NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: If the goal of the jihadists isn't to establish a world-wide Caliphate, then explain this type of bombing to me.


Macabre Clues Advance Inquiry in Bali Attacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/international/asia/03bali.html?th&emc=th)



By RAYMOND BONNER and JANE PERLEZ
Published: October 3, 2005

KUTA, Indonesia, Monday, Oct. 3 - In the first 24 hours after a series of bombs killed 22 people in a restaurant on a busy street and in two beachfront restaurants five miles away, investigators in Bali made rapid progress on Sunday, in part owing to a macabre bit of luck. As they sifted through bodies and body parts, they say, they found the heads of three men and three sets of legs, with no middles, the forensic signature of suicide bombings. One head was more than 75 feet from the rest of the body.

A Recent History of Major Explosions in Indonesia (October 2, 2005) The blasts on Saturday evening did not obliterate the faces, so the police were able to display vivid, gruesome photographs of them at a news conference here on Sunday evening, and the photographs were shown on television and in Monday newspapers. The likelihood of identifications from the public seemed high.

The Bali police chief, Made Pastika, revised the death toll downward from an estimate of 25, saying that the three bombers had killed themselves and 19 other people - 14 Indonesians and 5 foreigners. Of the more than 90 wounded, nearly all were Indonesian, he said.

At least seven of the wounded were Americans, all from one San Francisco family eating in Raja's, a restaurant in Kuta, when a bomb went off there. The seven were expected to be released from a hospital here later Monday.

Mr. Pastika said that the police were searching for three other men believed to be involved in the bombings, and that a faction of the militant group Jemaah Islamiyah might be responsible.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono warned that terrorists could be planning more strikes, and police commanders in Jakarta, the capital, ordered two-thirds of their forces to remain on standby. "The terrorists are still looking for soft targets," the president said Sunday after touring the bombing scenes in Bali.

Mr. Pastika presented a video, taken by a visiting family, that showed a man with a backpack walking into Raja's and then the giant flash of an explosion. Each of the three bombs, he said, held as much as 22 pounds of dynamite, and they might have been carried in backpacks or in suicide vests. It was not known if they were detonated remotely or by triggers set off by the suicide bombers.

Mr. Pastika said the investigators had not concluded who was responsible, but he noted the similarity to two bombings seconds apart at nightclubs here in October 2002 that killed 202 people. Those attacks were the work of Jemaah Islamiyah, Indonesian and American officials have said. The group is considered the Southeast Asia surrogate for Al Qaeda. But Mr. Pastika said there was no evidence of Qaeda involvement in the bombings on Saturday.

In the past few years, the Indonesian police have arrested scores of Jemaah Islamiyah's most militant members, and the arrests severely weakened the group, according to Sidney Jones, the pre-eminent expert on the group and, more broadly, terrorism in Southeast Asia.

While the group's mainstream members have forsaken terrorism, she said, a breakaway faction remains committed to terrorist acts against the West, and the United States in particular.

That faction is headed by Azhari Husin, a Malaysian educated in Britain, and Muhammad Noordin Top, also a Malaysian, who is thought to have been the mastermind behind the deadly attack on the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta in August 2003, she said. The two men, who have become the most-wanted fugitives in Southeast Asia, are also believed to have been behind an attack on the Australian Embassy in September 2004.

Mr. Pastika said they were possibly behind the attacks on Saturday.

As frequently happens in cases of terrorist attacks, rumor and contradictory reports colored the day on Sunday. Besides revising the death toll, Mr. Pastika denied a report that three unexploded devices had been found in Jimbaran, where two bombs had detonated in beach restaurants.

The wounded were being treated at the Sanglah hospital. In one room was the Ly family of San Francisco. The Lys had relatively slight injuries, mostly cuts to their legs.

Soviana Suprato Ly, 38, an Indonesian who became an American citizen in 1988, said they were on a homecoming visit and came to Bali on Friday after 10 days in Jakarta.

On Saturday, the Lys went on a sightseeing tour, then ended the day at the popular beach resort of Kuta.

"We wanted to see the beautiful sunset at Kuta," Ms. Ly said, sitting with her 16-year-old son, Sean. Then, she said, they began looking for a place to eat. "Father wanted noodles, and the children wanted spaghetti and burgers."

They spotted Raja's.

The family sat down on the first floor of Raja's, a three-story building, and heard a "big explosion" on the second floor, Ms. Ly said.

"We got scared; we saw everything dark," she said. "I saw my dad under all the stones and tables."

"Why did they do this to us?" she cried.

Around her in the same hospital room, the other family members lay on beds. In one, her father, 70-year-old Jusof, nursed his wounds. Sean was connected to an intravenous tube, and her youngest son, Jeremy, 4, had a patch on his head.

The attacks came as Bali, a Hindu enclave in an overwhelmingly Muslim nation, was steadily recovering from the slump in tourism that followed the 2002 bombings. Tourism is the main source of income for Bali.

On Sunday afternoon, 60 Hindu monks, dressed in flowing white, performed a ceremony in front of Raja's, which is wedged between a McDonald's and a Kentucky Fried Chicken. They offered food to the spirits of the dead.

COMMENTARY: If the goal of the jihadists isn't to establish a world-wide Caliphate, then explain this type of bombing to me.
Well, here in Oz you can't get away from the news about this. Bali is for the people here what places like Cancun (sp?) are for you.
But seriously, I haven't seen anything in the article that points toward a caliphate. I don't think it said anything about the motives at all.

More interesting is though that the group that is probably responsible for this, Jemaah Islamiyah, still hasn't been outlawed in Indonesia. In practice outlawing the group would achieve nothing (I don't think it has offices or recruiting centres or anything like that ATM), but at least symbolically it would mean something, no?

Well, here in Oz you can't get away from the news about this. Bali is for the people here what places like Cancun (sp?) are for you. But seriously, I haven't seen anything in the article that points toward a caliphate. I don't think it said anything about the motives at all.

More interesting is though that the group that is probably responsible for this, Jemaah Islamiyah, still hasn't been outlawed in Indonesia. In practice outlawing the group would achieve nothing (I don't think it has offices or recruiting centres or anything like that ATM), but at least symbolically it would mean something, no?
There are Muslim insurgencies all accross the globe. To name just a few: The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, China ( ! ), several of the newer nations spun off from the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. To me, this says "jihadists" and "new Caliphate."

I agree it would help make a statement if Indonesia outlawed Jemaah Islamiyah, although it may result in an even more active insurgency, which is probably one reason Indonesia has yet to outllaw it.

There are Muslim insurgencies all accross the globe. To name just a few: The Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, China ( ! ), several of the newer nations spun off from the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. To me, this says "jihadists" and "new Caliphate."
Meh, I can't speak for those kids that join these groups. I'm pretty sure that those that started them though are much more pragmatic characters (afterall, they don't care much for what their own religion says about murder either).
Maybe some of them do want a global caliphate (who'd be the leader?), who knows? But to declare that their only goal and motivation is to declare any effort to come to an agreement with them null and void.
I'd love to see Western Governments call representatives of "terror organisations" to come together for a meeting on how to end this matter (you could do it over the web). If the talks really do fail (and not just because our side can't agree one bit "because they're terrorists"), then we can continue as we have, and bomb the snot out of places they might be hiding, only to find that we missed them again. And created a whole lot of angry orphans to go and start more shit.

Leonstein has the crux of it really. I don't see anything about a global movement to create a Caliph, just a bunch of people who decided to blow themselves and a bunch of others to make a statement of some sort, although what remains a mystery other than "we can get you"

Nobody bothered to talk to the other side because their too busy shouting "we're going to get you bastards". And that's a factor that both sides are guilty off. Nobody actually tried to negotiate or even talk did they? Except with bombs and bullets that is.

In reply to the original post, I see no evidence, or anything else, showing or implying that this is a step towards a global caliphate. Youe evidence seems to consist of a single attack, plus a claim that Muslim insurgent groups exist in other places.

While I do not doubt that there are terrorist groups out there that are, in part, ideologically driven by Muslim extremism, I am hesitanty to believe that they are globally linked, have a cohesive and overriding agenda, and have religious supremacy as their sole objective.

One could rightly say that the IRA were Catholic terrorists, but they will never make Ireland a theocracy. There are many reasons why this is true, and many of these reasons can be applied to 'Muslim terrorists'.

Leonstein has the crux of it really. I don't see anything about a global movement to create a Caliph, just a bunch of people who decided to blow themselves and a bunch of others to make a statement of some sort, although what remains a mystery other than "we can get you"

Nobody bothered to talk to the other side because their too busy shouting "we're going to get you bastards". And that's a factor that both sides are guilty off. Nobody actually tried to negotiate or even talk did they? Except with bombs and bullets that is.
And just who should we talk with???

I have a vague recollection that Jemaah Islamiyah (or a similar Indonesian group) does advocate an Islamic state in northern Australia...

I don't really believe that the Jihadists responsible for this latest atrocity had anything much in mind besides "make the world fear us" and "kill or cow all non-muslims". A world-wide Caliphate doesn't even seem remotely likely if you just blow up a bunch of innocent people.

My heart goes out to the Balinise people, who have already had to suffer so much. Hopefully us Aussies will again return to their shores and help them sustain their 80% tourism driven economy.

And just who should we talk with???
Osama Bin Laden comes to mind, Ayman Al-Zawahiri...in Iraq Al-Zaqarwi, in SE-Asia there are a few high-profile people as well.
Write an open letter to them. Set up a conference website so no one has to fear for their life.
Give it a shot, that's all I ask.

I have a vague recollection that Jemaah Islamiyah (or a similar Indonesian group) does advocate an Islamic state in northern Australia...

That was JI. It had some grand plan for Australia too.

OF COURSE they are aiming for a new Caliphate. One must be deliberately deaf and blind to keep missing something that obvious.

Check out the official websites of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the two largest single parties in the Muslim world- and they are both openly Caliphate minded. Al-Qaueda and other Muslim terrorist organization function as the "armed wing" of these broader "political" movements.

P.S. Aryavartha and I have analysed the issue at length here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314&page=1&pp=15)

Al-Qaueda and other Muslim terrorist organization function as the "armed wing" of these broader "political" movements.
Well, intelligence agencies across the world are desperate for any info on that, so don't hold it back...these days you can go to jail for that kind of thing.

P.S. Aryavartha and I have analysed the issue at length here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314&page=1&pp=15)
I'm sure you have...and I'm sure neither of you is holding any grudges against Muslim groups, or people becoming Muslims, or Muslims living in your neighbourhoods either.

Well, intelligence agencies across the world are desperate for any info on that, so don't hold it back...these days you can go to jail for that kind of thing.

I'm sure you have...and I'm sure neither of you is holding any grudges against Muslim groups, or people becoming Muslims, or Muslims living in your neighbourhoods either.

It looks like the US may be changing its view of "terrorists". Seems they won't be "terrorists" anymore.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/uf-marines_probing.htm

Marine Corps planners are drafting a new strategy for tackling insurgencies in future conflicts. Officials stress that the aim is not to write a war plan for the current conflict Iraq, but rather to generate fresh ideas for countering so-called “irregular” threats in the coming decades. Part of the latest thinking among Marine strategists is the notion that Islamic militant organizations such as Al Qaeda are labeled terrorist organizations when in fact they should be viewed as insurgencies.

In consideration of the fact that "insurgency" previously applied to fighters who were native to, or inside a single country, the US will be considering the insurgency to be global. Which means that the US is acknowledging, rather late, that this is a World War.

<snip>
One could rightly say that the IRA were Catholic terrorists, but they will never make Ireland a theocracy. There are many reasons why this is true, and many of these reasons can be applied to 'Muslim terrorists'.
One could say it, but no amount of repetition will make a falsehood true.
They didn't want a theocracy, they wanted a communist state in the vein of the USSR.

Meh, I can't speak for those kids that join these groups. I'm pretty sure that those that started them though are much more pragmatic characters (afterall, they don't care much for what their own religion says about murder either).
Mulsim terrorists justify their actions with a literal interpretation of passages like these:
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah does not love transgressors. 2:190

And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. 2:191

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and let there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. 2:193

Fighting is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and that you love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not. 2:216

Let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of Allah, - whether he is slain or gets victory – soon shall We give him a reward of great value. 4:74

O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them. 5:51

Fight those who do not believe in Allah … until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. 9:29

Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure. 61:4


(And this is leaving out the Hadith, which are much more explicit in their calls for blood and oppression.)

One thing I am disappointed with is the fact the our long time ally, with whom we currently have a strained relationship with, warned that they were expecting this kind of attack. About a month ago Indonesia issued an alert that they felt there was the likelyhood of an attack but the Australian government shrugged it off as an increased alert as the result of being near the time of the other attacks. Am I the only one who thinks this is something to be angry about? Even after the attacks they're not planning on increasing the terror alert. link (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=X&oi=news&start=1&num=3&q=http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16790577-29277,00.html)

One thing I am disappointed with is the fact the our long time ally, with whom we currently have a strained relationship with, warned that they were expecting this kind of attack. About a month ago Indonesia issued an alert that they felt there was the likelyhood of an attack but the Australian government shrugged it off as an increased alert as the result of being near the time of the other attacks. Am I the only one who thinks this is something to be angry about? I'll try and find a link.

If I recall correctly, there are people who post here who think that Australia listening to the US on anything related to the war on terror is a mistake.

So maybe the Australian government is "coming around" to this new view.

If I recall correctly, there are people who post here who think that Australia listening to the US on anything related to the war on terror is a mistake.

So maybe the Australian government is "coming around" to this new view.

I doubt it, the government is very pro-war on terror. Besides, I don't think a travel warning is exactly what Bush means by war on terror.

I doubt it, the government is very pro-war on terror. Besides, I don't think a travel warning is exactly what Bush means by war on terror.

The poster (I'll have to find that one now...) implied that the current government could not possibly be re-elected.

Yes, a travel warning is part of the war on terror. Either you're listening to intel from the US, or you don't. In this case, it looks very clearly like someone didn't.

Osama Bin Laden comes to mind, Ayman Al-Zawahiri...in Iraq Al-Zaqarwi, in SE-Asia there are a few high-profile people as well.
Write an open letter to them. Set up a conference website so no one has to fear for their life.
Give it a shot, that's all I ask.
I have heard rumors that this has already been tried, at least the part about trying to contact and negotiate with the ostensible leaders of the jihadists. I have no idea what the outcome was of any of these discussions, if they were in fact held.

Many people seem to feel that attempting to negotiate with the jihadists will only serve to grant them credibility.

Many people seem to feel that attempting to negotiate with the jihadists will only serve to grant them credibility.

It's not like the current methods are working all that well.

It's not like the current methods are working all that well.

That's because we're insufficiently ruthless.

The most successful military campaign against militant Islam was run by the Mongols. See the history books for their ability to conquer Iraq, sack Baghdad, and run the Assassins into their graves by the thousands.

COMMENTARY: If the goal of the jihadists isn't to establish a world-wide Caliphate, then explain this type of bombing to me.

It's basic psychological manipulation. When the house across the street gets robbed everyone on the street makes damn sure too lock their doors and windows. When the restaurant across the street gets blown up by suicide bombers, well..... You get the idea. The purpose of low-level bombings like this that purposely target civilians is too create a condition of constant fear in the minds of the average civilian. The effect simply wouldn't be the same if they only targeted military or government facilities.

Events like this are the bare basics of what we commonly call "Terrorism."
For instance if you want to create a whole sale panic among a certain ethnic group, you simply take some of your comrades in arms and enter a house in area that is predominantly that specific ethnic group. You then simply tie up the parents to the chairs, and then you happily gang rape the teenage daughters with as many buddies as you could find along the way, and once you are all done, you light up a bon fire in the middle of the room and throw the girls onto it. If you have any kind of class you will provide popcorn for the parents as they watch this action packed thriller in Technicolor. It was done very successfully in Indonesia not that long ago.

Now, try to imagine what it would be like to live in that area? Anyone up for that?

[QUOTE=EklandNow, try to imagine what it would be like to live in that area? Anyone up for that?[/QUOTE]

Give me control of the military, and plenty of flamethrowers, and I'd be up to the challenge.

To defeat people like this, you have to show that you're far more ruthless and cruel than they are.

Give me control of the military, and plenty of flamethrowers, and I'd be up to the challenge.

To defeat people like this, you have to show that you're far more ruthless and cruel than they are.

In other words destroy everything we claim to stand for...

In other words destroy everything we claim to stand for...

Yes. I don't claim to stand for those things. This is a war of survival - war to the knife.

If you don't understand it, they most certainly do.

In other words destroy everything we claim to stand for...
The only way to combat brutality is with equal or greater brutality. These people by their very nature exploit restraint, mercy, respect for human dignity, etc, etc... They see common morality as weakness. Virtue is the mean of two vices, between the pacifist and the brutal killer is the person willing to do violence in the defense of those that won't. Killing is not a cut and dry issue, nor is the amount that must be done.

Yes war is hell, but it is a necessary hell in this world.

It's basic psychological manipulation. When the house across the street gets robbed everyone on the street makes damn sure too lock their doors and windows. When the restaurant across the street gets blown up by suicide bombers, well..... You get the idea. The purpose of low-level bombings like this that purposely target civilians is too create a condition of constant fear in the minds of the average civilian. The effect simply wouldn't be the same if they only targeted military or government facilities.

Events like this are the bare basics of what we commonly call "Terrorism."
For instance if you want to create a whole sale panic among a certain ethnic group, you simply take some of your comrades in arms and enter a house in area that is predominantly that specific ethnic group. You then simply tie up the parents to the chairs, and then you happily gang rape the teenage daughters with as many buddies as you could find along the way, and once you are all done, you light up a bon fire in the middle of the room and throw the girls onto it. If you have any kind of class you will provide popcorn for the parents as they watch this action packed thriller in Technicolor. It was done very successfully in Indonesia not that long ago.

Now, try to imagine what it would be like to live in that area? Anyone up for that?
Yes, yes. I understand all of that. My question is, to what end is this "psychological manipulation" on the part of the jihadists? What do they hope to gain?

Yes, yes. I understand all of that. My question is, to what end is this "psychological manipulation" on the part of the jihadists? What do they hope to gain?

Given Eklands logic, they want to turn us into a police state and a ruthless avenging force.

And when we attack with such ruthlessness they point and say 'They come to destroy us all! You are with us or with them! Kill the infidel!'.

And so id becomes a world war. The grand crusade, and the spoils are great. And it's what they and Sierra (Legs?) both want I guess.

The only way to combat brutality is with equal or greater brutality. These people by their very nature exploit restraint, mercy, respect for human dignity, etc, etc... They see common morality as weakness. Virtue is the mean of two vices, between the pacifist and the brutal killer is the person willing to do violence in the defense of those that won't. Killing is not a cut and dry issue, nor is the amount that must be done.

Yes war is hell, but it is a necessary hell in this world.
Actually, I think it goes beyond even the simple exploitation of what they see as weaknesses. The general view among jihasists is that "unbelievers" and "infidels" are cursed by Allah and therefore must be either convered by the sword or simply destroyed. I have come to believe that there is no "jealousy" on their part whatsoever.

So what is their ultimate objective in all of this? It seems to me that the jihadists ( and to a lesser degree, most muslims ) seek what they see as their "rightful place" in the world, which translates into "New Caliphate."

The only way to combat brutality is with equal or greater brutality. These people by their very nature exploit restraint, mercy, respect for human dignity, etc, etc... They see common morality as weakness. Virtue is the mean of two vices, between the pacifist and the brutal killer is the person willing to do violence in the defense of those that won't. Killing is not a cut and dry issue, nor is the amount that must be done.

Yes war is hell, but it is a necessary hell in this world.
Actually, I think it goes beyond even the simple exploitation of what they see as weaknesses. The general view among jihasists is that "unbelievers" and "infidels" are cursed by Allah and therefore must be either convered by the sword or simply destroyed. I have come to believe that there is no "jealousy" on their part whatsoever.

So what is their ultimate objective in all of this? It seems to me that the jihadists ( and to a lesser degree, most muslims ) seek what they see as their "rightful place" in the world, which translates into the "New Caliphate."

Give me control of the military, and plenty of flamethrowers, and I'd be up to the challenge.

To defeat people like this, you have to show that you're far more ruthless and cruel than they are.
Ah, terrorism American style? So you want to be "far more ruthless and cruel than they are"? Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Mulsim terrorists justify their actions with a literal interpretation of passages like these:

You know I ..... ahhh forget it.

Personally, I would like a Caliph as well because I know that this Caliph would "excommunicate" these so-called "Muslim" extremists because, quite frankly, suicide, and by extension suicide bombing, is a sin. So is wanton destruction. So is shedding the blood of the innocent.

I know I'd be a hell of a lot happier if people would stop calling these assholes "Muslim". They most certainly are not.

Yes, yes. I understand all of that. My question is, to what end is this "psychological manipulation" on the part of the jihadists? What do they hope to gain?

Firstly, this is nothing new. From the Britons who spiked their hair with lime, painted their bodies, and ran around naked throwing severed heads and swinging swords, to the hordes of Genghis Khan who routinely slaughtered and destroyed everything they encounter, to the Vietcong who skinned American soldiers, hung them from trees and threw salt on their exposed meat so that their screams would wrack the minds of there fellow soldiers. Fear has been intentionally and precisely utilized by many different people to the farthest reaches of history. They do it because it works, specifically for the outnumbered. If they can make an all powerful behemoth look weak and exposed then that makes them more powerful (it also brings in more recruits because they see what one man can do). It also makes the common person less likely to resist their movement out of fear for their own lives.

In short, this is the first vital step in undermining a more powerful foe and subjugating the common man. It's bare naked conquest, just in a form that doesn't involve rampaging hordes and fielded armies. It's the same old game with a modern look.

You know I ..... ahhh forget it.

Personally, I would like a Caliph as well because I know that this Caliph would "excommunicate" these so-called "Muslim" extremists because, quite frankly, suicide, and by extension suicide bombing, is a sin. So is wanton destruction. So is shedding the blood of the innocent.

I know I'd be a hell of a lot happier if people would stop calling these assholes "Muslim". They most certainly are not.

Muslim is a word about as descriptive as Christian.

I usually skip to the part where I can call it militant Islam. And they certainly believe they are Muslim, so who am I to argue with that?

Only a small percentage of Muslims believe in spreading Dar al-Islam by force.

If nothing else, the current crop of jihadists reminds me of Calvinists (who give Christians a bad name).

Actually, I think it goes beyond even the simple exploitation of what they see as weaknesses. The general view among jihasists is that "unbelievers" and "infidels" are cursed by Allah and therefore must be either convered by the sword or simply destroyed. I have come to believe that there is no "jealousy" on their part whatsoever.

So what is their ultimate objective in all of this? It seems to me that the jihadists ( and to a lesser degree, most muslims ) seek what they see as their "rightful place" in the world, which translates into the "New Caliphate."

While the actual writings elude me at the moment, something about two "spheres" comes to mind, one containing all the Muslims, and the other containing everyone else. Their mission is to bring everyone else into the sphere of Islam.

The poster (I'll have to find that one now...) implied that the current government could not possibly be re-elected.

Yes, a travel warning is part of the war on terror. Either you're listening to intel from the US, or you don't. In this case, it looks very clearly like someone didn't.

The warning wasn't from America, America had nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The warning was from Indonesia, which was basically fodded off by the government.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?

THE al-Qaeda master plan to take over the world and turn it into an Islamic state has been revealed for the first time.

For a new book, Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein interviewed top lieutenants of the terrorist network, including the mastermind of many atrocities in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi — al-Qaeda's Second Generation is published only in Arabic, but could be translated into English.

Hussein says al-Qaeda views its struggle as a long-term war with seven distinct phases.

Phase one is the "awakening" in the consciousness of Muslims worldwide following the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks. The aim of the attacks was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby mobilising the radicals.

Phase two is "Opening Eyes", the period we are now in and which should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the "Western conspiracy" aware of the "Islamic community" as al-Qaeda continues to mould its secret battalions ready for battle.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Phase three, "Arising and Standing Up", should last from 2007 to 2010, with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase four, between 2010 and 2013, will see the downfall of hated Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Oil suppliers will be attacked and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared — between 2013 and 2016.

Phase six, from 2016 on, will be a period of "total confrontation". As soon as the caliphate has been declared, the "Islamic army" will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" that has so often been predicted by al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden.

Phase seven, the final stage, is described as "definitive victory".

Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "One-and-a-half billion Muslims", the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war should not last longer than two years.

Well isn't that special. :rolleyes:

And quite frankly that plan is bullshit.

Say by 2016 they have the Caliphate (unlikely). How the hell do they propose to get anything done? First, there are moslem groups that have no liking for the Caliphate (either Sunni or Shia, can't remeber which, either way it's a massive division). Second, they lack sufficient military power to acheive anything. They can either attack Europe or Asia from their proposed Caliphate (OK so they can go for Africa but personally I think they'd find it more trouble than it's worth).

They go into Asia and they are up against India and China, the two biggest, baddest countries in the world. Not to mention the nukes involved.

Europe has armed forces second only to the US in technology and second to none for personnel. And of course, even excluding Russia we have a gigantic arsenal of WMD to toss around if need be.

And that assumes the US won't come into the scrap. Which it most assuredly will.

And quite frankly that plan is bullshit.

Say by 2016 they have the Caliphate (unlikely). How the hell do they propose to get anything done? First, there are moslem groups that have no liking for the Caliphate (either Sunni or Shia, can't remeber which, either way it's a massive division). Second, they lack sufficient military power to acheive anything. They can either attack Europe or Asia from their proposed Caliphate (OK so they can go for Africa but personally I think they'd find it more trouble than it's worth).

They go into Asia and they are up against India and China, the two biggest, baddest countries in the world. Not to mention the nukes involved.

Europe has armed forces second only to the US in technology and second to none for personnel. And of course, even excluding Russia we have a gigantic arsenal of WMD to toss around if need be.

And that assumes the US won't come into the scrap. Which it most assuredly will.


Hey, Bush has a plan, too, and most people say it's bullshit.

Sometimes I believe that the reason that the US dominates the military arena is because the people who attack us are incompetent morons.

Hey, Bush has a plan, too, and most people say it's bullshit.

Sometimes I believe that the reason that the US dominates the military arena is because the people who attack us are incompetent morons.

Bush has a plan? If so it's called 'play right into the bastard's hands'.

And just who should we talk with???
You can't talk with anybody if you have a government in power that's ideologically incapable of negotiating with its enemies. I'd have thought that was obvious.

Bush has a plan? If so it's called 'play right into the bastard's hands'.
I didn't say it was a good one. But it looks like it's better than their plan, on the face of it.

I didn't say it was a good one. But it looks like it's better than their plan, on the face of it.
Assuming that the Jihadist plan that's been cited bears any relation to reality, it would appear to be working just fine so far.

You can't talk with anybody if you have a government in power that's ideologically incapable of negotiating with its enemies. I'd have thought that was obvious.
Very funny. Ha. Ha. :rolleyes:

You know I ..... ahhh forget it.

Personally, I would like a Caliph as well because I know that this Caliph would "excommunicate" these so-called "Muslim" extremists because, quite frankly, suicide, and by extension suicide bombing, is a sin. So is wanton destruction. So is shedding the blood of the innocent.

I know I'd be a hell of a lot happier if people would stop calling these assholes "Muslim". They most certainly are not.

I agree in principle. A central figure to Islam, with moderate beliefs, would be a stabilising force like no other.

Not likely, though.

Very funny. Ha. Ha.
So prove me wrong. What is Bush doing to deal with the problem of politically unaligned fundamentalists Muslim sociopaths besides causing ill feeling by invading countries that don't have anything to do with them?

I agree in principle. A central figure to Islam, with moderate beliefs, would be a stabilising force like no other.

Not likely, though.

Well ... it worked for a long time. A few incidents here and there aside, surely you'll agree that the "nutball" faction in Islam didn't start cropping up until the abolishment of the Caliphate in the early 1900s.

However, I do have some advice for this whole "War on Terror" thing. No need to drop pigs on Mecca, no need to flush Qur'ans ... all you need to do is tell the world's Muslims to go ahead and pick a Caliph.

That would cause so much infighting that the rest of the world would be completely ignored.

So prove me wrong. What is Bush doing to deal with the problem of politically unaligned fundamentalists Muslim sociopaths besides causing ill feeling by invading countries that don't have anything to do with them?

He's sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "La La La La La". Now *that's* good foreign policy!

Well ... it worked for a long time. A few incidents here and there aside, surely you'll agree that the "nutball" faction in Islam didn't start cropping up until the abolishment of the Caliphate in the early 1900s.

However, I do have some advice for this whole "War on Terror" thing. No need to drop pigs on Mecca, no need to flush Qur'ans ... all you need to do is tell the world's Muslims to go ahead and pick a Caliph.

That would cause so much infighting that the rest of the world would be completely ignored.
It would also disrupt the oil supply to the rest of the world, and that will never do.
You're right though: I don't recall any terrorist bombings in London or the States while Iran and Iraq were pounding the shit out of each other.

So prove me wrong. What is Bush doing to deal with the problem of politically unaligned fundamentalists Muslim sociopaths besides causing ill feeling by invading countries that don't have anything to do with them?


It doesn't matter what you do with politically unaligned fundamentalist sociopaths of ANY religion or belief.

They'll get ill feelings in any case. No matter what you do.

Well ... it worked for a long time. A few incidents here and there aside, surely you'll agree that the "nutball" faction in Islam didn't start cropping up until the abolishment of the Caliphate in the early 1900s.

However, I do have some advice for this whole "War on Terror" thing. No need to drop pigs on Mecca, no need to flush Qur'ans ... all you need to do is tell the world's Muslims to go ahead and pick a Caliph.

That would cause so much infighting that the rest of the world would be completely ignored.

So very true.

However...at one stage, wasn't there more than one Caliphate? The Abbasids and Ummayads? (I know I spelt those wrong...)

He's sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "La La La La La". Now *that's* good foreign policy!
I'd noticed.

Sierra: probably, but not to the same extent. This nonsense in Iraq is the best advert there's been for suicide bombings and killing the unbelievers since the last time Egypt tried to invade Israel and got its fingers badly burnt.

I'd noticed.

Sierra: probably, but not to the same extent. This nonsense in Iraq is the best advert there's been for suicide bombings and killing the unbelievers since the last time Egypt tried to invade Israel and got its fingers badly burnt.

It does make for more jihadists, but it only seems to generate ones who can't afford a plane ticket. So they walk to Iraq to fight US soldiers.

Perhaps not an intentional effect, but it's fine for them to be pissed off as long as they can't get here.

It would also disrupt the oil supply to the rest of the world, and that will never do.

Not at all! That's the beauty of it. They'd still have to fund their little infight, so the oil would still get sold to the highest bidder. :D

However...at one stage, wasn't there more than one Caliphate? The Abbasids and Ummayads? (I know I spelt those wrong...)

Sort of .... you can read up on it here:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/umayyad.htm

Not at all! That's the beauty of it. They'd still have to fund their little infight, so the oil would still get sold to the highest bidder. :D
An excellent point, actually. That hadn't occured to me.


Sierra: they will get there sooner or later. Or someone who's already there will do it for them.

Sort of .... you can read up on it here:

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/umayyad.htm

Hmm...so from 979-1031 the Ummayad Caliph of Cordoba was side by side with the Abbasids?

Probably a Shi'a/Sunni thing, right? It would explain why the Abbasids murdered the old Caliph and took the position themselves, if they saw him as holding the position illegitimately.

It doesn't matter what you do with politically unaligned fundamentalist sociopaths of ANY religion or belief.

They'll get ill feelings in any case. No matter what you do.
Exactly, which is why I didn't respond to the post that you did ... I have said repeatedly essentially the same thing you said above. :(

Perhaps not an intentional effect, but it's fine for them to be pissed off as long as they can't get here.

Here... there.... whats the difference? This IS supposed to be a 'global' war is it not?

Exactly, which is why I didn't respond to the post that you did ... I have said repeatedly essentially the same thing you said above. :(
So what were all these terrorist attacks on America from muslim fundamentalists between an embassy getting shot up in the early '80s and a couple of ugly buildings in new York getting knocked over twenty years later? Did I miss them because I wasn't paying attention?

I'm sure you have...and I'm sure neither of you is holding any grudges against Muslim groups, or people becoming Muslims, or Muslims living in your neighbourhoods either.

LOL.

Since when is being against Islamism (which I am)= being against "muslim groups" ? (Which you are hinting at)

Or are you saying that all muslims are naturally islamists?

Astagfirullah !!!

On one hand many muslims say that terrorists are not muslims.

On the other hand you say, that being against terrorism and islamist ideology is being against islam/muslims.

So in your view is being a muslim = being an islamist (which is what I oppose and write mostly about) ?

Here... there.... whats the difference? This IS supposed to be a 'global' war is it not?
It works better for the elected official to keep the global war on the other side of the globe, where it won't affect constituents.

So in your view is being a muslim = being an islamist (which is what I oppose and write mostly about) ?
It probably turns out to be a self fulfilling prophecy a lot of the time, doesn't it?

It works better for the elected official to keep the global war on the other side of the globe, where it won't affect constituents.
Ah... i see :D Out of sight, out of mind eh? ;)

Caliphatists - the word has a nice ring to it. Although it does not capture the essence of islamism, it does capture the main goal of islamists.

Eutrusca, did you come up with the word?

It works better for the elected official to keep the global war on the other side of the globe, where it won't affect constituents.
That seems to be the meaning of Global War in this context:
"People have to die to defend the American way of life. But they ain't going to be Americans. Funny, dark complexioned little fuckers who don't speak English or go to church. They can die to defend America."

Ah... i see :D Out of sight, out of mind eh? ;)

If you are playing chess, and you attack your opponent's side of the board vigorously, he usually has no choice but to use most of his pieces to defend himself - especially if your attack is strong and his defense weak.

Even though there are more terrorists recruited every day, if you can keep up the tempo of operations, eventually the terrorist organization reaches a logistical breakup point. You're killing them faster than they can recruit, train, supply, and transport them.

And conveniently, no one is flying planes into skyscrapers.

Hmm...so from 979-1031 the Ummayad Caliph of Cordoba was side by side with the Abbasids?

Probably a Shi'a/Sunni thing, right? It would explain why the Abbasids murdered the old Caliph and took the position themselves, if they saw him as holding the position illegitimately.

Can you imagine what life must have been like at the time? All that bickering over succession. But, hey, the Crusades brought much of it all into perspective.

Nod, that's the classic Shi'a/Sunni division: succession of the Prophet.

Not sure what it's all about now that there is no Caliph. The divisions now are more tradition and individual thought, so it's a tad more crazy. I may see something in Qur'an one way and use it to feed some homeless folks, but someone else may see the same thing and use it to blow up a bus full of kids.

Sort of like Christianity in the years following the Reformation. Chaotic and strange time, but this too shall pass.

It probably turns out to be a self fulfilling prophecy a lot of the time, doesn't it?
:confused:

Meh. Dunno what you are saying.

I don't agree that all muslims are islamists, however I do think that there is the potential and islamists are working towards that end and ironically much of what Bush's actions and policies are helping the islamists.

If you are playing chess, and you attack your opponent's side of the board vigorously, he usually has no choice but to use most of his pieces to defend himself - especially if your attack is strong and his defense weak.

Sadly for your point, in chess you play one opponent... in life, while you're attacking 'your opponent's side of the board vigorously', one pops up behind you, and gives you one helluva wedgie :D

:confused:

Meh. Dunno what you are saying.

I don't agree that all muslims are islamists, however I do think that there is the potential and islamists are working towards that end and ironically much of what Bush's actions and policies are helping the islamists.
If people with strong religious views are excluded from orthodox political debate, they eventually turn to terrorism in despair: it would seem that the sorts over here who blew people up in London felt that they lived in a country that had been treating its muslim population like shit since the vultures America had sown in the middle east came back to roost in 2001, were barred from even taking place in mosque discussions, and eventually decided, the hell with it.
It isn't a healthy, or even defensible attitude, but you can still see where it came from.

Can you imagine what life must have been like at the time? All that bickering over succession. But, hey, the Crusades brought much of it all into perspective.

Yeah. Even so, the Crusades weren't without a touch of goodness on both sides. I was reading earlier today (i'm writing an essay at the moment on Islam and Democracy, and I got a little sidetracked) about the Saladin/Richard the Lionheart rivalry and found it interesting, to say the least...

Especially the part where Richard's sister and Saladin's brother were almost going to be wed to cement peace, with Jerusalem as the dowry. But of course...it never came about.

Just imagine how much different the world would be now if that had happened.

Nod, that's the classic Shi'a/Sunni division: succession of the Prophet.

Not sure what it's all about now that there is no Caliph. The divisions now are more tradition and individual thought, so it's a tad more crazy. I may see something in Qur'an one way and use it to feed some homeless folks, but someone else may see the same thing and use it to blow up a bus full of kids.

Sort of like Christianity in the years following the Reformation. Chaotic and strange time, but this too shall pass.

Yeah, I always drew a parallel between Protestantism/Catholicism and Shi'a/Sunni.

If people with strong religious views are excluded from orthodox political debate, they eventually turn to terrorism in despair: it would seem that the sorts over here who blew people up in London felt that they lived in a country that had been treating its muslim population like shit since the vultures America had sown in the middle east came back to roost in 2001, were barred from even taking place in mosque discussions, and eventually decided, the hell with it.


LOL.

Jihadis were there in Britain before the Iraq War, mid 90s to be precise. Only that they were doing jihad in other countries - Bosnia and Kashmir, particularly.

Now they are doing it in UK and people go apeshi1t "oh jihadis are here, it must be the iraq war blah blah". Lol....

If it has not been the Iraq war, it would be something else. The global salafi movement has long before reached both the critical mass and the critical momentum to roll on despite what you, the kafir, think and do (like the naive suggestion by one postor to set up web conference with Osama..lol...Osama ain't even the biggest player out there...lol..)

It isn't a healthy, or even defensible attitude, but you can still see where it came from.

I can see clearly where the terrorists are coming from and I intend to put them back there.

Maybe some of them do want a global caliphate (who'd be the leader?), who knows? But to declare that their only goal and motivation is to declare any effort to come to an agreement with them null and void.
Many people seem to feel that attempting to negotiate with the jihadists will only serve to grant them credibility.
Negotiations with them are pointless.

We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.

That's because we're insufficiently ruthless.

The most successful military campaign against militant Islam was run by the Mongols. See the history books for their ability to conquer Iraq, sack Baghdad, and run the Assassins into their graves by the thousands.
Surely you don't honestly think that we should burn their cities to the ground and kill all civilians?

It was the Mongol conquests that caused the middle east to be such a backwards shithole in the first place.

It was the Mongol conquests that caused the middle east to be such a backwards shithole in the first place.

It had already begun its decline into corruption, the suppression of learning, and overt decadence by its rulers at the cost of the general population. It was already a backwards shithole by 1254.

Well, intelligence agencies across the world are desperate for any info on that, so don't hold it back...these days you can go to jail for that kind of thing.
What kind of thing?


I'm sure you have...and I'm sure neither of you is holding any grudges against Muslim groups, or people becoming Muslims, or Muslims living in your neighbourhoods either.
Does it matter if we do or we don't? Read through the link, make your own analysis and if you think we got it wrong- by all means, show us where :rolleyes:

Our analysis, btw, covered the historical and ideological genesis of groups such as the Taleban and the Islamic Jihad.