A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

[DaShi]

Yes, the Indian threat in Pakistan is far greater.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Fine:
The growth of Islamic policies in the muslim world is a result of the failure of the current political leaders of those states.

Hamas beat out the PA because Hamas earned a reputaion of not being corrupt, unlike the highly corrupt PA, and because the PA did not show any long term gain to their policy, at least not gains that the Palestinian people could feel and see for themselves. This has undermined the PA greatly.

In Egypt and Pakistan you have corrupt authoritarian regimes whose economic policies have failed to stem countless ills, and have failed to provide many basic services. The masses need something to believ in, and given that Western democracies are for a large part friends of the corrupt regimes that control them, the route of Islam as an uncorrupted alternative looms large.

KSA is a absolute monarchy allied to Sunni fundamentalism. No duh there are fundamentalists there.

Lebanon is too complicated to put on this list, as is Iraq.

You do not answer my question.

You said

I also know all about their standing in the general muslim world, and of their actual abilities.

while making a point that a wide-reaching Islamic front in the arab world is unrealistic / lacks the ability to threaten the west.

I want to understand how do you analyze the chances for Islamic revolutions in the said countries (and your post does not answer that directly), and later, how do you judge the ability of those Islamic countries (be it funds, logistics or will power) to hurt the western world.

Which are just hypotheticals you are making up. Elections are a given, and the power of the hardliners as opposed to simply conservative forces in Iran is suffereing because of the poor economic stewardship of this current government.

Ahmedinijad won the elections contrary to the expectations of the establishment, and used the corruption and poor economic condition as an elections platform.

Consilidating power bases is not an impossible task, even though his power base is clearly not in majority right now.


However, you treat the apocalyptic part of his faith a little too lightly.

A WWIII was almost started when a group of Israelis with a messianic pesuation with access to the dome of the rock wanted to blow it up.

Are you saying that you are confident, that a messianic leader who sees the coming of the mahdi as a real option, and believes in promoting the apocalypse, and has the power of a president of state (even if it isn't the most powerful position), is incapable of doing harm?


I'm not saying this is the most likely path. I'm just saying that it is way higher than 0.01% (the chances for any other nuclear-able country using its weapon aggressively).


2nd possible scenario - more likely.

You are a very aggressive and warlike leader who believes in apocalypse. You passionately hate the west and you hate Israel.

You have nuclear weapons which you know you can't use, but they give you a full-proof protection from a serious military response by Israel / the US.

You now have lots more confidence to destabilize Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. You can provoke a Syrian-Israeli war and come out with no penalty ("backed by nuclear weapons").


That is a very likely scenario indeed.

[Sirotnikov]

Btw, I just wanted to say that I appreciate that we're having a civil discussion, without Ming intervening even once

I also respect everyone's views, even though I totally disagree with some of them.

Long, boring, civil Islamic threat threads

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

I want to understand how do you analyze the chances for Islamic revolutions in the said countries (and your post does not answer that directly), and later, how do you judge the ability of those Islamic countries (be it funds, logistics or will power) to hurt the western world.

Fine:
The chances of an Islamic revolution in Egypt are low. While the Muslim brotherhood is strong, the regime has total control of the military, and while the population is disaffected, it hasn't reached the leval of Iran under the shah, plus there is no charismatic opposition.
The chances of an Islamic revolution in Lebanon are even lower, given that is ia too mixed up a state, same for Iraq. In both small islamic rump sattes could be set up, but not in either whole state.
KSA has the best chance for a fundamentalist takeover, and that remains small because of the level of control by the current regime.

The whole islamc world is too poor to be a threat. On the most fundamental and basic measures of power, the whole islamic world has half the population of the "west" (I am including all of the Americas and the whole of Europe and Russia), and is vastly poorer. Even if all islamic societies became fundamentalist (ain't going to happen), they don't pose an existential threat.

Ahmedinijad won the elections contrary to the expectations of the establishment, and used the corruption and poor economic condition as an elections platform. Consilidating power bases is not an impossible task, even though his power base is clearly not in majority right now.

You seem to forget Yazdi's loss in the elction for the council of experts. Ahmedinijad suprised the conservatives by running a populist campaign - he has lost those populist credentials. The question is whether the reformist and conservative camps will stick together to oust the hardliners, because if they do, the hardliners will lose.

However, you treat the apocalyptic part of his faith a little too lightly.

A WWIII was almost started when a group of Israelis with a messianic pesuation with access to the dome of the rock wanted to blow it up.

Are you saying that you are confident, that a messianic leader who sees the coming of the mahdi as a real option, and believes in promoting the apocalypse, and has the power of a president of state (even if it isn't the most powerful position), is incapable of doing harm?


I'm not saying this is the most likely path. I'm just saying that it is way higher than 0.01% (the chances for any other nuclear-able country using its weapon aggressively).


2nd possible scenario - more likely.

You are a very aggressive and warlike leader who believes in apocalypse. You passionately hate the west and you hate Israel.

You have nuclear weapons which you know you can't use, but they give you a full-proof protection from a serious military response by Israel / the US.

You now have lots more confidence to destabilize Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. You can provoke a Syrian-Israeli war and come out with no penalty ("backed by nuclear weapons").


That is a very likely scenario indeed.

Sorry, but I do not subscribe to the notion that a single individual in a complex government system like Iran's will start some third world war, and I certainly put no stock in attempts to explain state policy based on messianic notions. Ahmedinijad is simply head of government, with many layers of Iranian governance and control above and to the side of him. Iran as a state has every reaosn to spread its influence, destabilize US allies, whatever. Full out war is not in its interests, and no, as I said I don't buy notions of messianic policy coming from states, unless the state was a one man despotism, which Iran in no way is.

[LordShiva]

OMG I agree with GePup

[DaShi]

You've been Gepap'd!

[Sirotnikov]

The chances of an Islamic revolution in Egypt are low. While the Muslim brotherhood is strong, the regime has total control of the military, and while the population is disaffected, it hasn't reached the leval of Iran under the shah, plus there is no charismatic opposition.

I think that while it isn't on as high level as the Shah, you grossly underestimate the MB's power there.

They do have a charismatic opposition, though it is not familiar outside. (neither am I an expert on Egypt so I can't offer more on that).

The government is doing everything it can to curb the MB's power but they are very surely gaining seats in parliament, and their status right now is a gross misrepresentation because of election rigging and different legal jumbo invented by the regime.

Once Mobarak dies, it is not at all clear that his son will stand up to the task, in the phase of the next 5-10 years.

Don't forget that the Shah had excellent power over the military and security apparatuses, and it didn't help him, because when confronted with the angry mob, the military refused to act.

The chances of an Islamic revolution in Lebanon are even lower, given that is ia too mixed up a state, same for Iraq. In both small islamic rump sattes could be set up, but not in either whole state.

I think A government backed in unison by Iran and Syria, with Hezbullah and pro-Syrian elements is a non-imaginary threat.

Such a government would cooperate with other radical muslim forces and would be strongly anti-western, pro-terrorism.

KSA has the best chance for a fundamentalist takeover, and that remains small because of the level of control by the current regime.

I think you over estimate that too, because you're too used to it. Even the US intelligence services (KSA's allies) have began questioning the strength of that regime in recent years.


Bottom line:
I do not claim that a revolution will start tommorow.

But I think that revolutions/evolutions in what are currently pro-western countries into pro-Islamic anti-western states, are a very real threat in the next 3 - 10 years.

Taking that into consideration, you seem, IMO over confident that the status quo between government and mob will remain the same.

The whole islamc world is too poor to be a threat. On the most fundamental and basic measures of power, the whole islamic world has half the population of the "west" ...and is vastly poorer. Even if all islamic societies became fundamentalist (ain't going to happen), they don't pose an existential threat.

So what?
They don't pose a threat the same way that soviet russia does.

On one hand:
Iran has enough money for long-range nukes.
KSA has american grade modern weapons.
Egypt has the largest army in the middle east, with both Russian and US modern weapons (though not the latest stuff).

On the other hand - you don't even need standing armies to be a serious threat.

See the PLO effect on world transport in the 60s-70s, without having any surmountable military might. Or the oil crisis in the 70s.

Currently you have a few piss poor nations that are financing a world wide network of terrorists. Using 3 terrorist attacks (and several botched ones too) they have managed to reform the entire way people in the west travel, they reformed financial systems, they altered laws of civil liberties ... etc.

If such groups will no longer be persecuted by Egypt, Turkey, KSA, Lebanon, but will instead enjoy open government support and funding - there will be may more 9/11s to come.

True - it won't decimate the western world - but it is certainly a serious threat to the western way of life.


And back to our original point - while I certainly take the threats posed by Islamist groups to a certain extreme, assuming the worst possible outcome - I think that you severely underestimate both the chance for a radical change (for the worse), and the threat posed by a hugely increased financial and logistical backbone for Al-Qaeda.

Heck, the KSA has almost first grade american aircraft technology. There's a threat in the hands of several renegade pilots, if there ever was one.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DaShi
You've been Gepap'd!

If he really uses that, I just might concede defeat, nevermind what my position is.

[GePap]

And back to our original point - while I certainly take the threats posed by Islamist groups to a certain extreme, assuming the worst possible outcome - I think that you severely underestimate both the chance for a radical change (for the worse), and the threat posed by a hugely increased financial and logistical backbone for Al-Qaeda.

First of all, AQ is a minor player. Most Islamic fundamentalists have no illusions of setting up a great single caliphate, or spreading Islam by the sword around the world. Their aims are local, to remake their own societies. Any islami state that armed AQ types would open itself up to western aggression, which is far FAR more powerful than the islamic world is, and certainly will remain so for the forciable future.

The war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, two poor backwards states killed far more people than AQ has in all its history. The war in the Congo in the last 10 years has killed more people than all islamist movements since their inception.

I think we have to keep an eye on these basic facts before getting carried away with made-up scenerios.

[Sirotnikov]

First of all, AQ is a minor player. Most Islamic fundamentalists have no illusions of setting up a great single caliphate, or spreading Islam by the sword around the world. Their aims are local, to remake their own societies.

actually islamic fundamentalist travel to training camps in syria / iran / iraq / chechnya, and from there go to the relevant war fronts.

Their goal are indeed local at first stage, but since they see the west and western culture as 'meddling' in their bussines, then the west is always an enemy.

Any islami state that armed AQ types would open itself up to western aggression, which is far FAR more powerful than the islamic world is, and certainly will remain so for the forciable future.

The arming of AQ is beyond state level - it is an international network, that exists in muslim as well as western countries in the form of supposedly innocent muslim charities. Everyone knows where that money goes to.

The war between Eritrea and Ethiopia, two poor backwards states killed far more people than AQ has in all its history. The war in the Congo in the last 10 years has killed more people than all islamist movements since their inception.

That example is utterly irrelevant.

The war between Ethiopia and Eritrea has had absolutely no effect on the western world. Neither did the war in Congo. They were all strategically irrelevant.

It's not like any American on 9/11, or any Brit on 7/7 thought "oh golly, one should have proportion, this is much less serious that the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia".


AQ killed only a few thousand people and has managed to drastically change the way the western world behaves, does business etc.

That only shows that AQ is smart and very effective, and can use a small amount of force and apply it strategically.

[PLATO]

It sometimes makes you wonder what kool-aid the liberals are looking at. It sure would be nice if their ideas conformed to reality. Unfortunately this is not the case.

AQ has made no secret of their goal. They have even published a manifesto on it. They seek first to reestablish the Caliphate and thento use it to spread political and religious control to the rest of the world. Period. Their words, not mine.

Fear not though! If you are not muslim, then you will be tolereated (once they have control) and be simply taxed for your incorrect beliefs.

Now take a quick look at the population and natural resources of the caliphate...throw in nuclear weapons...then throw in religious fanaticism for the soldiers.

Anyone getting scared yet?

Any idiot have any question why we are spending billions over there trying to install moderate governments?

Cheaper in both people and treasure to do what we can to eliminate the problem now. Leaving is the stupidist idea on the planet. Saying that the problem will go away i we do is to deny everything that these people are publically telling you.

All the liberal high brained theories on how we can all get along ignores one small point. They do not want to get along...they want to rule you.

[Ramo]

Are there really violent branches of main-stream Islamic movements (like Muslim Brotherhood) that are not affected by Qutb?

Qutb's concepts of physical jihad, and anti-western bias extend eventually to the fight between Islamists and the Jahilia in foreign lands too.

How would you analyze Hamas in that sense?

It is directly a spur of the muslim brotherhood, and yet it's violent resistance to Israel, and to Fatah, are directly affected by Qutb's ideas, and even effects of Shariati's / Khomeini's thought, first justifying Istish'had and martyrdom.

Well, Qutb certainly shared some ideas with other Islamist schools of thought, but again, violence or intolerance isn't the distinction I was getting at. It's between a pragmatic local focus and a pie in the sky dream for a revived Caliphate. And Hamas is definitely in the former camp. After all, they were participating in elections, even abiding by a cease fire with Israel for the year after taking power. I mean, why isn't there sharia in Gaza? The vast majority of Islamist groups could be characterized in this way. And they can be negotiated with, and in the process moderate.

[Ramo]

Now take a quick look at the population and natural resources of the caliphate...throw in nuclear weapons...then throw in religious fanaticism for the soldiers.

Anyone getting scared yet?

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Re: A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

Originally posted by SpencerH


I love this so called "logic" of the left. It excludes the fact that Iran, the greatest threat to democracy since nazi germany, even exists. We have to make it crystal clear to the "new persians" that we are not weak, that we will not back down, and that if push comes to shove that they will glow like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter how repugnant that is to us.

You've become just as deranged in extreme right-wing absurdity as a couple of others on here have become deranged in extreme left-wing absurdity.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo

I guess by this well reasoned response that you assume that I believe that they could actually win. That would be most naive of you. If people had analyzed the potential of the allies in WWII then they probably would have concluded that Nazi Germany could not have won either. Unfortunately, it took 100 million dead to prove the point.

It is my belief that you underestimate the power of fundamentalist religious movements in economically poor regions. North Korea has shown us that a failing economy can still give rise to a massive and capable military. We are now seeing production of military armaments in Iran on a scale that the ME has never seen before. We have a nuclear capable Pakistan with a huge fundamentalist movement. We have institutionalized training of youth in fundamentalist schools. We have a leader of a country vowing the annihilation of another country in the area. We have fundamentalist revolutionary movements in nearly all arab countries.

Yet, many like yourself, choose to simply laugh at people who point out the obvious. Do not forget that these movements have their stated goal as fundamentalist controlled governments that are violently opposed to non-islamic countries.

I imagine that many in 1938 Europe felt as you do now...that there really is no threat. Okay...fine. Hope you are right (I truly do). I, for one, am not willing to take the chance.