, they will keep committing small scale massacres against one another for the foreseeable future.

The only win condition I can think of would occur if AQ made the cost of being a cartel so high that there wasn't enough profit to be made from selling drugs, but that seems extremely unrealistic.

Originally posted by Nietzschean
who would you side with if you had to pick?

narcos

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Precisly why the cartels would win. Says everything about humans

how would the cartels defeat Al Qaeda with money?

focus4chumps
they both exclusively use guerrilla tactics on their own turfs. neither side will have a standing invading army so the answer imho is: nobody.

just t1t-for-tat bombings, an assassination here and there, other various terrorist attacks, an occasional skirmish, ad infinitum.

Robtard
Originally posted by focus4chumps
ad infinitum.

Incorrect. There are far more Mexicans.

Lord Lucien
And none of 'em speak Latin.

jaden101
Just go to best gore and compare how they behead people...I've seen videos of the cartels chopping up guys with axes while they're still alive....sawing off people's heads with chainsaws and of course the Abu Musab al Zarqawi inspired knife beheadings...

focus4chumps
Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect. There are far more Mexicans.

i'm sorry. i didnt realise the birth rate in mexico was zero.

Robtard
You didn't follow.

S_W_LeGenD
Can't say much about Al-Qaeda but Taliban could certainly eliminate narcos.

Oliver North
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Can't say much about Al-Qaeda but Taliban could certainly eliminate narcos.

a) Al Qaeda =/= Taliban

b) no they couldn't, re: the "Northern Alliance"

c) within months of capturing Kabul, the Taliban were narcos

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Oliver North
a) Al Qaeda =/= Taliban
Agreed

Originally posted by Oliver North
b) no they couldn't, re: the "Northern Alliance"
Northern Alliance comprised of war veterans and was supported by several foreign powers. In addition, Northen Alliance was a powerful military group.

Do you think that Narcos use Tanks, Artillery, Rocket Launchers and other heavy weapons to defend themselves?

Originally posted by Oliver North
c) within months of capturing Kabul, the Taliban were narcos
No. Opium production during Taliban rule was immensely reduced after Mullah Omar decided against its production. This would not have been possible if Taliban were narcos.

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html

Oliver North
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Northern Alliance comprised of war veterans and was supported by several foreign powers. In addition, Northen Alliance was a powerful military group.

Do you think that Narcos use Tanks, Artillery, Rocket Launchers and other heavy weapons to defend themselves?

yes, narcos use what they need. Is your question "Why don't the Zetas use tanks?" Because that has more to do with strategy than the availability of the weapons.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No. Opium production during Taliban rule was immensely reduced after Mullah Omar decided against its production. This would not have been possible if Taliban were narcos.

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html

A policy that proved so unpopular with the population that it was reversed almost immediatly

Lestov16
What about the Haqqani network?

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, narcos use what they need. Is your question "Why don't the Zetas use tanks?" Because that has more to do with strategy than the availability of the weapons.
Please provide examples of narcos using Tanks, Artillery, Rocket Launchers and other kinds of heavy weapons to defend themselves.

Originally posted by Oliver North
A policy that proved so unpopular with the population that it was reversed almost immediatly
I wonder that from where you get your information from?

Here is some reading for you:

Though Afghan poppy growing returned to previous levels after the fall of the Taliban government, this may have been the most effective drug control action of modern times.

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28709721/Taliban-crackdown-against-opium-poppy-cultivation-in-Afghanistan

Trust me! You know nothing about Taliban.

Just because you guys failed against Narcos; doesn't means that all others would as well. Fact is that you guys failed against Taliban as well.

Oliver North
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Please provide examples of narcos using Tanks, Artillery,

?

1) look up asymmetric tactics and try to understand why such vehicles would not only be ineffective for the goals of the cartels, but would make them much easier targets

2) many cartels operate out of the jungles of central and south America... tell me how effective you think tanks and artillery are in a jungle and I'll point you toward Vietnam.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Rocket Launchers and other kinds of heavy weapons to defend themselves.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-12a-lanzagranadas-y-lanzacohetes

First result from a google search for "zetas rpg"

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I wonder that from where you get your information from?


The book Taliban by Ahmed Rashid

when you read that, we'll talk some more about the Taliban

Oliver North
boo, why was this moved? now I have to check a new forum to see more of S_W's fascinating insight

rudester
^ I thought so too.. lol

Barker

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Oliver North
1) look up asymmetric tactics and try to understand why such vehicles would not only be ineffective for the goals of the cartels, but would make them much easier targets
Taliban forces are adept in the arts of asymmetric warfare.

Originally posted by Oliver North
2) many cartels operate out of the jungles of central and south America... tell me how effective you think tanks and artillery are in a jungle and I'll point you toward Vietnam.
Taliban forces have long history of operating in remote and tough regions including mountainous forests.

Example: Swat Valley in Pakistan:

http://www.sbpak.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Swat-Valley.jpg

Originally posted by Oliver North
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/mexican-cartel-tactical-note-12a-lanzagranadas-y-lanzacohetes

First result from a google search for "zetas rpg"
Doesn't makes much difference. Yes, Narcos may not be easy to root out through professional means but Taliban is different ballgame.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The book Taliban by Ahmed Rashid

when you read that, we'll talk some more about the Taliban
I know a lot about Taliban.

In addition, I suggest that you read following:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/396-khan.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Taliban-Afghanistan-Mobilization-Future/dp/0312294026

Mr. Tibbs
Is this a long drawn out battle, or a faceoff? If the latter, where do they fight? Night or day?

Oliver North
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Taliban forces are adept in the arts of asymmetric warfare.

this is unrelated to anything I was saying. You said narcos don't use tanks, I said they wouldn't be helpful...

so you admit that narcos don't use tanks because they aren't a weapon that would help them at all?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Taliban forces have long history of operating in remote and tough regions including mountainous forests.

Example: Swat Valley in Pakistan:

http://www.sbpak.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Swat-Valley.jpg

again, totally unrelated to our conversation.

While you are correct, forests do tend to be problematic for tanks and artillery, the argument was never about the terrain of Afghanistan.

The point was, and still is, tanks would be almost useless both tactically and geographically for narcos. They do, however, buy helicopters, which are very effective.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Doesn't makes much difference.

so, just like in the nudity thread, I've proven you wrong, and you say "well, that doesn't matter".

So, you admit that narcos have access to RPGs and heavy weapons? You concede the point, you know, the actual point we were discussing?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Yes, Narcos may not be easy to root out through professional means but Taliban is different ballgame.

unfortunately, there is really no single Taliban to talk about...

the only Taliban that might have been able to go into another nation to eliminate narcos (which is the point of the thread), is the one that conquered Afghanistan in the 90s with tanks, planes, etc (I'm going to call this the State-Taliban). It is almost laughable to think such a force would be able to defeat the narcos when the, literally, most powerful armies that have ever existed, have not been able to.

Mao has a great line about insurgents being invincible so long as the "Fish swim in the ocean". The fish, ie, the narcos, are able to move freely in the ocean, ie, the population, and are therefore impossible to defeat, short of killing absolutely everyone (which the State-Taliban couldn't accomplish). It is similar to Afghanistan in the 80s. Even though the Soviets were willing to use gunships to annihilate civilian populations, the people would not turn on the insurgents, and therefore, the Soviets were destined to lose.

Further evidence of the inability of the State-Taliban to defeat narcos comes from the fact that they didn't defeat the narco-trafficers in the north of the country (though, yes, this would have been symmetric warfare between conventional forces). Additionally, the very reason the Taliban reversed their position on opium, from banning its production to taxing its trade, was specifically to avoid the type of insurgency that we are describing. The capitulated to narcos to prevent the very type of conflict we are describing. Going by history, the State-Taliban would not fight narcos, but would rather try to profit from them. This actually speaks volumes to Mullah Omar's strategic mind, as he knew he would lose Kandahar and likely all of Afghanistan if he tried to fight against the opium trade. However, it is an explicit admission, from the leader of the State-Taliban, that they could not defeat narcos within their own borders, let alone those in a neighbouring state.

The Talibans that arose after America obliterated the conventional State-Taliban army are an entirely different ball game, you are correct. However, my points about 2 forces trying to use asymmetric tactics against one another from earlier in this thread still stands:

Originally posted by Oliver North
neither side has a clear win condition. The drug trade and Islamic radicalism have withstood the most powerful armies for decades, a small guerrilla war between two forces that rely on asymmetric tactics can only result in severe blood letting on either side. However, given that AQ cannot stop the drug trade, and the cartels cannot stop Islamic radicalism, they will keep committing small scale massacres against one another for the foreseeable future.

The only win condition I can think of would occur if AQ made the cost of being a cartel so high that there wasn't enough profit to be made from selling drugs, but that seems extremely unrealistic.

The Talibans that you speak so highly of in terms of military prowess do not have the tactical ability to attack another nation. I agree, the narcos wouldn't beat them, but how do you possibly think the Talibans would win? Their tactics are specifically designed to fight asymmetric wars, not to invade and occupy.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I know a lot about Taliban.

we'll have to agree to disagree on this...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In addition, I suggest that you read following:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/396-khan.pdf

this has nothing to do with the Taliban and opium...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Taliban-Afghanistan-Mobilization-Future/dp/0312294026

I couldn't find this book online, but in the Wikipedia page for "Taliban" this book is used twice as a source describing the smuggling of opium from Afghanistan to Pakistan, forming the "golden crescent" of heroin production.

So, just like in the nudity thread, you are actually posting links that support the points I'm making.

Barker

Oliver North
http://www.chrisbuck.com/images/bw/image09.jpg

S_W_LeGenD

S_W_LeGenD
One quote went unanswered in my above response so here it is:

Originally posted by Oliver North
The Talibans that arose after America obliterated the conventional State-Taliban army are an entirely different ball game, you are correct. However, my points about 2 forces trying to use asymmetric tactics against one another from earlier in this thread still stands:

The Talibans that you speak so highly of in terms of military prowess do not have the tactical ability to attack another nation. I agree, the narcos wouldn't beat them, but how do you possibly think the Talibans would win? Their tactics are specifically designed to fight asymmetric wars, not to invade and occupy.
Even these newer Taliban factions are highly flexible. Against heavy odds; these newer factions switch to asymmetric tactics to survive and win. And if remain unchecked, these newer factions can reshape themselves in to formidable fighting groups; capable of expanding their control to entire nations. Every Taliban factions acquires manpower from local populace and militants pouring from other nations and arms from black markets and several other sources. They are not as much constrained as you may think them to be. Arm these factions with large number of heavy weapons and you may see them invade and occupy just like Mullah Omar led Taliban faction.

However, for the sake of argument; we can consider only Mullah Omar led Taliban faction in this debate.

Barker
http://i.imgur.com/fNA6u.jpg

TheOneFirestorm
Has Al Qaeda been linked to the 9/11 Terrorist attacks?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.