Al Qaeda Vs Narcos
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
Re: Al Qaeda Vs Narcos
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?
Originally posted by Oliver North
a) Al Qaeda =/= Taliban
Originally posted by Oliver North
b) no they couldn't, re: the "Northern Alliance"
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
Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/world/taliban-s-ban-on-poppy-a-success-us-aides-say.html
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
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.
Originally posted by Oliver North
A policy that proved so unpopular with the population that it was reversed almost immediatly
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.
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