>>1467535>That is the nomenclature used for all modern franchises, yes
And insofar as we agree a McDonalds location is McDonalds, we can probably say that AQAP, a regional group of an organisation that has mostly decentralised since being gutted by western intervention, is a legit part of AQ.>AQ is not a maoist org
Ideology doesn't matter, every insurgency and counterinsurgency begins with a reading of "on guerrilla warfare". It's the 101 textbook.
Validate me? I was merely confirming if I got the numbers right. Did I?>Those are a flawed meme. They do not work in 99% of the cases and they fulfill their role in radicalising local populace in 100% of the cases.
An agitated populace without its vanguard is merely surplus energy, all worked up with nowhere to go. It does not spontaneously organise, arm itself, establish base areas (extremely important, given the literal translation of Al Qaeda), so and so forth. We can be pretty confident it works, because even if the folks we bomb hate us, they cannot coordinate an effective response. Remember: targeted strikes are primarily a program of state assassination, and tends to follow through the usual logic of such. It's shitty, but conflict is pretty shitty in general these days.>With your own logic, during what times do you reckon an Arab would see an amerimutt as a proponent for good, and not just an exploiter and murderer?
Insofar as the good guys met American bombs, as mentioned earlier, I'm going to go with "never". Perhaps for the barbary wars, insofar as the ottomans had extremely poor taste in vassal rulers.
Again: the states is one of the actors more or less to blame for the "good" arabs I've mentioned being miniscule, as opposed to nearly being the order of the day. We can further blame the british, the french, the ottomans, the saudi's, and whichever proxies you attach to them. Imperialism did in the good the guys.