NationStates Jolt Archive

A rather interesting interview (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1474704.htm) with the infamous Robert Fisk, Osama's favorite reporter (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm) reveals the true degree of his- and his ilk's- willingness to actually understand.

For a start, Fisk is asked about the Bali bombing. The interviewer mentions that Osama bin Laden personally named the Australian peacekeeping operation in East Timor as the motivation behind the first Bali bombing... but of course Fisk known better:

TONY JONES: Let me pull you up there and we'll take the first Bali bombing, for example.

ROBERT FISK: Yes.

TONY JONES: They were in 2002. More than 200 Western tourists and Balinese were killed in those, but they were long before the invasion of Iraq.

ROBERT FISK: Yeah, but they were after Afghanistan, weren't they?

TONY JONES: So there's a problem with the invasion of Afghanistan? The problem is, the problem is that 88 Australians died in the Bali bombings. In one of his rambling justifications for these kind of terrorist acts, Osama bin Laden pointed the finger and said Australians were targeted in Bali because they intervened in East Timor.

ROBERT FISK: Yes. I think the East Timor thing is a lie by Osama bin Laden - I don't think that's what it is about. But, you see, we can go on trying to distance the wickedness done to us from the events on the ground by saying like Tony Blair does, "Oh, it's nothing to do with Iraq. It is evil ideology. They are against our society. They are against our democracy. They are against our freedoms."


Next, Fisk is asked about the recent declaration (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=46) by the spiritual leader of the Jemaah Islamiyah, the very organization that carried out the Bali bombings, about the true motives of his struggle. He said, literally, that "If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam." But yet again, Fisk knows better:

TONY JONES: But Robert, how do you protect Australians against someone like Abu Bakar Bashir -

ROBERT FISK: You keep quoting this guy like he's some kind of philosopher king. He's not.

TONY JONES: But he is to the people who are blowing themselves up, that's the point.

ROBERT FISK: No, he's not. That's the whole point. He's not.

Flat out baseless denial of the bloody obvious. The guy is the "spiritual leader" of the group that carried out the bombings, their chief ideologist- but Fisk is determined to ignore it. It's all about Iraq. It has to be.

And finally, the depth of his denial is laid out in terms most clear:

TONY JONES: He says, "The prophet Mohammed has decreed that Islam must win and the Westerners will be destroyed. If they want to have peace, they will have to accept to be governed by Islam." Now, this man has been teaching large numbers of Indonesian students to think like this.

ROBERT FISK: Yes, but look, if you're going to take and quote so seriously people who have no serious backing [which one of them has no backing? The leader of Al-Qaeda or the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiya?] or philosophical understanding of Islam themselves, and then put them, as you do, quote them now to me and I can quote them back to you.I've met bin Laden three times, I've listened to the real thing. And believe me, it's even more boring than what you're reading now. The fact of the matter is - get rid of these people out of your mind for the moment. They're the guys who are bad, they're the guys who are calling for suicide bombings, yes. But we have to deal with real facts on the ground, and most of them are in the Middle East and we will not do so.

A fascinating logic, isn't it? To deal with the problem of terrorism, we should at all costs forget and ignore the openly declared ideological agenda of those setting off the bombs. Bombs aren't "real facts on the ground", after all. Declarations of religious war on the West aren't "real" either. The real root causes are not the ones the terrorists name, because it's impossible, it doesn't agree with the "progressive" Fisky logic.

The funny thing is that Fisk himself opens his interview with a seemingly desperate desire to know the "why" behind terrorism. But he obviously doesn't want his question answered.

The funny thing is that Fisk himself opens his interview with a seemingly desperate desire to know the "why" behind terrorism. But he obviously doesn't want his question answered.
He's no more dogmatic than the type of people who will only listen to arguments about evil ideologies, only listen to people who call for the killing of every last terrorist, whatever that may constitute.
He's no more wrong than the other side is...the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Yes, there is an ideology behind this that assumes Western society to be evil, and an enemy of Islam. It is our job to show people that this is not the case. Outlawing groups that may have more fundamentalist members, kidnapping and holding "suspects" for years, invasions of Islamic countries - and even laws outlawing the wearing of head scarves are not going to do that.
But if you suddenly managed to remove the entire ideology, you'd nonetheless be left with a political agenda rooted in a century or so of exploitation. And that needs to be adressed too, even if it may hurt certain Western interests in the short term. And even if it offends our feelings about revenge and "not giving in to terrorists".

He's no more dogmatic than the type of people who will only listen to arguments about evil ideologies, only listen to people who call for the killing of every last terrorist, whatever that may constitute.
He's no more wrong than the other side is...the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
So, if Osama bin Laden says that his people blew up tourists in Bali because of the Aussie interference in East Timor, and Fisk says that it isn't so- does the truth lie in the middle, ir is Fisk full of crap?


Yes, there is an ideology behind this that assumes Western society to be evil, and an enemy of Islam. It is our job to show people that this is not the case.
By accepting to be governed by Islam, as demanded by the Jemaah Islamiya?

Because the reason they consider you an enemy of Islam is because you persist in not converting.

It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries to continue the lordship of some men over others and does not extend its message and its declaration of universal freedom within their domain. But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah, which will be a guarantee that they have opened their doors for the preaching of Islam and will not put any obstacle in its way through the power of the state.

This is the character of this religion and this is its function, as it is a declaration of the Lordship of God and the freedom of man from servitude to anyone other than God, for all people.

Sayiid Qutb, the ideological father of Al-Qaeda.

Address that, and we will talk about the rest.

So, if Osama bin Laden says that his people blew up tourists in Bali because of the Aussie interference in East Timor, and Fisk says that it isn't so- does the truth lie in the middle, ir is Fisk full of crap?


The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

See, Osama is the most extreme of the most extreme. Chances are that he is more extreme than the vast majority of his followers. The question isnt what does Osama believe, but what do his followers believe? Without his followers he is nothing. It matters not what Osama says, because he is most likely not going to be a representative sample of the type of people who join these movements. If the people who join these movements are motivated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (to give an example), then it matters not what Osama thinks about East Timor, he wouldnt have foot soldiers if the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was solved. If you eliminate the motivation people have for following such an extremist, the remaining terrorists would be very few and very weak, for terrorist organizations would now be composed of only the most extreme elements.

To give a more concrete example. Suppose I am a young Saudi Arabian who sees the situation in Israel and the occupation of Iraq as great evils perpetrated by the US and allied governments. This stirs up hatred in me and motivates me to join one of these terrorist organizations. Now, I am tapped to participate in a strike motivated by the East Timor situation, which has nothing to do with my individual motivation for joining the terrorist organization, but it doesnt matter because I am serving the cause and I will do it.

Now, take that same Saudi Arabian and remove the Israeli factor and the US occupation of Iraq. Now, I am not filled with hatred by what I see and while the situation in East Timor may cause me concern, it is not enough to motivate me to join an extremist organization.

As you can see, what is ultimately most important isnt what the most extreme elements believe, but what is motivating people to join with these extreme elements.

These most extreme elements are only a threat as long as they are able to recruit others. If they are unable to recruit others because you have solved the fundamental problems that are driving people to join their organizations, then you have effectively removed the power these extremists had. These types of extremists will always exist, the key isnt in making them disappear (which can never happen), the key is in removing their power which comes from their followers. The way to do that is to remove the motivation of the followers.

So, if Osama bin Laden says that his people blew up tourists in Bali because of the Aussie interference in East Timor, and Fisk says that it isn't so- does the truth lie in the middle, ir is Fisk full of crap?
Indeed, Fisk may be talking crap there, just like Bin Laden. That of course doesn't mean he is always wrong - he's spent a lot more time among the people directly affected by this all than we have.
But it should be clear to everyone that Bin Laden doesn't control these groups all around the world. I'm not a specialist in JI, or their "reasons" (which usually are stated to be about stuff like Iraq, Afghanistan - possibly East Timor, rather than an Islamic Caliphate, or the destruction of the West in general). It might be best to ask those that actually did it, not those that could possibly have acted as an inspiration.
Do you analyse the actions of Stalin by reading "Das Kapital"?

By accepting to be governed by Islam, as demanded by the Jemaah Islamiya?
Hey, JI is an organisation I find offensive. But JI also cannot be defeated by the law, or by force. You have to fight a fight like that in people's minds, not in the jungle.

[i]It may happen that the enemies of Islam may consider it expedient not to take any action against Islam, if Islam leaves them alone in their geographical boundaries to continue the lordship of some men over others and does not extend its message and its declaration of universal freedom within their domain. But Islam cannot agree to this unless they submit to its authority by paying Jizyah, which will be a guarantee that they have opened their doors for the preaching of Islam and will not put any obstacle in its way through the power of the state.
First you'll have to define Jizyah, not the way you understand it, but the way an Islamic Sartre, like Qutb, would understand it. I'm not well-versed in Islamic Studies...it really doesn't concern me.
But the fact that this particular guy says that this is all just a means to make the Western world open to Islam, ie not hinder its preaching, is a good sign. I myself do not advocate preventing Islam becoming the predominant religion, if it appeals to more people than Christianity, or Judaism.
It may also be nice to give me a website, so I can check those quotes for context and inform myself.

Sayiid Qutb, the ideological father of Al-Qaeda.
Ideological Father may be a bit far, he was probably one of many that influenced Al-Zawahiri.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

See, Osama is the most extreme of the most extreme. Chances are that he is more extreme than the vast majority of his followers. The question isnt what does Osama believe, but what do his followers believe? Without his followers he is nothing. It matters not what Osama says, because he is most likely not going to be a representative sample of the type of people who join these movements. If the people who join these movements are motivated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (to give an example), then it matters not what Osama thinks about East Timor, he wouldnt have foot soldiers if the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was solved. If you eliminate the motivation people have for following such an extremist, the remaining terrorists would be very few and very weak, for terrorist organizations would now be composed of only the most extreme elements.
Oh for God's sake. The whole point is that YOU ARE GETTING THEIR MOTIVATION WRONG, damn it.

This is not a matter of land, politics or whatever else. The whole thing revolves entirely around religious piety. Just wander into any Muslim forum and pick up the vibes (I recommend Ummah.com, who have recently banned me for exposing the systematic use of neo-Nazi materials on their forum). Sure, they talk a great deal about "oppression", "occupation" and whatever, but the motif that trumps it all is piety.

You still think we're talking about small extremist gangs? We're talking about mass movements, for God's sake. We're talking about the Islamic revival movement that existed in various forms since the fall of the Ottomans and the Mogul empire. We're talking about millions of people who subscribe to the idea that any political system that is not founded on the authority of Allah is Satanic and has to be destroyed. We're talking about people who are educated to believe that "oppression lies in the nakedness of a woman", and liberation lies in wrapping the woman into a burqa whether she wants it or not. Material progress means nothing, cultural advancement means nothing, the values of secular humanism mean nothing. They see your freedom as slavery to your desires, and they see their slavery to their clergy as freedom- and they see it as an obligation to liberate you from being allowed to do whatever you want. With bombs, if that's what it takes.

For God's sake, people, what's with all the cognitive egocentrism and projection thinking? "If I were a young Saudi..." Bullshit. You are not a young Saudi. Were you a young Saudi, you wouldn't be yourself. Your entire way of thinking would have been different from how you think now. Your entire education would have been different. Don't give me the "if I were a young Saudi" when I can go and read what the real Saudis think.

P.S. The last Saudi person I've met, by the way, was a lovely 20 year old girl. We were having a wonderful conversation and laughing until the point when she asked me "What do you think of Mein Kampf? Because I think the guy who wrote it was pretty smart".

Hitler was a genius; however, that does not excuse him being a psycho or crazy - should've kept up painting.

snip


What you say may or may not be correct, but regardless of its correctness or incorrectness, it is a topic for another thread, not this one. In this one you were attempting to show that whatever the most extreme persons in each movement claim as a motivation is the true motivation for all Islamic terrorism and thus Robert Frisk is an idiot for not realizing that. I simply showed that this is not true, what actually matters is what motivates people to join with the most extreme persons, not what the most extreme persons say. In another thread, another time, perhaps we can discuss what motivates Islamic terrorists. But in this thread, Ive already addressed the issue being discussed and my reasoning remains uncontested.

-snip-
I suggest you leave the radical forums behind, sit back and watch the world around you.
Here on these forums we have a number of Muslims, both from the Middle-East and elsewhere. Talk to them about it, but don't try to force your views of Islam as a threatening imperialistic force onto them. Me trying to do the same thing about Israel (and there's plenty of starting points, even you would have to admit that), wouldn't be received very well either.
I have met many Muslims, from all over the place, from Turkey to Iran. My mother herself is heavily involved in bellydancing, and so I grew up among many Muslim men and women. I have not once felt any sort of hostility. I respected the women who preferred to stay veiled with men around, who would only dance in front of women. It's their way of life - it's not my job to interfere.

Islamist groups are radical, they are imperialist. Under current law, this is not enough to declare them "wicked" and outlaw them. Unless groups like Hizbut Tariah (sp?), or people like Sayed Qubt, can be connected to actual crimes, there is no basis for it.
Do you want to outlaw the various radical Jewish groups around, capture their members and keep them in jail for years?
What about the Project for the New American Century?

And finally, the same thing I mentioned to Aryavartha: What are the chances of you actually getting hurt by a terrorist? Even if you lived in Bali, or in a Israeli mall without a fence - statistically speaking you are more likely to get killed in a car crash.
Me, in Brisbane, I'm more afraid of Lightning than of Terrorism. And so I don't share your hysteria, and enthusiasm for cracking down of people who dare to adhere to ideologies I don't agree with.

Hitler was a genius; however, that does not excuse him being a psycho or crazy - should've kept up painting.

Yeah, but Hitler at least had success, short-lived as it was. Bin Laden and his pals in JI only dream of the kind of progress Hitler made for 18 months or so. :p

Indeed, Fisk may be talking crap there, just like Bin Laden.
I can see why Fisk could be talking crap- but why would Bin Laden lie?
It's funny how people keep playing devil's advocate even after the devil disagrees. :rolleyes:


That of course doesn't mean he is always wrong - he's spent a lot more time among the people directly affected by this all than we have.
If he always listened the way his interview shows he did...


But it should be clear to everyone that Bin Laden doesn't control these groups all around the world.
He doesn't have to.


I'm not a specialist in JI, or their "reasons" (which usually are stated to be about stuff like Iraq, Afghanistan - possibly East Timor, rather than an Islamic Caliphate, or the destruction of the West in general).
They usually state both- one is the short term goal, the other long term.


It might be best to ask those that actually did it, not those that could possibly have acted as an inspiration.
Possibly? They are related to the bombers the same way a general is related to a grunt.


Do you analyse the actions of Stalin by reading "Das Kapital"?
You don't???

I originally come from the Soviet Union, my friend. Take my word for it: Stalin was the most loyal Marxist of all. You just need to read Das Kapital without skipping the more ugly pages.


Hey, JI is an organisation I find offensive. But JI also cannot be defeated by the law, or by force. You have to fight a fight like that in people's minds, not in the jungle.
But you cann't fight it in people's minds if you get their intentions completely wrong.


First you'll have to define Jizyah, not the way you understand it, but the way an Islamic Sartre, like Qutb, would understand it. I'm not well-versed in Islamic Studies...it really doesn't concern me.
There is only one definition of Jizyah. Qutb is a purist, his definition is not the least bit different from that laid out in the Qur'an itself.


But the fact that this particular guy says that this is all just a means to make the Western world open to Islam, ie not hinder its preaching, is a good sign. I myself do not advocate preventing Islam becoming the predominant religion, if it appeals to more people than Christianity, or Judaism.
The only reason why I don't call this paragraph downright idiotic is because you evidently haven't read "Milestones" and do not realise the warped sense in which Qutb interprets religious freedom.


It may also be nice to give me a website, so I can check those quotes for context and inform myself.
Here (http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.asp) you go. Pay special attention to chapter 4, "Jihadd in the cause of God". Chapter 8, the one that deals with culture, is missing- for a reason (the contents are downright racist, I've obtained some quotes from that part that simply reek of anti-Semitism).


Ideological Father may be a bit far, he was probably one of many that influenced Al-Zawahiri.
Zawahiri, bin Laden, Zarkawi, Abdullah Azzam- the whole bunch of them. Of course, there were other influences on Al-Qaeda- Wahhabism, the Taleban, the Deobandi- but Qutb is primary. You'll see when you read it.

What you say may or may not be correct, but regardless of its correctness or incorrectness, it is a topic for another thread, not this one. In this one you were attempting to show that whatever the most extreme persons in each movement claim as a motivation is the true motivation for all Islamic terrorism and thus Robert Frisk is an idiot for not realizing that. I simply showed that this is not true, what actually matters is what motivates people to join with the most extreme persons, not what the most extreme persons say. In another thread, another time, perhaps we can discuss what motivates Islamic terrorists. But in this thread, Ive already addressed the issue being discussed and my reasoning remains uncontested.
In this case I question your reading comprehension. What I was demonstrating is the amazing unwillingness to listen that Fisk- and now you- have demonstrated.

"The most extreme persons in each movement"? WTF? You mean bin Laden is not representative of Al-Qaeda or something? Besides, the most extreme persons happen to be the ones doing the terrorism. If you want to learn about what motivates terrorists- who, pray tell, should you ask? The moderates?

I can see why Fisk could be talking crap- but why would Bin Laden lie?
Because Bin Laden doesn't know anymore about the motivations of the bombers in Bali than Fisk does.

Possibly? They are related to the bombers the same way a general is related to a grunt.
Except that a grunt gets orders from his general, while in this case it is a franchise. Zarqawi for example has completely removed himself from Bin Laden, going down a completely different road.
You're oversimplifying when you assume all terrorists, of all levels of this "organisation", think the same way.

You don't???

I originally come from the Soviet Union, my friend. Take my word for it: Stalin was the most loyal Marxist of all. You just need to read Das Kapital without skipping the more ugly pages.
I happened to read it and the Communist Manifesto, both in German, without the ugly translation bits. It didn't say anything about genocide, nor about dictators killing off ethnic groups, nor about nations fighting wars against other nations.

But you cann't fight it in people's minds if you get their intentions completely wrong.
Okay, so what do you propose, if all Muslims happen to be of the opinion that Western existence (or in your case, Judaism) is wrong.
How does that change the approach?

There is only one definition of Jizyah. Qutb is a purist, his definition is not the least bit different from that laid out in the Qur'an itself.
Okay, so we need to pay a tax to them. Big deal, we can afford it.

The only reason why I don't call this paragraph downright idiotic is because you evidently haven't read "Milestones" and do not realise the warped sense in which Qutb interprets religious freedom.
As far as I can see, he supports that no religion can be imposed on people by force - only that things that prevent people from accepting Islam should be abolished.
This, in his view, happens to include things like "theocracies", but also secular laws.
I obviously don't agree there. But I am aware that the man is a radical (as there is radicals from all faiths and movements), and that the vast majority of Muslims do not follow these ideas. An internet forum full of angry teens trying to provoke their parents and rebel against the way they live is not a representative sample.
His ideology is one of anarcho-Islamism (hehehe) - and so really shouldn't concern any of us. Unless you're worried that it could actually work, that is.

Zawahiri, bin Laden, Zarkawi, Abdullah Azzam- the whole bunch of them. Of course, there were other influences on Al-Qaeda- Wahhabism, the Taleban, the Deobandi- but Qutb is primary. You'll see when you read it.
Zarqawi doesn't have an ideology. The man is a pragmatic streetfighter. He doesn't give a shit about religion, he kills Muslims, even though that has been condemned by AQ, and by theorists like Qutb. He's expanding his organisation into other nations around Iraq...to him this is a very worldly struggle to realise a very secular dream - religion is merely a means to an end.
And you know, I don't think any differently of the other big names. You happen to take their rhetoric literally, I however have never met a person to whom religion was that important - and so I assume these people, who act against what their own religion tells them to do, are trying to achieve very much worldly goals.

-snip-

The jist of your argument is (correct me if im wrong) that AQ is not the global web of terrorists lurking behind every pillar box waiting for the word to pounce in the name of Bin Laden. That there are seperate 'cliques' within the overall ideology that pertain to this notion that 'we are all fighting a war against the West... blah blah'. If so i agree.

JI, Ansar al Islam, Hamas, Chechnya, Dagestan, etc etc- these places/groups are not run by BL- sure they might be influenced by Qutb- but so what? They are more likely to be seperate individual groups fighting for many many different reasons, but follow the same handbook... the 'how to wage war against a western power' otherwise known as 'The Basic Ideology' or 'The Base' or... Al Qaeda.

It is not a physical group. It is a handy umbrella term used to fight under. The links between these groups are : their faith, and their tactics. Merely because Bin Laden says 'oh, yep- we claim re4sponsibility for that' doesn't mena he actually did it! And just because the odd one who gets caught (ie the 'smiling' bomber from Bali) says " i did it in the name of Bin Laden" doesn't mean its true- its a nice, easy cover story (that gives that guy international, if fleeting, fame for a while) to make every happy that there is ONE big bogey man out there.... when there might be a whole bunch of groups generally pi$$ed off at various western things, and now have a handy band wagon to jump on.

Do you blame people for being angry? 3,000 people die when the WTC is destroyed. There is an INTERNATIONAL outpouring of grief, sympathy and anger aimed at those who perpetrated it. 30,000 die in Fallujah when the US military go..... world shrugs its shoulders...

Because Bin Laden doesn't know anymore about the motivations of the bombers in Bali than Fisk does.
Right. Now pull my other leg. :rolleyes:


Except that a grunt gets orders from his general, while in this case it is a franchise. Zarqawi for example has completely removed himself from Bin Laden, going down a completely different road.
You're oversimplifying when you assume all terrorists, of all levels of this "organisation", think the same way.
Show me that they don't.

Zarkawi removed himself from bin Laden? When was that?


I happened to read it and the Communist Manifesto, both in German, without the ugly translation bits. It didn't say anything about genocide, nor about dictators killing off ethnic groups, nor about nations fighting wars against other nations.
OF COURSE it did. You shouldn't have skipped those pages.

Not just dictatorship, but an "active" dictatorship. Not just nations fighting wars, but a world war to initiate a world revolution. Concentration of everything and anything in the hands of the state, forced labor ("industrial armies" in Marx's terms), confiscation of property of whoever opposes the regime- it's all there. Hell. Stalin wasn't even brutal enough for a true Marxist. At least he did not propose turning every child into a "productive worker" from age 9, like Marx did in the Geneva congress resolution.

Don't get me started on that one, man :P



Okay, so what do you propose, if all Muslims happen to be of the opinion that Western existence (or in your case, Judaism) is wrong.
How does that change the approach?
I didn't say all Muslims. I am saying that this is the case with the Muslim terrorists and the Caliphatists from Hizb ut-Tahrir and similar parties.

What I propose? A cold war strategy, by and large. Giving up the PC bullshit, for a start. Recognizing that the terrorists aren't a reactive force whose motivations depend on what you do or don't do, but people with an active agenda of their own. Consistently opposing this agenda and exposing it, rather than silencing any mention of it in order not to offend someone. Criminalizing Islamist movements, banning Hizb ut-Tahrir and the likes of them. Fighting the more violent groups by any means avaliable- from armed violence to political and economic containment of the countries in which they managed to take power. Reacting to EVERY attack offensively at least to some degree; restrains isn't going to do much good. Assassination of assorted bin Ladens. You cannot take away their motivation, all you can do is beat them down in order to limit their capabilities to attack.


Okay, so we need to pay a tax to them. Big deal, we can afford it.
So you're willing to live as a dhimmi under Islamic law imposed on you?


As far as I can see, he supports that no religion can be imposed on people by force - only that things that prevent people from accepting Islam should be abolished.
This, in his view, happens to include things like "theocracies", but also secular laws.
I obviously don't agree there. But I am aware that the man is a radical (as there is radicals from all faiths and movements), and that the vast majority of Muslims do not follow these ideas. An internet forum full of angry teens trying to provoke their parents and rebel against the way they live is not a representative sample.
His ideology is one of anarcho-Islamism (hehehe) - and so really shouldn't concern any of us. Unless you're worried that it could actually work, that is.
It's not anarcho-Islamism. Qutb's view boils down to the claim that as long as you do not live under an Islamic system, you are not free, and it is an obligation of Islam to set you free. FIRST, you must be made to live under Islamic law by the means of destroying whatever ideology or political system you currently adhere to (because actively or passively, they prevent you from converting to Islam), THEN you will be allowed to choose if you want to accept Islam or not. If not, it doesn't mean you can set up a non-Islamic society, instead you will live as a dhimmi in the Muslim state. That is the true freedom of choice a-la Qutb:

It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely 'belief'. As we have pointed out, Islam is a declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men. Thus it strives from the beginning to abolish all those systems and governments which are based on the rule of man over men and the servitude of one human being to another. When Islam releases people from this political pressure and presents to them its spiritual message, appealing to their reason, it gives them complete freedom to accept or not to accept its beliefs. However, this freedom does not mean that they can make their desires their gods, or that they can choose to remain in the servitude of other human beings, making some men lords over others. Whatever system is to be established in the world ought to be on the authority of God, deriving its laws from Him alone. Then every individual is free, under the protection of this universal system, to adopt any belief he wishes to adopt. This is the only way in which 'the religion' can be purified for God alone. The word 'religion' includes more than belief; 'religion' actually means a way of life, and in Islam this is based on belief. But in an Islamic system there is room for all kinds of people to follow their own beliefs, while obeying the laws of the country which are themselves based on the Divine authority.


Zarqawi doesn't have an ideology. The man is a pragmatic streetfighter. He doesn't give a shit about religion, he kills Muslims, even though that has been condemned by AQ, and by theorists like Qutb.
What Muslims??? He kills Shias, who are sinful and full of shirk because they worship imams. He kills apostates to the faith.


He's expanding his organisation into other nations around Iraq...
OF COURSE he does. Quoting Qutb again,

.. It is in the very nature of Islam to take initiative for freeing the human beings throughout the earth from servitude to anyone other than God; and so it cannot be restricted within any geographic or racial limits, leaving all mankind on the whole earth in evil, in chaos and in servitude to lords other than God.

to him this is a very worldly struggle to realise a very secular dream - religion is merely a means to an end.
If his struggle was about Iraq, he wouldn't expand his organization into other nations, now would he?


And you know, I don't think any differently of the other big names. You happen to take their rhetoric literally, I however have never met a person to whom religion was that important - and so I assume these people, who act against what their own religion tells them to do, are trying to achieve very much worldly goals.
Why shouldn't I take their rhetorics literally?

The jist of your argument is (correct me if im wrong) that AQ is not the global web of terrorists lurking behind every pillar box waiting for the word to pounce in the name of Bin Laden. That there are seperate 'cliques' within the overall ideology that pertain to this notion that 'we are all fighting a war against the West... blah blah'. If so i agree.

JI, Ansar al Islam, Hamas, Chechnya, Dagestan, etc etc- these places/groups are not run by BL- sure they might be influenced by Qutb- but so what? They are more likely to be seperate individual groups fighting for many many different reasons, but follow the same handbook... the 'how to wage war against a western power' otherwise known as 'The Basic Ideology' or 'The Base' or... Al Qaeda.
But they all derive from the same sources. Damn, I hate repeating all the stuff I have already written so many times. The ideological genesis of all these groups you mention goes down to two main schools of thought- the Middle Eastern Islamism represented by Qutb, Al-Banna and the Wahhabis has spawned Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. The Indian Islamism- that of Sayed Ahmad Khan, the Deobandi and Jamaat E-Islami, has spawned the Taleban and the Jemaah Islamiya. BOTH of these schools trace back to the same philosopher- Maulana Maududi, with his concept of "new Jahiliyyah", which is absolutely central for modern Islamic thought. They are all linked if you look closely enough.

-snip-.

Again, so what if their basic ideological origins are from one or two theorists? You are discounting many many other factors that separate the groups. Yes they could be seen to be linked by following the same train of thought.... but then national circumstances come into play, grievances against national (individual) govts., heck even personal dislike of a particular leader comes into play.

The Indonesian fundamentalists have little in common with Saudi fundamentalists.

Back to the topic on the thread- so what? You could say at least he's a balance to the 'global conspiracy' theorists- "they" are ALL out to get us and such....

Balanced.

The idea that some people actually beleive that god wants them to kill in order to spread the faith by force is so alien to most westerners that they can't beleive it exists except in the minds of a handfull of maniacs. Westerners are more inclined to beleive that money and politics motivates everyone because those are the major reasons for conflict in western culture. Europeans have an even harder time accepting the idea of a religiously motivated war because there are very few militant religious groups operating there. Church stays pretty separate from political power over there.

This blindness to the true motivations of the Al Quaeda type terrorists makes them much more willing, I think, to appease rather than fight. If one thinks his opponent has a legitimate complaint one might compromise. If one knows his opponent only wants to kill many of his people and dominate the rest, one will fight. Look at the response of Spain after 3/11 and the reaction of the US after 9/11. That's the difference in the US point of view and the point of view of many Europeans.

Do you blame people for being angry? 3,000 people die when the WTC is destroyed. There is an INTERNATIONAL outpouring of grief, sympathy and anger aimed at those who perpetrated it. 30,000 die in Fallujah when the US military go..... world shrugs its shoulders...
Yep I blame them for being angry. 30,000 died in Fallujah? I'd like to see some sources backing that number up. Also, the people of Fallujah were warned that the marines were comming in and given a chance to leave. Plus the marines knew for a fact that there were insurgents, including islamist foreign fighters there. On 9/11 the US was attacked with no provocation, and no warning.

Yep I blame them for being angry. 30,000 died in Fallujah? I'd like to see some sources backing that number up. Also, the people of Fallujah were warned that the marines were comming in and given a chance to leave. Plus the marines knew for a fact that there were insurgents, including islamist foreign fighters there. On 9/11 the US was attacked with no provocation, and no warning.

Rats.. meant to equate it 3000 to 3000 (not 30000) :p

Anyway, my point was it is a little hypocritcal of western govts in general to say one thing for one situation and say nothing for the other. Both were tragedies in their own right.

Given a chance to leave? Have you forgotten Katrina already? If the NO citizens couldn't leave (couldn't afford to, had no where else to go etc etc) do you imagine what it was like for citizens of a second world country? its not their fault they were poor.

I wholeheartedly agree there were insurgents there- but not all dead were insurgents.

The embassy bombings alone were warnings. The intel agencies knew something was brewing- it was not without warning.

Westerners are more inclined to beleive that money and politics motivates everyone because those are the major reasons for conflict in western culture. Europeans have an even harder time accepting the idea of a religiously motivated war because there are very few militant religious groups operating there. Church stays pretty separate from political power over there.

No, i believe that politics and national identity DO have SOME part to play along with religion/faith. I think it is a fallacy to merely assume one thing about a group of people based on their faith alone. There are many complex factors in play here- not merely one... religion.

Hard time grasping religiously motivated war?? Move to Northern Ireland mate and i'll show you where your wrong on that!
;)