Al-Qaeda linked Jihadists take hostages in Algeria

[MichiGator2002]

Islamist militants from Mali have attacked and taken control of a natural gas field partly owned by BP in southern Algeria, killing two and reportedly taking 41 people hostage, including seven Americans.

A group called the Katibat Moulathamine, or the Masked Brigade, called a Mauritanian news outlet to say one of its subsidiaries had carried out the operation on the Ain Amenas gas field, taking 41 hostages from nine or 10 different nationalities.

The group's claim could not be independently substantiated and typically there would be fewer than 20 foreign staff members on site on a typical day, along with hundreds of Algerian employees.

The group said the attack was in revenge for Algeria's support of France's operation against Al Qaeda-linked Malian rebels groups far to the southeast. It said it was holding dozens of foreigners hostage.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01...#ixzz2I9ifvcG2

Well, I don't know what could explain this. The video guy is already in jail, so this is just unreasonable. I guess what we're seeing here is actually unrest related to the world's dependence on fossil fuels?

[gatorev12]

Al Qaeda is a pretty loose organization these days--with little central strategic planning (that's mostly been snuffed out due to the US eliminating most of the top and middle-tier leadership elements over the last decade) or connection to their local or regional offshoots.

Most of the organizations that affiliate themselves with Al Qaeda do so only to attract media attention to their cause/goals.

In this part of the world, the "Al Qaeda militants" are really just organized thugs that murder and extort for money. Little different from the FARC rebels in Columbia who do much of the exact same thing: their leadership preaches an ideological message--but their actions are inapposite of their ideology.

[cocodrilo]

If the hoped-for war with Iran falls through, it looks like the U.S. should be able to find a passable war in Africa. The future of the MIC remains bright short-term, but what happens when this country can no longer afford to feed it?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

If the hoped-for war with Iran falls through, it looks like the U.S. should be able to find a passable war in Africa. The future of the MIC remains bright short-term, but what happens when this country can no longer afford to feed it?

I take it you didn't read the article. Not that I'm surprised or anything, but it is slightly amusing.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

I take it you didn't read the article. Not that I'm surprised or anything, but it is slightly amusing.

Why, what good did reading the article do you?

[Lawdog88]

I hope they didn't use guns in doing it.

That could be spun in a negative way.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I hope they didn't use guns in doing it.

That could be spun in a negative way.

Perhaps they were unhappy about the new healthcare law?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Why, what good did reading the article do you?

I know you've said you don't typically read anything longer than 3-4 paragraphs, but the good news about this homework assignment is you don't need to read past the 4th paragraph to find out which country has taken military action in the area.

Their short paragraphs too, I promise. Shouldn't be too taxing for you.

[wargunfan]

Good luck to the French army. Or should I say what is left of the French army. France has spent so much money on their welfare state they may have to attack the jihadists with baguettes.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Good luck to the French army. Or should I say what is left of the French army. France has spent so much money on their welfare state they may have to attack the jihadists with baguettes.

As much as it pains me to defend the French...they're actually better then most European countries when it comes to military spending--and more importantly, military training.

I won't point fingers too much, but some of our NATO allies are a (bleep)ing joke when it comes to being capable of undertaking anything more than guarding a parking lot, let alone sophisticated combat operations.

I'll say this much: I'd go into battle with the Brits, the Canadians, the Danish, Polish, Norwegian, French, and German military units without much (if any) trepidation. Anyone else? I'd almost rather not even bother having the backup.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

As much as it pains me to defend the French...they're actually better then most European countries when it comes to military spending--and more importantly, military training.

I won't point fingers too much, but some of our NATO allies are a (bleep)ing joke when it comes to being capable of undertaking anything more than guarding a parking lot, let alone sophisticated combat operations.

I'll say this much: I'd go into battle with the Brits, the Canadians, the Danish, Polish, Norwegian, French, and German military units without much (if any) trepidation. Anyone else? I'd almost rather not even bother having the backup.

France has tried to maintain at least the appearance of military preparedness but required US assistance to pull off the operation. With their history of going it alone (pulling out of NATO for example) asking for help from the US military speaks of an inability to handle all aspects of the mission. Military spending is relative and relatively speaking the French spend no where near what the US does. But then no one does that.

[MichiGator2002]

France and most of Western Europe had the luxury of America's defense posture through the Cold War to allow them to say "national defense smashional defense" and put it all into government pandering/entitlements. Now we are led by those who would adopt the same general apportionment of money -- i.e. smashional defense, free cupcakes for all -- except without anybody standing behind us glaring at anybody who might want to mess with us.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

France has tried to maintain at least the appearance of military preparedness but required US assistance to pull off the operation. With their history of going it alone (pulling out of NATO for example) asking for help from the US military speaks of an inability to handle all aspects of the mission. Military spending is relative and relatively speaking the French spend no where near what the US does. But then no one does that.

The Europeans required American assistance to pull off the Libya operation--but I hadn't heard anything about us helping them in Mali.

I do get your point though in that the French (along with the vast majority of our European allies) need some level of assistance by the US in order to undertake any type of sophisticated combat operations--and especially over a length of time.

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

As much as it pains me to defend the French...they're actually better then most European countries when it comes to military spending--and more importantly, military training.

I won't point fingers too much, but some of our NATO allies are a (bleep)ing joke when it comes to being capable of undertaking anything more than guarding a parking lot, let alone sophisticated combat operations.

I'll say this much: I'd go into battle with the Brits, the Canadians, the Danish, Polish, Norwegian, French, and German military units without much (if any) trepidation. Anyone else? I'd almost rather not even bother having the backup.

Rev,

Does the Italian Army still have those tanks with one forward gear and three in reverse?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Gatormb

Rev,

Does the Italian Army still have those tanks with one forward gear and three in reverse?

Probably

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by Gatormb

Rev,

Does the Italian Army still have those tanks with one forward gear and three in reverse?

A classic!

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

The Europeans required American assistance to pull off the Libya operation--but I hadn't heard anything about us helping them in Mali.

I do get your point though in that the French (along with the vast majority of our European allies) need some level of assistance by the US in order to undertake any type of sophisticated combat operations--and especially over a length of time.

No nation can match the US in intelligence and logistical assets.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...frica/1832669/

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Gatormb

Rev,

Does the Italian Army still have those tanks with one forward gear and three in reverse?

I will not stand for this mocking of one of the members of the Coalition of the Willing!

[JerseyGator01]

Didn't Romney mention that France's action would cause problems during a debate with Obama? And didn't many of the mediots laugh at him for making such a suggestion. Yep, he sure was a foreign policy dunce.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

No nation can match the US in intelligence and logistical assets.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...frica/1832669/

As a former member of the US intelligence community, I'm inclined to agree...

But (and again I hate to admit this), the French are pretty good in the intelligence community. After Britain, they're probably the best intelligence service in Europe--with the Germans, Czechs, and Poles not far off the mark...and a large drop-off after that.