A Question of Motives - Al Qaeda

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yeah yeah, how is that any different than Christians who want the world for Jesus?

Most Christian fundies I've encountered just knock on my door or blather on in some random encounter about whether I've been reborn or not. I've yet to meet one who tells me to wear a beard and keep my woman in her place, or who decides to blow my ass up or saw my head off because he thinks I may not agree with his world view.

Some guy says the world must follow his religion and that translates into Muslims want to conquer the world?

Al Maududi is hardly "some guy."

Do you really think AQ recruitment is greater for that cause than getting us to leave the Middle East?

"Today's Army wants to join you"
"Be all you can be"
"An Army of one"
"Army strong"

Just because the recruiting slogans change, doesn't mean the underlying message or mission is any different. And "recruiting" in this sense isn't just fighters in the field, but more significantly, for the control of madrassahs and the teaching of a jihadist vision of Islam. Our turning tail and pulling out of the mideast isn't going to make it all go away - it would just be another propaganda tool.

Bush's way of handling Iraq has been like sticking his dick into a hornets nest - but just because you pull your dick out and run doesn't mean they're through stinging your ass.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"The Americans have put troops in Saudi Arabia, let us attack them. Oh, after years of war the Americans have moved their troops in Saudi Arabia to Iraq and Afghanistan, therefore we should no longer attack them." Thats your argument? Wft are you thinking? They were fighting the Russians for going into Afghanistan, why would they ignore us going into Afghanistan and Iraq? What part of withdrawing from the Middle East confuses you?

Actually the Northern Alliance fought the Russians(they're the same guys on the ground there helping us now btw).

You said the US didn't interfere, now you said the US did interfere - let me know when you settle on one recollection. And I said we did interfere in response to your claim that we didn't, now you want to throw in how they helped us too? Thats nice, but where did I deny this? In fact, we were negotiating with the Taliban to set up AQ's leadership before 9/11, the Bushies let that slip by too.

Read what you posted. We didn't interfere, we stepped out of the way after the 1980s(when we were there helping the NA with equipment and training). And I very much doubt the Taliban would have set up AQ, given that they didn't capitulate and turn them over under threat of war.

So quote him?

Bin Laden's Letter to America, specifically the what do you want from us portion, look it up for yourself.

BS, you dodged what I said. And its real simple - if we didn't go in and remove Saddam from Kuwait, 9/11 would not have happened. If we did go in to remove Saddam from Kuwait and left after achieving that goal, 9/11 would not have happened. Its called cause and effect and it doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. These guys in Afghanistan had just spent years fighting to expel the Russians from Afghanistan and after they won, we went in and set up shop in Saudi Arabia and they started attacking us. I guess converting the Russians to Islam could wait

Theres that whole Northern Alliance thing again. Oh also its worth mentioning that Russia has been suffering from terror attacks left and right, independent on their status of occupation of Chechnya.

I dont, you're the one who said they would.

Thats not what I said. I said one of their(many) grievances is the existence of Israel, who pretty much count as infidels on holy land.

I dont know, I doubt they really care about Israel judging by their actions. They seem intent on expelling the west from Muslim countries. But if they did take that course, how is that relevant to the bungled policies we're following?

I didn't say they cared, I merely mentioned that its on their list of grievances from which they will use to continue to justify attacks on us long after we pull out.

You said they're attacking us because we aren't Muslims, thats because we are free to choose our religions. But you dont need a time machine, try some logic.

Even if we weren't free to choose religion it still would not matter. They don't hate us for our freedoms.

[Sirotnikov]

They said they attacked us because we put our troops in Saudi Arabia, not because they want us to become Muslims...

Considering Al-Qaeda's name used to be, "The World Front for Jihad against Christians and Jews" I somehow doubt that the organization has sane, limited goals.


You have to study more about the roots of the fundamentalist revivalist Jihad to realize the stages it went through, and what are the deep motivators behind it.


On a general level, their world view would be this:

Divide the world into two fields: "dar al salam" - land of peace, and "dar al kharb" - land of war - that is land that is waiting to be freed by muslims.

The main goal is first to restore the Islamic caliphate to its former greatness, and then, to continue the spread of Islam.

Currently, the Islamic world sees itself as weak and broken and is subdued to the western non-Islamic powers.

The main enemies preventing the restoration of the caliphate are:
- Foreign powers meddling in previously
- secular rulers of arab nations.

Until the 1970s, most Islamic organizations mainly focused on the little Jihad / Da'wa (good doing, conquering of hearts) to come to power in previously Islamic states.

In the 70s, the Qutub inspired Islamic Jihad, The Takfir wa-al Hijra movements were among the first to use greater violence, which eventually lead to a struggle against foreign powers which had links to the secular regimes and 'kept them in power'.

A large contribution to the struggle against foreign powers was Khumeini's reformed Shi'a, which called for a violent reponse to the imperialist west powers. Also, the (us supported) muslim victory in Afghanistan against the USSR, considered an unbeatable enemy at that point.

This victory increased the popularity of revivalist Islam, since it was seen as a glorious and victorious player -achieving something which the the secular states never did - a victory over a 1st rate world power.

This lead to the radical revivalist Islamists believing they can now face anything, and the recruiting rates grew, as plans to fight against decadent west powers, which are blamed for destroying the muslim world and keeping it down, via various means.


This means, that even a total withdrawal right now, and a disbanding of Israel won't help.

The revivalist Islamists, sure of their own power, will call for revolutions in all previously muslim states, and then will seek to increase their pressure on the decadent, weak (it caved in to muslim pressure) and morally bankrupt western world.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Bush's way of handling Iraq has been like sticking his dick into a hornets nest - but just because you pull your dick out and run doesn't mean they're through stinging your ass.

Metaphore of the day

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't think you quite appreciate the risk. From the US point of view it is actually worse if Iraq becomes a Shia state, because it will have a natural ally in Iran, which will be the regional hegemon. Afghanistan is already lost, as nobody has ever managed to keep hold of that place for very long. Either way, US power will be discredited in the region and the power, prestige and influence of the Islamists will be increased, perhaps enough to force compromise or even a revolution in another Arab state.

This is not entirely accurate.

Khumeini's Shia while popular, demands several major changes from regular Shiite's including putting both civil and religious authority in one leader, and being actively involved in muslim struggles elsewhere, which the Shia's were always less reluctant to do.

There is plenty of tension between Iran and other Shi'ites and even if they cooperate now (and it is a fact they do), doesn't mean that once the main enemy is gone, they will continue to do so.

They'll still sell you their oil (because they have no alternative), but they may well make you pay for it in Euros, which would be a calamity for the US, and one which the US could do little about.

I doubt they have acknowledged the change in economics and are smart enough to destabilize the dollar this way.

In many ways Osama bin Laden is a great man. To be sure, he is somewhat of a nut, but that goes with the territory. He is very close to effecting a major loss of influence on the world's remaining superpower, and he has done this with a small amount of cash and a small organization that is bound to his will. In 200 years time, historians will marvel at how he managed to do so much with so little, but the answer is simple: he knew where and when to push.

This is true, but it has to do with alot of misappropriated credit. By declaring himself at the forefront of the struggle, Osama is taking credit for lots of attacks that have happenned without his direct involvement, and could be credit to a whole group of Muslim thinkers, and a gallore of groups.

Osama didn't invent the revivalist Islam movement, and while he's revered as a major figure in the west, there are many famous religious figures which are playing a major role in this, which the western audience is simply not aware of.

Of course it isn't solely attributable to him. He is helped by the fact that modern Western states are no longer capable of producing leaders with the wherewithal to counter him.

also true.

[Ramo]

One thing that's frequently lost in the conception of AQ (or of Salafi Jihadists in general) is that they're a distinct animal from most Islamist movements (like the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood). The distinction is not violence, but a connection to a semi-realistic political program: the latter has one, and the former doesn't. Your run of the mill Islamist can be negotiated with (i.e. away from violence if they happen to be violent) because they want something that's somewhere within the realm of possibility, but compromise is quite a bit more difficult with Salafis who ultimately have no realistic demand.

[fed1943]

The first and greatest goal of AQ is very clear: to be the leader of
all Muslins.

The only part whose goals are not clear, sadly, is USA.

The invasion of Irak by USA and UK ( and not by UN) was a big
mistake, but it looks a withdraw, now, would be another mistake.

The big threat is obviously Paquistan. Iran is also a threat, Irak was
not.

But the first and decisive step to a good solution, is USA to make up
its mind about what wants. Easy to say, not to achieve.

Safety/leadership or oil profits?

I hope Americans do not allow the defenders of "the oil profits" ways
to prevail. These guys could even discover that another Set11 could
be a great help.

Best regards,

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

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

Originally posted by SpencerH
Iran, the greatest threat to democracy since nazi germany

If my eyebrows raised any higher, they'd physically lift me off my seat.

[Berzerker]

Most Christian fundies I've encountered just knock on my door or blather on in some random encounter about whether I've been reborn or not. I've yet to meet one who tells me to wear a beard and keep my woman in her place, or who decides to blow my ass up or saw my head off because he thinks I may not agree with his world view.

And yet both want the world to follow their religion. So pulling quotes out of the air that reflect their desire doesn't mean anything.

Al Maududi is hardly "some guy."

Is he the general of a massive Muslim army going around the world forcibly converting people?

Just because the recruiting slogans change, doesn't mean the underlying message or mission is any different.

Right, Muslims are joining AQ because AQ wants me to be a Muslim...or because AQ wants the infidels out of Muslim countries.
I dont see Muslims lining up for the first slogan. Does that mean you think both causes draw an equal number of recruits? You didn't answer that.

And "recruiting" in this sense isn't just fighters in the field, but more significantly, for the control of madrassahs and the teaching of a jihadist vision of Islam. Our turning tail and pulling out of the mideast isn't going to make it all go away - it would just be another propaganda tool.

Yeah, AQ has 2 recruiting slogans:

The infidels have invaded our lands and are killing Muslims, join us to stop the infidels

Join us so we can run the local madrassah

And you think both slogans draw the same number of recruits? Staying over there allows them to recruit more people.

Bush's way of handling Iraq has been like sticking his dick into a hornets nest - but just because you pull your dick out and run doesn't mean they're through stinging your ass.

Hornets stop chasing you if you're smart enough to get the hell out of Dodge.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Whoha
I actually don't think that gift wrapping the middle east up and handing it to bin laden will make him not want to attack us.

It will keep him preoccupied though.

[Berzerker]

Actually the Northern Alliance fought the Russians(they're the same guys on the ground there helping us now btw).

Actually the northern alliance weren't the only people fighting the Russians. Osama had been fundraising and organizing the resistance for years.

Read what you posted. We didn't interfere, we stepped out of the way after the 1980s(when we were there helping the NA with equipment and training). And I very much doubt the Taliban would have set up AQ, given that they didn't capitulate and turn them over under threat of war.

So you're back to we didn't interfere? We did, the Taliban was negotiating with us to stop interfering in exchange for getting AQ. And did we give the Taliban a chance to help us? You're talking about Bush now... Once 9/11 happened Bush wasn't going to work with the Taliban.

Bin Laden's Letter to America, specifically the what do you want from us portion, look it up for yourself.

No, you look it up.

Theres that whole Northern Alliance thing again. Oh also its worth mentioning that Russia has been suffering from terror attacks left and right, independent on their status of occupation of Chechnya.

You mean Chechnyans are launching terrorist attacks against Russia and the fact Russia is occupying Chechnya has nothing to do with it?

Thats not what I said. I said one of their(many) grievances is the existence of Israel, who pretty much count as infidels on holy land.

here:

Other then that though, I somehow doubt that handing AQ a series of stunning total victories(including the complete elimination of Israel, something of a sticking point) is going to cause them to shrink.

So in your time machine you've discovered the elimination of Israel by AQ, but now you never said AQ was going to conquer Israel?

I didn't say they cared, I merely mentioned that its on their list of grievances from which they will use to continue to justify attacks on us long after we pull out.

ya ya ya, they'll die for something they dont care about. If we pull out they wont be coming here to kill us.

Even if we weren't free to choose religion it still would not matter. They don't hate us for our freedoms.

Uh, I thought they hate us because we're free to reject Islam.

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Got another recollection now?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ramo
One thing that's frequently lost in the conception of AQ (or of Salafi Jihadists in general) is that they're a distinct animal from most Islamist movements (like the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood). The distinction is not violence, but a connection to a semi-realistic political program: the latter has one, and the former doesn't. Your run of the mill Islamist can be negotiated with (i.e. away from violence if they happen to be violent) because they want something that's somewhere within the realm of possibility, but compromise is quite a bit more difficult with Salafis who ultimately have no realistic demand.

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.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Actually the northern alliance weren't the only people fighting the Russians. Osama had been fundraising and organizing the resistance for years.

He was sitting on his ass in Pakistan while our guys were doing the fighting.

So you're back to we didn't interfere? We did, the Taliban was negotiating with us to stop interfering in exchange for getting AQ. And did we give the Taliban a chance to help us? You're talking about Bush now... Once 9/11 happened Bush wasn't going to work with the Taliban.

I never said we did interfere, go back and read what you posted. And yes, we did demand that they turn people over. That isn't working with them, its a demand.

No, you look it up.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,845725,00.html

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

You mean Chechnyans are launching terrorist attacks against Russia and the fact Russia is occupying Chechnya has nothing to do with it?

The apartment complex bombing in 1999 had zero to do with it as Russia pulled out earlier. Not the occupation.

So in your time machine you've discovered the elimination of Israel by AQ, but now you never said AQ was going to conquer Israel?

You seem to be having some difficulty with reading and comprehension. Your time machine would be needed to enact your plan to go back in time, and I didn't say they'd conquer Israel, I said they wanted that, and that we'd have to hand it to them under your plan.

ya ya ya, they'll die for something they dont care about. If we pull out they wont be coming here to kill us.

Oh yes, all terror attacks all over the world being launch by these guys and others will just come to an end.

Uh, I thought they hate us because we're free to reject Islam.

Thats twisting things around quite a bit, I suppose you have to do some interesting mental gymnastics to maintain your absurd position that leaving will make them weaker, heres another quote for you from Bin Laden:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/tape.transcript/

UBL: (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is only one goal; those who want people to worship the lord of the people, without following that doctrine, will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (UBL quotes several short and incomplete Hadith verses, as follows): "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." "Some people may ask: why do you want to fight us?" "There is an association between those who say: I believe in one god and Muhammad is his prophet, and those who don't (...inaudible...) "Those who do not follow the true fiqh. The fiqh of Muhammad, the real fiqh. They are just accepting what is being said at face value."

If you were being forced by the government to be a pastafarian they'd still hate you.

[SpencerH]

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

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Agathon

Unfortunately, you are weak

Some are, some arent.

and you will back down.

Some will, some wont.

There is no feasible alternative.

I already gave an alternative. My hope is that that we present a unified voice to the moslem extremists that convinces them that we will take severe action. It's time to call a spade a spade. Any moslem terrorist activities should be traced back to their originating country and we should exact a severe price by all means available to us.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian




-Arrian

Originally posted by Ramo

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


If my eyebrows raised any higher, they'd physically lift me off my seat.

Pathetic commentary really so I'll only make two points.

1. I was a little "under the weather" that night (else I wouldnt have broken my self imposed ban on these types of threads) and so excluded the Soviets. The correct statement should have been

"It excludes the fact that Iran, the greatest threat to Western democracies since the Soviet Union, even exists."

2. For those unable to understand the bigger picture.

Iran isnt a real military threat to us. That fact doesnt change the correctness of my statement one iota.
Iran is the chief fomenter of hatred against the west. It supports terrorist acts against us by action and word that kill our citizens and more importantly (to some extent) alter how we conduct our lives as individuals and as nations. How many of the bleeding hearts here have whined about the Patriot Act and intelligence surveillance programs? Would those even have been an issue without Iranian (and other) support for moslem terrorists.

While Iran, by itself, is no threat to our democracies, a unified moslem world would be.

Iranis led by a madman who appears to believe that the end of the world is coming and who is committed to producing nuclear weapons within a few years. Why does the left refuse to take him at his word, ie that he wants to kill us all? Seems to me that I've seen the politics of appeasement before. Luckily it was a pre-nuclear age.