NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007397

Zawahiri's Lament
What our enemy thinks about Iraq.

Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Ayman al Zawahiri and George W. Bush don't agree on much. But al Qaeda's No. 2 leader and the U.S. President are in accord on one thing: Iraq is the central battlefield.

This is just one of the many insights into the mind of the terrorist braintrust gleaned from an extraordinary document obtained this summer by U.S. forces in Iraq and released yesterday by the White House. It is a 6,000-word letter from Zawahiri, presumably in hiding in Pakistan, to al Qaeda's commander in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

We're glad the Administration made the decision to declassify it. It goes a long way toward letting Americans see what we are up against in Iraq and elsewhere in the world. The letter's full text is up on the Web site of the Director of National Intelligence at http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_english.pdf and for Keru... ;) http://www.dni.gov/letter_in_arabic.pdf .

Those who want a premature U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will now have to explain why that won't play into the hands--and plans--of the enemy. Zawahiri makes it quite clear that al Qaeda's ambitions extend well beyond the borders of any one country. The goal is a fundamentalist Islamic regime that begins in Iraq, extends into the neighboring secular nations of the region, assaults Israel and moves on from there. And yes, he uses the word "caliphate."

But let Zawahiri speak for himself. The jihadists, he writes, "must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal." Plainly said, these boys are in it for the long haul. Just because the U.S. might decide to pull out of Iraq hardly means that al Qaeda will stop trying to kill Americans.
Notwithstanding Zawahiri's chilling language, the good news here is that the tone of the correspondence with his mass murder colleague in Iraq often borders on the desperate. Zawahiri hardly sounds like a commander on the brink of victory. He is clearly worried that the jihadists are losing in Iraq. He devotes a large portion of his letter to a critique of Zarqawi's tactics, counseling him to do more to win "public support" among the Iraqi Shiite majority.

Don't attack mosques, he advises. Don't target ordinary people. "Many of your Muslim admirers amongst common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shi'a," he writes. Such strikes amount to "action that the masses do not understand or approve."

As for the Sunnis, he urges Zarqawi to cast a wider net--an implicit admission that he's worried about Sunnis who have been showing signs of interest in the democratic political process unfolding there. Afghanistan--and the Islamic democracy emerging in that nation--is his worst nightmare. "We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Kandahar alone," he says. "The result was that the Afghan people disengaged themselves from them. Even devout ones took the stance of the spectator and when the invasion came, the emirate collapsed in days, because the people were either passive or hostile."

Zawahiri's also not feeling too peachy about his personal situation. He recounts the death of his "favorite" wife and a daughter after the collapse of their house during an apparent American bombing. He admits to a "real danger" from the Pakistani army, which is pursuing al Qaeda in tribal areas. He mourns the capture of al Qaeda big shots, and oh by the way, he asks Zarqawi to send him $100,000.

The letter is dated July 9, two days after the London subway bombings, of which there is no mention; this suggests that life in a cave, or whatever redoubt in which he is holed up, doesn't include the basic amenity of daily news access. He asks whether the full text of a speech he had sent to al Jazeera was actually broadcast in June.

Amid these lamentations, however, one area emerges about which the terror commander exudes great confidence: the media. The lesson he learned from Vietnam is that "more than half of the battle is taking place on the battlefield of the media." He clearly wants to use the media, in the U.S. and in the Arab world, to induce the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and default a position of strength to al Qaeda.

He actually worries about the possibility that Zarqawi will blow victory on the media battlefield: Toward this end, he gently urges Zarqawi to discontinue his habit of beheading hostages, suggesting that perhaps instead he could just shoot them. "We are in a media race for . . . hearts and minds," he writes.
The long Zawahiri letter is a rough roadmap of the strategic vision for al Qaeda's intentions in Iraq and the global jihad. If it has a familiar ring, that's because George Bush has been warning the world about it for several years.

Interesting comments - especially the bit about hurting their own cause by killing other Muslims (duh).

But for all of y'all who have dismissed the effect/impact of the media in AlQueada's planning... here's your wakeup call.

The media should run stories saying that Al-Qaida is effectively defeated except for a few small factions. Let's see how long that lasts before they figure it out.

I don't mean this seriously of course, but it would be interesting.

Of course, the word has come back from al qaeda that this document is every bit as real as the one relating to Uranium from Niger....which is to say, not at all.

And given that they have never shied away from public statements in the past, I leave it up to you to determine whether or not Bush and Zawahiri really do agree with each other or not.

Of course, the word has come back from al qaeda that this document is every bit as real as the one relating to Uranium from Niger....which is to say, not at all.

And given that they have never shied away from public statements in the past, I leave it up to you to determine whether or not Bush and Zawahiri really do agree with each other or not.


In light of "uranium from Niger" we have this late breaking news:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072004.shtml

The grand jury hearing testimony from Rove, Judith Miller, and others may not be investigating what the press thinks. The Washington Post’s Walter Pincus and the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof have failed to respond to Joseph Wilson’s backtracking from their year earlier interview-based stories about how Wilson had supposedly discovered the Administration had relied on a patently fake document to justify the war, and ignored his report warning them it was fake. This failure reveals their lack of concern for the public’s right to know the truth—that they’d been snookered into making these sensational charges.

But Bob Somerby, editor of the liberal blog Daily Howler, expressed his outrage at the hoax, observing that the Democrats deserved what they got for promoting a fabulist with wild and sensational claims, simply because he, like they, wanted to win the election.

In our view, Wilson’s letters to the Committee and the Post are fake, evasive, insincere, misleading. Correctly, Getler burned Wilson’s Straw Men in his ombudsman column, and similar Straw Men littered the letter Wilson sent to the Committee itself. But here is the most amazing thing Wilson says in his “rebuttal” to the Committee. Take a seat. Strap yourselves in. Try to believe that he said it:

WILSON (letter to the Intelligence Committee): My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself “a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa’s suspected link to Iraq’s nonconventional weapons programs.”...I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.

Amazing, isn’t it? I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa! What has the last year been about if Wilson didn’t claim to debunk Bush’s claim? (Think hard—we know you’ll come up with something.) Let’s compare two important statements—Bush’s famous 16 words, and Wilson’s amazing new admission:

BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

WILSON: I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

This is what we’ve always told you—Wilson had no way of knowing if the 16-word statement was right or wrong. He had no way to debunk it! But throughout his thrilling and best-selling book, he calls this statement a “lie-lie-lie-lie,” over and over and over again. But then, grinding overstatement like that has been the problem with Wilson all along (as the three senators correctly note).

The media should run stories saying that Al-Qaida is effectively defeated except for a few small factions. Let's see how long that lasts before they figure it out.Once in a while...The US media should run stories about Fake letters from Al-Quaeda "Number2" or "number3" ...letters or Audio tapes that the US "intelligence" can fabricate (No Video tapes)... :D

Also once in a while...when we actually get to kill someone we are positive is from Al-Queda...We should tell the media that we killed the Number 2...or the number 3....even if he was just the Guy in charge of the Water cooler
:D:cool: :D :D

Of course, the word has come back from al qaeda that this document is every bit as real as the one relating to Uranium from Niger....which is to say, not at all.

And given that they have never shied away from public statements in the past, I leave it up to you to determine whether or not Bush and Zawahiri really do agree with each other or not.
Actually, I think the "Bush & Zawahiri" comment is primarily wishful thinking/projection on the part of WSJ, but the document itself does not seem to be the fabrication of a US agency wanting us to look good...

Maybe you could source your "word back from al-qaeda"?

Errr, the last year has been about employees of the White House blowing a CIA operative's cover over the fiasco.

Teh fact that Wilson only ever debunked one SPECIFIC claim rather than the entire possibility of Iraq seeking yellowcake is immaterial.

Especially given that it was thatvery same ONE SPECIFIC claim that Bush used in the state of the union address.....

Actually, I think the "Bush & Zawahiri" comment is primarily wishful thinking/projection on the part of WSJ, but the document itself does not seem to be the fabrication of a US agency wanting us to look good...

Maybe you could source your "word back from al-qaeda"?

Certainly (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/wl_nm/iraq_qaeda_letter_dc_2;_ylt=Apbl.aXLC9LVb.LI7ZfWWtIwuecA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)


- Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq on Thursday rejected as a fabrication a letter by top group leader Ayman al-Zawahri which was issued by U.S. officials this week, according to an Internet posting.


"We in Al Qaeda Organization announce that there is no truth to these claims, which are only based on the imagination of the politicians of the Black (White) House and their slaves," the group said in a statement posted on an Islamist Web site.

According to the letter, released this week by U.S. intelligence officials, al Qaeda's second in command Zawahri urged the group's leader in Iraq to prepare for an Islamic government to take over the country when U.S. forces leave. He said brutal tactics risked alienating Muslims.

"This is proof of the obvious bankruptcy plaguing the infidels' camp," said the statement signed by the group's spokesman in Iraq.

"All of this is in a letter attributed to our Mujahid sheikh...and naturally we do not know how and where this letter is to have been found," it added.

U.S. officials said the July 9 letter, addressed to Iraq's al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was obtained during counter-terrorism operations in Iraq.

The letter, which appeared to show divisions between Zarqawi and al Qaeda's top leaders, was released days before Iraqis were to vote in a referendum on a new constitution in which U.S. authorities hope for a large turnout among Sunni Muslim Arabs.

Many Sunni Arabs oppose Saturday's referendum, however, and some experts believe Zarqawi declared war on Iraq's majority Shi'ite population last month to curry favor among the disaffected.

The Zawahri letter warned Zarqawi the killing of Shi'ite civilians and hostages risked alienating Sunnis at a time when al Qaeda in Iraq should be seeking popular support for a new religious state.


It is being pretty widely reported.

Errr, the last year has been about employees of the White House blowing a CIA operative's cover over the fiasco.

Teh fact that Wilson only ever debunked one SPECIFIC claim rather than the entire possibility of Iraq seeking yellowcake is immaterial.

Especially given that it was thatvery same ONE SPECIFIC claim that Bush used in the state of the union address.....

The question I have is:

Why does Judith Miller have emails about Wilson's wife which date to a week or so BEFORE Wilson ever filed his report?

And why isn't the New York Times reporting on this - at all?

If they had a story, and Judith is at the center of it, they would run it, yes?

You can't possibly say that the New York Times is cowed by Bush.

...but the document itself does not seem to be the fabrication of a US agency wanting us to look good...have you ever seen a fake letter from AlQuaeda?

have you ever seen a fake letter from AlQuaeda?

Prove it's fake. Link. And you can't use al-Jazeera, or any Islamic media since they are a party to the conflict. Nor any US media.

The BBC is out, too, since UK forces are involved.

Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Certainly (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051013/wl_nm/iraq_qaeda_letter_dc_2;_ylt=Apbl.aXLC9LVb.LI7ZfWWtIwuecA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

It is being pretty widely reported.
Good - it only goes to prove that al-Qeada really DOESN'T care about the opinions of non-radical Muslims and is all about public brutality and the elimination of the Shiia in Iraq as well as (eliminating) the US.

Either way, "al-qeada in Iraq" has been proven to be rank criminals, NOT "freedom fighters".

Prove it's fake.I cant....because I have never seen a Fake letter from Al-Qaeda... (or a authentic letter)

I have no doubt fake letters are very possible...

Sierra, have you ever seen a Fake letter from Al-Qaeda?

[COLOR="Red"]We should tell the media that we killed the Number 2...or the number 3....even if he was just the Guy in charge of the Water cooler
:D:cool: :D :D

How dare you !!

Abu Farraj Al Libbi was in charge of the photo copier.

It is definitely #3 responsibility.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007397



Interesting comments - especially the bit about hurting their own cause by killing other Muslims (duh).

But for all of y'all who have dismissed the effect/impact of the media in AlQueada's planning... here's your wakeup call.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-10-13T175537Z_01_WRI354641_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-QAEDA-LETTER.xml&archived=False

How dare you !!

Abu Farraj Al Libbi was in charge of the photo copier.

It is definitely #3 responsibility.

HAHAHAHAHAHA ...awww
Good one
:D :D :) :D

BTW...my sincere apologies...I went to hard on you on the other thread...

have you ever seen a fake letter from AlQuaeda?
The language is wrong. Why would we come up with a document that paints any element of al-Qeada in a positive light, as this document does?

The language is wrong. Why would we come up with a document that paints any element of al-Qeada in a positive light, as this document does?


I dunno, because by operating counter to that letter it paints the actual insurgents in a more negative light?


I have no real opinion on this save that the validity of the letter is entirely unprovable, and the fact that after being held "secret" for so long it is being released on the eve of the constitutional referendum in Iraq is highly.... interesting.


Not that BushCo has been known to play politics with terror.... lol.

A bit too late for them to seek support among the Iraqi Shias, after Zarkawi has declared a total war (http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=853) on them.

The language is wrong. Why would we come up with a document that paints any element of al-Qeada in a positive light, as this document does?To give it "some" credibility...

If the letter is made by someone with half-a-brain...(assuming they dont call them "intelligence" agencies for nothing;) )..95% of the letter would be pro AQ...

Only a very few KEY elements would put AQ on a negative light

BTW...my sincere apologies...I went to hard on you on the other thread...

No problems. I am used to..let me just say..simplistic arguments from naive (but well-intentioned and good-hearted) folks.;)

I was one too. Those were the days..*sigh*..

The world is not for such people. The world is for cold-hearted cynics..

Btw, I am sick of fending off both the extreme islamophobists/bushevik types and the "what islamism threat, everything is our fault, they are cuddly little cute things" apologist types.

You guys need to come to terms with the fact that just because Bush's response is faulty and he has hijacked the war on terror by invading Iraq, does not mean that there is no real and serious threat out there.

Ignoring and downplaying the islamist threat, just coz you are against Bush's policies addressing the threat, will get you nowhere. You won't be addressing the real threat and you won't be addressing Bush's policies of response to the threat - because he will always beat the drum.

There is a serious lack of understanding of islamism on both sides and this is what I find most disturbing.

No problems. I am used to..let me just say..simplistic arguments from naive (but well-intentioned and good-hearted) folks.;)

I was one too. Those were the days..*sigh*..

The world is not for such people. The world is for cold-hearted cynics..

Btw, I am sick of fending off both the extreme islamophobists/bushevik types and the "what islamism threat, everything is our fault, they are cuddly little cute things" apologist types.

You guys need to come to terms with the fact that just because Bush's response is faulty and he has hijacked the war on terror by invading Iraq, does not mean that there is no real and serious threat out there.

Ignoring and downplaying the islamist threat, just coz you are against Bush's policies addressing the threat, will get you nowhere. You won't be addressing the real threat and you won't be addressing Bush's policies of response to the threat - because he will always beat the drum.

There is a serious lack of understanding of islamism on both sides and this is what I find most disturbing.


What's wrong with killing them?

What's wrong with killing them?nothing...Just like nothing is wrong with Praying for their deaths...
:rolleyes:

nothing...Just like nothing is wrong with Praying for thir deaths...:rolleyes:

I'm all for rounding up every Muslim in America and putting them in camps for the duration, just like we did the Japanese in WW II.

As for any who resisted, or who on subsequent questioning, appeared to have militant tendencies, I'd have them shot.

I would also be far, far more ruthless in action overseas - and at the same time, I would not remain to occupy a country afterwards.

I would set up a fence with deep moats and automated guns along both borders.

I would use ethnic and religious profiling heavily to screen people coming in and out of the country.

What's wrong with killing them?

Killing who? The Iraqis?

Prior to the invasion, there was no pan-islamism in Iraq. Pan-Arabism, may be.

Get KSA and Pakistan. Until and unless these two epicentres are cleared, there is no real solution to the terrorism problem.

I'm all for rounding up every Muslim in America and putting them in camps for the duration, just like we did the Japanese in WW II.We know you are Sierra...we know you are...:rolleyes:

Killing who? The Iraqis?

Prior to the invasion, there was no pan-islamism in Iraq. Pan-Arabism, may be.

Get KSA and Pakistan. Until and unless these two epicentres are cleared, there is no real solution to the terrorism problem.

I am still astonished that the US ever gave any aid to Pakistan. They seem to have manipulated the US very well over the whole original Afghanistan thing, and the end result is that they got nukes and spread the program all over the place.

We should have invaded Pakistan as part of invading Afghanistan.

Btw, I am sick of fending off both the extreme islamophobists/bushevik types and the "what islamism threat, everything is our fault, they are cuddly little cute things" apologist types.

You guys need to come to terms with the fact that just because Bush's response is faulty and he has hijacked the war on terror by invading Iraq, does not mean that there is no real and serious threat out there.

Ignoring and downplaying the islamist threat, just coz you are against Bush's policies addressing the threat, will get you nowhere. You won't be addressing the real threat and you won't be addressing Bush's policies of response to the threat - because he will always beat the drum.

There is a serious lack of understanding of islamism on both sides and this is what I find most disturbing.
And a big AMEN to that.

You know, this may just be the key problem of the whole crisis. In order to win a confrontation, you have to correctly identify the enemy- but this is where virtually EVERYONE keeps failing. The xenophobes of all shapes and sizes blame it all on Islam itself- but that is self-evident bullshit. There are Islamic societies and Islamic communities in non-Muslim states who obviously do not share the Al-Qaeda's objectives. There are Muslim clerics who openly oppose the Islamists at the risk of their own lives. There is lots of people in the Muslim world who like the Islamists no more than we Westerners do. What use would it be if we treated them all like enemies?

Then there is a horde of lefty appeaceniks who are trying to explain away Islamism as some kind of a social justice movement. I supose it is because we Westerners often desperately want to find something familiar in what is essentially alien. A form of cognitive egocentrism, if you will. Perhaps it is because virtually all terrorist organizations the West had to face until now were either nationalist or Marxist, and rallied around the familiar, and in the eyes of many justifiable, demands for self-determination or social equality. We can imagine sacrificing our lives for these values- for freedom, for equality. We cannot imagine sacrificing our lives for a ridiculous desure for religious supremacy, for the sake of satisfying frustrated collective pride. We are so repulsed by the very idea of it that it seems to us as something contrary to the very human nature.

But the Islamic terrorism is something fundamentally different. If its underlying causes were poverty or lack of self-determination, those would have been the movement's stated goals. But their stated goal is Islamic supremacy, and it is around this goal that thousands of people are rallying. Those who come to the Islamic revivalists/extremists are not coming for bread and butter, they are coming for piety and pride. Yes, this is different, this is alien, this is somewhat beyond understanding for someone brought up in a man centered framework, on values of secular humanism- but is it really so impossible that the people who blow themselves up are not desperate, but full of pride, that they are not fleeing the misery of this world, but dying to bring about a more pious one? Are such motivations alien to the very human nature- or only to the values WE adhere to? Weren't the people of the West willing to kill and die for similar reasons half a dozen centuries ago?

I'm all for rounding up every Muslim in America and putting them in camps for the duration, just like we did the Japanese in WW II.

As for any who resisted, or who on subsequent questioning, appeared to have militant tendencies, I'd have them shot.

I would also be far, far more ruthless in action overseas - and at the same time, I would not remain to occupy a country afterwards.

I would set up a fence with deep moats and automated guns along both borders.

I would use ethnic and religious profiling heavily to screen people coming in and out of the country.

There is no need for that. You will become the monster that you so passionately hate.

We did not defeat Khalistani terrorism by taking your measures. We did what I advocate again and again.

Get the preachers, the trainers, the training infrastructure and facilities, the funders, the recruiters. Make terrorism not a profitable venture.

Believe it or not, terrorism is a business. There IS a conflict economy at work here.

Simply knocking off the idiot jihadi cannon fodder won't end terrorism.

If possible, pleasea read this book, The Knights of falsehood, by K.P.S Gill, the man who defeated Khalistani terrorism.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/nightsoffalsehood/index.html

There is no need for that. You will become the monster that you so passionately hate.

We did not defeat Khalistani terrorism by taking your measures. We did what I advocate again and again.

Get the preachers, the trainers, the training infrastructure and facilities, the funders, the recruiters. Make terrorism not a profitable venture.

Believe it or not, terrorism is a business. There IS a conflict economy at work here.

Simply knocking off the idiot jihadi cannon fodder won't end terrorism.

If possible, pleasea read this book, The Knights of falsehood, by K.P.S Gill, the man who defeated Khalistani terrorism.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/publication/nightsoffalsehood/index.html

Oh, I would be assassinating the preachers, the trainers, bombing the training infrastructure even if it was in the middle of a city, assassinating the funders and recruiters and even the apologists world wide.

I would kill the people who lend them money. Their friends, their neighbors, and their relatives. I would burn their houses to the ground.

<snip>
Btw, I am sick of fending off both the extreme islamophobists/bushevik types and the "what islamism threat, everything is our fault, they are cuddly little cute things" apologist types.

You guys need to come to terms with the fact that just because Bush's response is faulty and he has hijacked the war on terror by invading Iraq, does not mean that there is no real and serious threat out there.

Ignoring and downplaying the islamist threat, just coz you are against Bush's policies addressing the threat, will get you nowhere. You won't be addressing the real threat and you won't be addressing Bush's policies of response to the threat - because he will always beat the drum.

There is a serious lack of understanding of islamism on both sides and this is what I find most disturbing.Agreed. Also anoying is the consistant rejection by Muslims that they can/should have any impact on the bastards blowing themselves up in the name of Islam & "the Caliphate". (i.e. folks like CAIR)

Terrorists are not isolated individuals. Ratting out babybombers should be extoled. If anyone deserved Allah's accolades of Marytr it should be those who might get killed trying to save Islam from the Islamofacists.

Then why did the Kunduz airlift happen?

Known terrorists and taliban elements were allowed by the US to be airlifted from Kunduz.

Added later: the question is addressed to Sierra.

Then there is a horde of lefty appeaceniks who are trying to explain away Islamism as some kind of a social justice movement.

Yes and that's very fascinating for me too. Many lefties in India are very sympathetic to islamist causes and some leftie orgs are even working for islamist objectives. I suspect it is an enemy of my enemy thing / mutual backscratching or even plain greed of money involved.

And thanks for a very good post.

Yes and that's very fascinating for me too. Many lefties in India are very sympathetic to islamist causes and some leftie orgs are even working for islamist objectives. I suspect it is an enemy of my enemy thing / mutual backscratching or even plain greed of money involved.

And thanks for a very good post.
I think it is the same cognitive egocentrism that I was talking about. The lefties are accustomed to view things through either a "Marxist" rich vs. poor narrative, or a "colonial" occupier vs. occupied one. When they are confronted with a popular movement that engages in violence against a society, they seek explanations in the framework of these two narratives. It has to be either poverty or independence. They are simply not ready to accept the concept of the agression of the weak, or recognize that the Western societies are not the only ones capable of imperialism.

When...a popular movement that engages in violence against a society, they seek explanations....When...a popular movement engages in violence against the state(The political power), I do seek explanations...I do want to know why...

when explosions of violence happen...I want to know why.

They just don't happen because its Friday...

When...a popular movement engages in violence against the state(The political power), I do seek explanations...I do want to know why...

when explosions of violence happen...I want to know why.

They just dont happen becuse its friday...
Nice of you to edit out the salient point of the post you quoted. Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

When...a popular movement engages in violence against the state(The political power), I do seek explanations...I do want to know why...

when explosions of violence happen...I want to know why.

They just dont happen becuse its friday...
The trouble with you, OD (:p ) is that you will not accept the true explanation- that the reason for the violence is the supremacist ideology that seeks to create an Islamic empire. You will only accept an easy-to-digest explanation that would say that it's all about poverty or about oppression by the evil white men from the West.

When...a popular movement engages in violence against the state(The political power), I do seek explanations...I do want to know why...

when explosions of violence happen...I want to know why.

They just dont happen becuse its friday...
I really don't think you want to know why, Ocean. I think you want to seek out any scrap of evidence that confirms your predetermined explanation. Kind of like a creationist.

You disregard all data that points to Al Quaeda wanting to topple middle eastern governments by isolating them from Western aid and then destabilizing them from within so a new Caliphate can replace them and use their oil wealth and military power to spread Osama's brand of violent Islam. Instead you want to pin it on the USA and sieze any tiny bit of evidence that fit your world view.

Fascinating read, whether it's authentic or not. Doesn't matter, though, as I don't really give a rat's ass what our enemy thinks.

Neither should ya'll. :)

See, even Keruvalia agrees. Don't worry about what they think, just declare open season on them and kill em' all.

Fascinating read, whether it's authentic or not. Doesn't matter, though, as I don't really give a rat's ass what our enemy thinks.

Neither should ya'll. :)
Well, I DO think that alQeada in Iraq's response is telling... Their denial, both in timbre and content only goes to prove that al-Qeada in Iraq really DOESN'T care about the opinions of non-radical Muslims and is all about public brutality and the elimination of the Shiia in Iraq as well as (eliminating) the US.

Either way, through their response, "al-qeada in Iraq" has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rank criminals, NOT "freedom fighters" and is not worthy of any sort of positive spin from anybody.

I'm glad to know that so many people hold Al-Qaeda's word so strongly. If they say they will spread the fight, it must be true. If they say they will create an islamic empire, it must be true!

Assuming this letter is real, its not possible that this letter is just smoke being blown up their asses, and now ours. Of course not. What is morale? Never heard of it.

I'm glad to know that so many people hold Al-Qaeda's word so strongly. If they say they will spread the fight, it must be true. If they say they will create an islamic empire, it must be true!See above.
Assuming this letter is real, its not possible that this letter is just smoke being blown up their asses, and now ours. Of course not. What is morale? Never heard of it.Gotta be good for morale to ask your troops in a bombed-out cash-poor area for 100,000 'cause you're a bit low on falafel money...:rolleyes:

When...a popular movement engages in violence against the state(The political power), I do seek explanations...I do want to know why...

when explosions of violence happen...I want to know why.

They just don't happen because its Friday...The trouble with you, OD (:p ) is that you will not accept the true explanation- when 19 men...Hijacked 4 Airliners with Carton-Knifes...and committed suicides in order to deliver a deathly message to the American people...

The first thing my Gov said was :

"Its Because they hate our freedoms...we are a Beacon of Democracy and Freedom...and they are just jealous."
...

:confused:

You are right...I will not accept ilogical, biased or stupid explanations .

when 19 men...Hijacked 4 Airliners with Carton-Knifes...and committed suicides in order to deliver a deathly message to the American people...

The first thing my Gov said was :

"Its Because they hate our freedoms...we are a Beacon of Democracy and Freedom...and they are just jealous."
...

:confused:

You are right...I will not accept ilogical, biased or stupid explanations .
So, since you continue to ignore Womble's explanation, please tell us why it illogical, stupid or biased. Given the 9/11 Terrorist's circumstances, neither the marxist Revolutionary nor the Impoverished Victim paradigms apply. What, in your all-knowing opinion, IS a "good" explanation?

when 19 men...Hijacked 4 Airliners with Carton-Knifes...and committed suicides in order to deliver a deathly message to the American people...

The first thing my Gov said was :

"Its Because they hate our freedoms...we are a Beacon of Democracy and Freedom...and they are just jealous."
...

:confused:

You are right...I will not accept ilogical, biased or stupid explanations .

There are very good resources on islamism.

There is a thread in this very same forum which attempts to study and explain islamism.

Strangely enough, I don't see you there.

People want simple answers. Bush gave them. Bush reflects the people he represents, including YOU.

If you want proof the Zarqawi letter is real, why not read the dispatches of Michael Yon? He was imbedded with the 1-24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Infantry Division in Mosul. http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

According to Yon, members of the 1-24th captured the Zarqawi letter.

"Did you know about the letter to Zarqawi?" (Yes, I was in the Deuce Four daily briefing when it was first displayed and read, about a week before the media learned about it. The letter was captured minutes down the road from here.)" "Proximity Delays" (http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/2005/08/proximity-delays.html)

I doubt the letter was fabricated. If it was fabricated, then wouldn't the military have wanted the reporter embedded in the unit to report on it as soon as possible instead of holding off a week?

Michael Yon has made sure his information is correct so far, and I doubt the military could cover up a fabricated letter. They have just as many leaks as the civilians in this country.


Even if you don't agree with the war in Iraq, Michael Yon's blog is very informative, considering he is on the ground in Iraq and not in a news station reading declassified military reports.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007397

Interesting comments - especially the bit about hurting their own cause by killing other Muslims (duh).

But for all of y'all who have dismissed the effect/impact of the media in AlQueada's planning... here's your wakeup call.
I hate to tell you "I told you so," so I won't. :D

There are very good resources on islamism.

There is a thread in this very same forum which attempts to study and explain islamism.

Strangely enough, I don't see you there.

People want simple answers. Bush gave them. Bush reflects the people he represents, including YOU.
Actually, Bush did show some understanding of the problem in his last speech:

The images and experience of September the 11th are unique for Americans. Yet the evil of that morning has reappeared on other days, in other places -- in Mombasa, and Casablanca, and Riyadh, and Jakarta, and Istanbul, and Madrid, and Beslan, and Taba, and Netanya, and Baghdad, and elsewhere. In the past few months, we've seen a new terror offensive with attacks on London, and Sharm el-Sheikh, and a deadly bombing in Bali once again. All these separate images of destruction and suffering that we see on the news can seem like random and isolated acts of madness; innocent men and women and children have died simply because they boarded the wrong train, or worked in the wrong building, or checked into the wrong hotel. Yet while the killers choose their victims indiscriminately, their attacks serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane.

Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

You have to admit that this is closer to the truth than any other public statement from ANYONE so far.

The first thing my Gov said was :

"Its Because they hate our freedoms...we are a Beacon of Democracy and Freedom...and they are just jealous."
You are right...I will not accept ilogical, biased or stupid explanations .
Aside from the word jealous, which should be replaced by homicidal religious fanatics, that sentence is pretty much on the ball.

I'm glad to know that so many people hold Al-Qaeda's word so strongly. If they say they will spread the fight, it must be true. If they say they will create an islamic empire, it must be true!


AQ is not the biggest fish in the pond as it is made out to be.

But seriously, just because there won't be a caliphate happening, does not mean that pan-islamists will not die trying and kill me in the process.

They have managed to spread the fight.

SE Asia, which was a relatively peaceful area, is now becoming increasingly jihadized. Bangladesh is slowly slipping and going the way of Pakistan. The Jemaah Islamiya is still going strong in Indonesia. Southern Thailand is facing an increasingly violent muslim seperatism aided by pan-islamism.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GI24Ae01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GI29Ae01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ14Ak01.html
The Islamic agenda
By Ehsan Ahrari

President George W Bush's speech of October 7 regarding al-Qaeda is not likely to be remembered for its phrasemaking, even though he depicted the "war on terror" as "the central undertaking of this century".

But no one can deny the fact that the US presidency still remains an international bully pulpit: a place to bring various issues to the attention of the international community. Now a global debate is surging on how to deal with al-Qaeda or its various "franchises" from Indonesia to Iraq. The topic of debate includes the very objective of establishing the Islamic caliphate. Such a caliphate is supposed to be established first in a region, then, according to its proponents, would ensue the macro struggle to create a global caliphate. That subject was also an important aspect of Bush's speech.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer made his bid to initiate public debate on transnational terrorism in his region by stating that he would pressure Indonesia to formally ban Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). He may not succeed in that endeavor because, according to one report, Jakarta has pointed out on numerous occasions "that banning Jemaah Islamiyah would in itself be semantically offensive". Since Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, "outlawing a group whose name translate[s] as 'Islamic community' would upset even moderates ..."

As concerned as the Indonesian officials are about the problem of terrorism, they are in no mood to respond to foreign pressure and be "seen as Western lackeys in a country where the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are unpopular".

It is little understood in the West that the JI creates mixed emotions within Indonesia. There is quite a bit of support for the JI's anti-American rhetoric, but not for its sympathies or alleged connections with al-Qaeda.

Its supporters include the leader of the popular Justice and Prosperity party (PKS), Hidayat Nurwahid, whose popularity also stems from the fact that he has a clean image. He now chairs the influential people's consultative assembly, the legislative body responsible for constitutional change in Indonesia. In fact, Nurwahid is questioning whether Islamic extremists should be the focus of investigations related to the most recent terrorist attacks in Bali. He said, "I have valid information that these [terrorist] acts may be related to inter-state [country] competition in the tourism industry." Vice President of Indonesia Jusuf Kalla took somewhat of a mixed stance on the issue of suicide bombings. He called on the religious leaders to condemn suicide bombings, but then proceeded to state, "Suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq are perhaps understandable because there is an 'opponent' there. But here in Indonesia, it makes no sense. Why do they kill their own people, who have done nothing wrong?"

In Central Asia, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is increasingly coming under focus as a party that is determined to establish a caliphate. Even though the HT's goals are very similar to that of al-Qaeda, it has no known linkage with that organization. Second, and this is the most important difference, the HT wants to achieve its objective through peaceful means. According to one recent report, "The group insists that an Islamic world will be delivered, country by country, through proselytizing and capitalizing on popular discontent with the corrupt and sometimes brutal leaders in Central Asia, Russia, the Caucasus and the Middle East."

In other words, the HT believes in the power of persuasion, not the use of Kalashnikov or suicide bombers, to achieve the establishment of a caliphate. That very fact has been creating a major dilemma in Washington as well as in London - where the HT maintains offices - about whether to depict it as a terrorist entity.

The Central Asian specialists in Washington remain divided in their recommendations for the Bush administration toward the HT. The conservatives and neo-conservatives (the two groups are not synonymous) want the US government not to trust the HT's public rhetoric and imminently declare it a terrorist organization. The liberal or neo-liberal groups of experts, on the other hand, are advising a policy of watch and wait.

What is emerging in different regions is a heightened awareness of an "Islamic agenda" and America's reluctance to come to grips with it. Organizations like al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) - which was declared as a terrorist organization by the US in 2000 and in 2001 and Bush officially declared it to be linked with al-Qaeda - may be stealing the limelight through orchestrating terrorist attacks either in Iraq or in Indonesia, Morocco or Uzbekistan. The real challenge (not a threat, and there is a world of difference between these two phrases) to the United States in the long run is likely to come, not from al-Qaeda, but from the HT.

The HT is working very assiduously and systematically in a number of Muslim countries - and especially in Central Asia - to enhance Muslim knowledge and awareness of their religion. Since there is no recognized separation between religion and politics in the Islamic frame of reference, the HT is using all opportunities to insist that the chief cause of Muslim backwardness and downtroddenness stems from the fact that they have neglected the true path of Islam. Only by returning to that true path - ie, by totally committing to Islam and to the ways of the Aslaf (the pious ancestors), it argues, will Muslims regain their past glory.

In essence, the debate in Indonesia and Central Asia - as is also true of the rest of the Muslim countries - is how to regain past glory. Why are Muslims not at the cutting edge of power and upward mobility? In the absence of any other alternate template for regaining the past glory related to the golden age of Islam, returning to the ways of Islam is becoming a generally accepted theme.

There are important tactical differences, however. Al-Qaeda has one recipe to establish the Islamic caliphate, and the HT is offering another. That also might be one of the goals of the PKS of Indonesia, which "also does missionary work, with the aim of gradually persuading people that an Islamic state is the best option". It should be noted, however, the the PKS "has consistently avoided making any pronouncements about the possible imposition of Islamic Sharia law". Such a nuanced stand has confused its critics, who have often accused the party of "being a wolf in sheep's clothing, but others argue there is nothing to worry about because the Indonesian people will never accept the creation of an Islamic state". By the same token, the HT is also confusing its critics.

The challenge for the US is what to make of the call to return to the ways of Islam. Bush may be able to condemn al-Qaeda and its terrorist tactics (as he should), but he is likely to run into problems talking about neutralizing the growing influence of the HT, the PKS, or other similar organizations that are epitomizing the collective Muslim anguish about how to regain the path to glory.

In this sense, the central undertaking of the post-September 11 era may turn out to be not how to conquer al-Qaeda, but how to neutralize the growing effectiveness of Islamist organizations that are resolute in continuing their call of return to Islam as a way of regaining Muslim glory.

See, even Keruvalia agrees. Don't worry about what they think, just declare open season on them and kill em' all.

Well ... Allah did proscribe how to make warfare in Qur'an. You give no quarter. You seek out the enemy, relentlessly, tirelessly, and without fear until one of two things happen:

1] They're all dead.
2] They surrender and ask forgiveness and peaceful terms.

That's it. So, yeah ... I agree. Hunt them down, find them, destroy them. They are the enemy.

I read the news report for the debunking of this "letter" before this thread was even made, hell, I posted the link on the first page.

Whatever it's called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.

This is one of the few things Bush has said throughout his political career that I've actually appreciated.

Well, I DO think that alQeada in Iraq's response is telling...

Yes it is. As a Muslim, from a Muslim perspective, it is telling me that they know they're losing. If you study the letter very carefully, it is an act of desparation rather than a rallying cry.

If it is authentic, then perhaps there is hope that this mess will be over before the end of Bush's Presidency.

I hate to tell you "I told you so," so I won't. :D
Moi? ;)

I know you didn't mean me.... I hope? :confused:

I read the news report for the debunking of this "letter" before this thread was even made, hell, I posted the link on the first page.
Ummm, if a potentially very damaging letter by sayyyy, Karl Rove to George Bush got out and the first thing they said about it was that it was a fake and a tactic by the DNC to discredit them, would you take their protestations at face value? Cause that's what your "news" article does.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ14Ak01.html
Yah. Here's the thing: Assuming the HT & PRK are genuine in their beliefs/methodology I have essentially no problem with them. I firmly believe in winning the battle of ideas. If Islam becomes the dominant Religion because of HT style conversion/prostylization, then they win. It still won't be MY Religion, and I will fight to the death to not be bound by Sharia, but that won't negate the fact that they won "fairly".

Personally, I don't think it will ever happen - but as long as they are not blowing up people, or preaching an ideology of "convert or die", then good for them.

One of the things I find most fascinating and telling is that the "convert or die" crowd is so obviously unswayed by the inherent "believability" of Islam - or the power of Allah - that they simply assume that Islam cannot "win" the battle of ideas/ideals. IMO their very actions put into question their belief in the potency of Allah.

Moi? ;)

I know you didn't mean me.... I hope? :confused:
"You," plural! :P

AQ is not the biggest fish in the pond as it is made out to be.

But seriously, just because there won't be a caliphate happening, does not mean that pan-islamists will not die trying and kill me in the process.

They have managed to spread the fight.


I completely agree. AQ is not as big as the media or govts portray it to be. The are high profile and active- yet the Omagh bombing was the highest profile (and deadliest) bombing in Nothern Ireland for decades- yet the Real/Continuity IRA were not the largest or widely supported group there. In fact they were the smallest and least supported.

It clouds the issue- calling every group that does something 'linked to AQ' gives them media attention for their cause (if they have one) and gives them a very high international profile- great PR to be 'linked' with AQ by the way.

And what specifically does that mean? Financially? Tactically? Leaders? Religion? Cause?!

There is a threat out there- but i'd rather be living in a western country then a Middle Eastern oppressive state- because THATS where the real targets are. Corrupt, decadent, immoral and abusive regimes.

When the stagnant, well educated middle classes with no chance of advancement see the influx of Coca Cola, Nike, Mercedes, Starbucks and McDonalds into their country- and they see their many princes driving in their flash ferrari's and their 5 wives dripping in De Beers diamonds.... they associate that lack of opportunity (rightly or wrongly) with the oppressive stifling of their own regimes, influenced by Western influence and power. Those middle classes become AQ. They are the dangerous ones.

"You," plural! :P
Ah. Then use the proper nomenclature: y'all or all-y'all. :p

Gotta be good for morale to ask your troops in a bombed-out cash-poor area for 100,000 'cause you're a bit low on falafel money...:rolleyes:

What the hell does that have to do with anything I said?

Ah. Then use the proper nomenclature: y'all or all-y'all. :p

If only english had a "Vous"...

What the hell does that have to do with anything I said?
You said:
Assuming this letter is real, its not possible that this letter is just smoke being blown up their asses, and now ours. Of course not. What is morale? Never heard of it.
Since the grammar makes the actual meaning difficult to parse, I assued you were declaring that "if the letter is real, it might be a fluff piece sent to boost the morale of al-Queada in Iraq, and is now being used by the US for morale purposes."

To which I countered (as quoted) because it certainly doesn't read to me like anything that would be particularly morale boosting to the al-Qeada types.

If that is not how you intended it to read, would you like to rewrite it?

You said:

Since the grammar makes the actual meaning difficult to parse, I assued you were declaring that "if the letter is real, it might be a fluff piece sent to boost the morale of al-Queada in Iraq, and is now being used by the US for morale purposes."

To which I countered (as quoted) because it certainly doesn't read to me like anything that would be particularly morale boosting to the al-Qeada types.

If that is not how you intended it to read, would you like to rewrite it?

You got my meaning, but what you said made no sense. You randomly started taking about 100,000 dollars and falafels.

Yah. Here's the thing: Assuming the HT & PRK are genuine in their beliefs/methodology I have essentially no problem with them.

No political party are genuine in their beliefs. :p

I firmly believe in winning the battle of ideas. If Islam becomes the dominant Religion because of HT style conversion/prostylization, then they win. It still won't be MY Religion, and I will fight to the death to not be bound by Sharia, but that won't negate the fact that they won "fairly".

Please visit the Islamism thread. I have posted a lot of articles on HT. Me and Womble were wondering the inexplicable gap in their operations since their inception and the 90s.

HT is a carefully constructed front which will make use of the same freedom of speech and democratic ideals etc that the west offers to undermine democracy and install a caliphate. They have been very careful in not becoming implicated in violent attacks, but my what actually happens is that HT members lay the ground work to get a muslim converted to this idea of caliphate and he then graduates from the HT school to an outright terrorist org.

I believe this is what happened with the London bombings. That is why the UK is cracking down hard on HT.

And HT is non-violent only in western countries. They have been violent in central Asia. Read through the links posted in that thread.

Personally, I don't think it will ever happen - but as long as they are not blowing up people, or preaching an ideology of "convert or die", then good for them.

I don't have that luxury.

HT considers India as part of the Islamic caliphate. They have been known to fund jihadi orgs that have killed Indian civilians. That is enough for me.

One of the things I find most fascinating and telling is that the "convert or die" crowd is so obviously unswayed by the inherent "believability" of Islam - or the power of Allah - that they simply assume that Islam cannot "win" the battle of ideas/ideals. IMO their very actions put into question their belief in the potency of Allah.

Yeah, but you cannot reason with an islamist. It is probably THE MOST toughest thing to do. I have given up hopes of trying to reason with islamists.

They understand only violence. The faster we stop being squeamish and take a decisive action, the better.

You got my meaning, but what you said made no sense. You randomly started taking about 100,000 dollars and falafels.
Not so random, just snarky.

In the text of the letter, al-Zawhari askes al-Zaquari for 100,000 (currency undefined - translated as "dollars") because the al-Qeada home-office coffers are running low. If I were a dirt-poor splodydope ready to blow myself up for the Als, I sure as hell would not me motivated by my boss asking me to help pony up 100 big ones.

The falafel coment was just for effect.

In light of "uranium from Niger" we have this late breaking news:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072004.shtml

The grand jury hearing testimony from Rove, Judith Miller, and others may not be investigating what the press thinks. The Washington Post’s Walter Pincus and the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof have failed to respond to Joseph Wilson’s backtracking from their year earlier interview-based stories about how Wilson had supposedly discovered the Administration had relied on a patently fake document to justify the war, and ignored his report warning them it was fake. This failure reveals their lack of concern for the public’s right to know the truth—that they’d been snookered into making these sensational charges.


That is one of the longest runon sentences I've ever seen. The daily howler really needs to work on its grammar and sentence structure.

And what the hell does 'snookered' mean?

Yeah, but you cannot reason with an islamist. It is probably THE MOST toughest thing to do. I have given up hopes of trying to reason with islamists.

They understand only violence. The faster we stop being squeamish and take a decisive action, the better.

Sounds like you're speaking from experience. When was it you tried to reason with an islamist? Sounds like a fascinating story if you don't mind sharing it.

There are very good resources on islamism.

There is a thread in this very same forum which attempts to study and explain islamism.

Strangely enough, I don't see you there.In my opinion...that thread is full of self-contained Judgments about a religion...Islamism. (Not Christianism)
For every religion out there..there is hundreds of "studies" that "prove" this or that religion is evil...and there is hundreds of other "studies" that "prove" that the same religion is good.

You could literally fill the Jolt servers with copy-pastes of "studies" and "research" and "analysts" papers...going both ways...

Just...do not expect me to part of it...

thanks...for inviting me to the Party...its just that...they do not serve my kind of Beer.

But seriously, just because there won't be a caliphate happening, does not mean that pan-islamists will not die trying and kill me in the process.
Unlike Lightning or a Car Accident, which will leave you alone of course.

War on Lightning! War on unsafe Cars! Maybe not.
But how about a proper War on Disease, Poverty or Famine for a change?

In my opinion...that thread is full of self-contained Judgments about a religion...Islamism. (Not Christianism)
For every religion out there..there is hundreds of "studies" that "prove" this or that religion is evil...and there is hundreds of other "studies" that "prove" that the same religion is good.

You could literally fill the Jolt servers with copy-pastes of "studies" and "research" and "analysts" papers...going both ways...

Just...do not expect me to part of it...
Somebody hasn't read the thread he is talking about:rolleyes:

when 19 men...Hijacked 4 Airliners with Carton-Knifes...and committed suicides in order to deliver a deathly message to the American people...

The first thing my Gov said was :

"Its Because they hate our freedoms...we are a Beacon of Democracy and Freedom...and they are just jealous."
...

:confused:

You are right...I will not accept ilogical, biased or stupid explanations .
Nothing illogical about that statement. In fact, it was perhaps the most true statement made by Bush before his recent speech. If you have read the Islamism thread, as you claim you have done, you would have read what I've written on the Islamist understanding of freedom. They actually do hate it:

Some modern day Muslim scholars and thinkers have been seduced by the concept of freedom due to the relentless barrage from the West to promote their values. Some have even written extensively in an attempt to reconcile Islam with the notion of freedom. There are many methods employed from such endeavours ranging from a rather crude view that Islam created freedom as an idea per se, and the rather more sophisticated, but equally false idea that somehow Islam can adapt to accept foreign ideas that are dominant. What then is the correct understanding of freedom in Islam? Is man free to act as he wishes? Can a Muslim subscribe to any of the freedoms mentioned and be a Muslim in the true sense?

The refutation is that a slave cannot serve two masters. In Islam, a believer’s declaration of faith (shahaada) requires him to submit unconditionally to the laws of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'aala) in all aspects of his life. This coincides harmoniously with the purpose of his life:

مَا أُرِيدُ مِنْهُم مِّن رِّزْقٍ وَمَا أُرِيدُ أَن يُطْعِمُونِ
“I have not created Jinn and mankind but to worship me.” [TMQ 51:57]

Muslims cannot therefore be ‘free’ in any sense of the word if they have sincerely accepted the supremacy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta'aala) to legislate.

P.S. The quote taken off the website of Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Unlike Lightning or a Car Accident, which will leave you alone of course.

War on Lightning! War on unsafe Cars! Maybe not.
But how about a proper War on Disease, Poverty or Famine for a change?

:rolleyes:

Quote these statistics to the 40,000 plus who have been dead to islamic jihad from India alone in just 15 years.

And the million others who live in perpetual terror even now...even at this moment of great natural disaster.

But you won't. You would be doing mental jerkoff with statistics in a secure place in Australia.

:rolleyes:

Quote these statistics to the 40,000 plus who have been dead to islamic jihad from India alone in just 15 years.

And the million others who live in perpetual terror even now...even at this moment of great natural disaster.

But you won't. You would be doing mental jerkoff with statistics in a secure place in Australia.

How about the 40,000 who die in america each year from car accidents, alone?

How about the 40,000 who die in america each year from car accidents, alone?

Clearly, we need to solve that problem.

Let's make WAR on CARS!

Clearly, we need to solve that problem.

Let's make WAR on CARS!

As soon as we give the California Highway Patrol ATGM's and HMG's, I'll sign up post-haste!

Quote these statistics to the 40,000 plus who have been dead to islamic jihad from India alone in just 15 years.

And the million others who live in perpetual terror even now...even at this moment of great natural disaster.

But you won't. You would be doing mental jerkoff with statistics in a secure place in Australia.
Fact is, if we only used half as many resources as we use to try and kill people with different beliefs from ours, we could end Malaria, which kills something like 1.3 million people a year. In 15 years that is 19.5 million people.
I ask you, how much money has the Indian government spent to kill, detain and stop terrorists, and to attack its evil, evil neighbour (of course they never attecked, they are the innocent defenders of civilisation)?
And how much money did they spend to destroy Malaria?

If you say that that money is better spent fighting terrorism, which "only" kills, say 10,000 people (and I'm generous) a year - then it is obvious that you only lead this "evil Islamist" campaign for ideological reasons rather than because you care about people who suffer.

Fact is, if we only used half as many resources as we use to try and kill people with different beliefs from ours, we could end Malaria, which kills something like 1.3 million people a year. In 15 years that is 19.5 million people.Meh. The only thing we need to do to control Malaria is to go back to using DDT. We understand its toxicity better now so we don't have to over-spray and threaten raptor eggs. But DDT=Bad, so people die. It's not for lack of funding, it's for too much Enviornmentalist NGO whining.

nah.. you need those sterile mossies with the glowing gonads!

No political party are genuine in their beliefs. :p

Please visit the Islamism thread. I have posted a lot of articles on HT. Me and Womble were wondering the inexplicable gap in their operations since their inception and the 90s.

HT is a carefully constructed front which will make use of the same freedom of speech and democratic ideals etc that the west offers to undermine democracy and install a caliphate. They have been very careful in not becoming implicated in violent attacks, but my what actually happens is that HT members lay the ground work to get a muslim converted to this idea of caliphate and he then graduates from the HT school to an outright terrorist org.

I believe this is what happened with the London bombings. That is why the UK is cracking down hard on HT.

And HT is non-violent only in western countries. They have been violent in central Asia. Read through the links posted in that thread.Well, in general, I tend to agree with you, but I hope you also understand my point. If there is a truly non-violent sect of Islam that wins converts through the battle of ideas (which could be reasonably considered to be a jihaad in the non-beheading sense) then they are acting as any other religion - which I will still have no time for. But as long as they (A) aren't hurting other people and (B) people are willingly choosing to join them then I am opposed to them inasmuch as I am opposed to any "revealed" religion.
I don't have that luxury. Sure you do. Defend yourself against Violence. Argue against Rhetoric. When the Rhetoric escallates to violence, shoot first.
HT considers India as part of the Islamic caliphate. They have been known to fund jihadi orgs that have killed Indian civilians. That is enough for me.If they fund a criminal/terrorist Org, then they ARE a criminal terrorist Org - and should be dealt with as such. I know that with the built-in concept of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque it is ducedly difficult to really trust any "Islamicist" Org, but until they fund, preach or perform violence, they have as much right to their religious idiocy as the Biblical Literalists waiting for the End Days(tm).
Yeah, but you cannot reason with an islamist. It is probably THE MOST toughest thing to do. I have given up hopes of trying to reason with islamists.As I have given up trying to argue with people who believe that the "Left Behind" series is a prophetic documentary. Lunatics all.
They understand only violence. The faster we stop being squeamish and take a decisive action, the better.No argument here.

Meh. The only thing we need to do to control Malaria is to go back to using DDT. We understand its toxicity better now so we don't have to over-spray and threaten raptor eggs. But DDT=Bad, so people die. It's not for lack of funding, it's for too much Enviornmentalist NGO whining.
That is kind of like the Kyoto argument...research is better.

Do you really think that if you allocated the trillions of dollars that go into this crusade worlwide to killing these diseases, that that wouldn't do the trick?

That is kind of like the Kyoto argument...research is better.

Do you really think that if you allocated the trillions of dollars that go into this crusade worlwide to killing these diseases, that that wouldn't do the trick?

Do you actually think that if we stopped spending any money on stopping terrorism, that it would stop?

Are you proposing that the next time terrorists fly airplanes into a building and kill several thousand people, that we do absolutely nothing?

Clearly, we need to solve that problem.

Let's make WAR on CARS!
Cars are usefull. Believe me, I know. Mine is in the shop and I've taken public transportation to work all week.

Terrorists are useless until dead. Then they make a fine fertilizer or dog food.

That is kind of like the Kyoto argument...research is better.

Do you really think that if you allocated the trillions of dollars that go into this crusade worlwide to killing these diseases, that that wouldn't do the trick?
(A) it's not a Crusade. If it were, we would be indiscriminately killing Moslems as we march to Mecca in order to make it run "knee deep in blood". Most people wouldn't give a rat's ass about Islam if Islamicists weren't killing people right and left worldwide.

(B) Vector diseases don't need trillions of dollars to combat - they need common sense policies implemented by non-radical governments that actually care more about the population than their "cause" or their personal pocketbook.

Do you actually think that if we stopped spending any money on stopping terrorism, that it would stop?

Are you proposing that the next time terrorists fly airplanes into a building and kill several thousand people, that we do absolutely nothing?
Sounds harsh if you say it like that, doesn't it? :D
Fact is that we cannot defeat terrorism. We can't even defeat AQ, cuz that is already splintered. It's like a cancer that we poked a scalpel into - the bits have spread all over the world, the patient is dead.
The idea of creating this caliphate (if that is their motivation) will outlast the lot of us, even if they never realise it, they'll still fight for it.

So here's my war on terror:
1) Quit antagonising average people in the middle east. The more you make policy with which Joe Blow from Beirut disagrees, the more likely it is that the next AQ preacher has a new recruit.

2) Step up the emergency services. As London has shown, good emergency response plans save lives, and plenty of them. Give those response teams more funding too.

3) Foster trade with the middle east (not just in oil!). Free trade is the way cultures meet each other, always has been. The way globalisation is set up now, all Joe Blow in Beirut gets to see is McDonalds, which is probably selling pork too.

4) Fund and support moderate Muslim movements. If the only religious groups available to young men are groups like Hizbut Tariah and even more extreme ones, well, we've seen the results. Target them through religion: Islam is not inherently violent, but unless a strong and decisive moderate voice can be heard, the extremist interpretation prevails.

5) The rest of the money you save is still good for going to Mars and ending World Hunger, HIV, Malaria and Cancer. What's left you can get in tax cuts.

Sounds harsh if you say it like that, doesn't it? :D
Fact is that we cannot defeat terrorism. We can't even defeat AQ, cuz that is already splintered. It's like a cancer that we poked a scalpel into - the bits have spread all over the world, the patient is dead.
The idea of creating this caliphate (if that is their motivation) will outlast the lot of us, even if they never realise it, they'll still fight for it.

So here's my war on terror:
1) Quit antagonising average people in the middle east. The more you make policy with which Joe Blow from Beirut disagrees, the more likely it is that the next AQ preacher has a new recruit.

2) Step up the emergency services. As London has shown, good emergency response plans save lives, and plenty of them. Give those response teams more funding too.

3) Foster trade with the middle east (not just in oil!). Free trade is the way cultures meet each other, always has been. The way globalisation is set up now, all Joe Blow in Beirut gets to see is McDonalds, which is probably selling pork too.

4) Fund and support moderate Muslim movements. If the only religious groups available to young men are groups like Hizbut Tariah and even more extreme ones, well, we've seen the results. Target them through religion: Islam is not inherently violent, but unless a strong and decisive moderate voice can be heard, the extremist interpretation prevails.

5) The rest of the money you save is still good for going to Mars and ending World Hunger, HIV, Malaria and Cancer. What's left you can get in tax cuts.
Now those suggestions I can get into.

Fact is, if we only used half as many resources as we use to try and kill people with different beliefs from ours, we could end Malaria, which kills something like 1.3 million people a year. In 15 years that is 19.5 million people.
I ask you, how much money has the Indian government spent to kill, detain and stop terrorists, and to attack its evil, evil neighbour (of course they never attecked, they are the innocent defenders of civilisation)?
And how much money did they spend to destroy Malaria?

If you say that that money is better spent fighting terrorism, which "only" kills, say 10,000 people (and I'm generous) a year - then it is obvious that you only lead this "evil Islamist" campaign for ideological reasons rather than because you care about people who suffer.

Seeing the trees you are missing the forest.

It is not about the number of deaths alone.

It is much more than that.

If Pakistani terrorism was not responded to by spending on fighting terrorism, the whole of J&K would have been gone as would have Punjab to Khalistani terrorism as would have the North East states to Paki aided seperatists there.

There can be no economical growth in the face of political unstability caused by terrorism.

Without economical growth, in the long run you won't have the money to fight the diseases that you have mentioned.


of course they never attecked, they are the innocent defenders of civilisation

Of course, you ignorant apologist.

1947 - Pakistani raiders armed and aided by Pakistani regulars invade the then independant princely state of J&K.(Operation Gulbarg) The sovereign ruler of J&K accedes to India AFTER which the first Indian soldier sets foot on Kashmir.

1965 - Pakistani commandos infiltrate into Kashmir in an attempt to incite rebellion (Operation Gibraltar). The start of the 1965 war.

1971 - Pakistan army butchers about 3 million Bangladeshis and rapes more than a hundred thousand women (putting Hitler to shame). Indian border states are flooded with 20 million refugees. Pakistani airplanes raid Indian airbases (attempted to replicate Israeli tactics). Start of 1971 war.

late 80s - Pakistan trains, arms and facilitates infiltration of jihadis by providing covering fire in an ongoing terrorist invasion.

1998 - Pakistani regulars and jihadis infiltrate Kargil. Start of 1998 war.

Yes, it maybe hard for you to understand that an obviously weaker party being aggressive. But then, you don't understand many things. Being ignorant and stupid is an inalienable human rights. I won't deny you that.

yeah, more people die of coconuts falling on their head than due to terrorism. Let's make a war on coconuts, because you see, accidents are the same as cold and calculated murder:rolleyes:

Well, in general, I tend to agree with you, but I hope you also understand my point. If there is a truly non-violent sect of Islam that wins converts through the battle of ideas (which could be reasonably considered to be a jihaad in the non-beheading sense) then they are acting as any other religion - which I will still have no time for. But as long as they (A) aren't hurting other people and (B) people are willingly choosing to join them then I am opposed to them inasmuch as I am opposed to any "revealed" religion.

I understand your point as well.

But then HT really considers India as part of islamic caliphate. I CANNOT have Indian citizens who are muslims, buying into this nonsense (99.9999999% won't but the few who do worry me). Because the difference between a peaceful islamist (oxymoron, actually) and a violent islamist is just the act of violence.

Once one buys into this theory that muslims NEED a seperate state/caliphate to be a muslim (which is what islamists aim for), it is just a very small step from there to become violent to attain that objective.

until 1930 - muslims and hindus live peacefully as neighbors. 1930, call for a seperate state is made, peacefully. But what we have now is a violent state bent on doing violent jihad.

I understand your point as well.

But then HT really considers India as part of islamic caliphate. I CANNOT have Indian citizens who are muslims, buying into this nonsense (99.9999999% won't but the few who do worry me). Because the difference between a peaceful islamist (oxymoron, actually) and a violent islamist is just the act of violence.

Once one buys into this theory that muslims NEED a seperate state/caliphate to be a muslim (which is what islamists aim for), it is just a very small step from there to become violent to attain that objective.
As much as I am lothe to admit it, the US has had its share of seperatist extremeists... and we do tend to kill some of them off (Waco, Ruby Ridge) - but we also let most of them fester in their own pot while we ridicule/sue them out of existence (Aryan Nations, Idaho branch). We have our Nathan Hales and we try to arrest them, but we do so only after they commit more than "thought crime".

Perhaps we would operate differently if their numbers/violence were larger, but it would be a sad day for Enlightenment Liberalisim if we do. :(

How about the 40,000 who die in america each year from car accidents, alone?
Much more stringent driving tests and training would do it, as well as using the toll system to actually properly maintain the roads rather than as just another income source.

Actually, Bush did show some understanding of the problem in his last speech:

You have to admit that this is closer to the truth than any other public statement from ANYONE so far.

Bush administration understands it very well.

Bush supporters (Busheviks:p ) don't.

Some of the people in the Bush administration have a very good understanding on the dynamics. Not a surprise since they were involved in the early stages of the current salafi movement.

Christina Rocca, for ex, was the one who was tasked with accounting for all the stingers that US gave to the Afghan jihadis, and she knows very well how the system works.

Sometimes, the presence of so many Afghan veterans in the Bush adminstration, scares me.

Bush administration understands it very well.

Bush supporters (Busheviks:p ) don't.

Some of the people in the Bush administration have a very good understanding on the dynamics. Not a surprise since they were involved in the early stages of the current salafi movement.

Christina Rocca, for ex, was the one who was tasked with accounting for all the stingers that US gave to the Afghan jihadis, and she knows very well how the system works.

Sometimes, the presence of so many Afghan veterans in the Bush adminstration, scares me.

One thing I think that people miss when they say, "oh, drunk drivers kill more people than terrorists" is the following:

Right now, they number in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. Supporters, activists, actual operatives, fundraisers, trainers.

There will be more over time - they are training children in the madrassas to hate.

One day, and it is only a matter of time with nuclear weapons in a place like Pakistan, they will get hold of something like a nuke (or germs).

On that day, millions will die.

Far more than simple car accidents.

Ten years back, we Indians were crying hoarse about terrorism. Nobody cared. It was just a bunch of brown people killing each other over some stupid land due to some stupid religion....

If the taliban had been thwarted then, there would have been no 9/11.

Even after 9/11, we were crying hoarse that Pakis are still harboring training camps. Nobody cared. Surely, the Indians must be biased due to their unreasonable hatred towards the Pakis who try to kill them.:rolleyes:

Guess where the London bombers got training from?

By the very same org that is involved in the jihad in Kashmir and the very same camps that train Pakistani jihadis who infiltrate into Kashmir.

Ah well, some people never learn until they get bombed...

until then let's make war on the coconuts that kill more people..bloody murderous coconuts..:rolleyes:

Ten years back, we Indians were crying hoarse about terrorism. Nobody cared. It was just a bunch of brown people killing each other over some stupid land due to some stupid religion....

If the taliban had been thwarted then, there would have been no 9/11.

Even after 9/11, we were crying hoarse that Pakis are still harboring training camps. Nobody cared. Surely, the Indians must be biased due to their unreasonable hatred towards the Pakis who try to kill them.:rolleyes:

Guess where the London bombers got training from?

By the very same org that is involved in the jihad in Kashmir and the very same camps that train Pakistani jihadis who infiltrate into Kashmir.

Ah well, some people never learn until they get bombed...

until then let's make war on the coconuts that kill more people..bloody murderous coconuts..:rolleyes:


I remember the attack on the Indian parliament building got next to no coverage here in the US.

When Rajiv Gandhi got blown up, there was next to no coverage here.

Like you said, the US doesn't notice until it happens here.

Perhaps we would operate differently if their numbers/violence were larger, but it would be a sad day for Enlightenment Liberalisim if we do. :(

It already is.

This comes back to a topic that I raised some time ago.

If I declare war on you, does it even matter what you think ?

It is already a war, whether you agree with me or not.

The best thing would be in ending the war as decisively and quickly as possible.

This is where I differ with the Bush administration. Instead of going after the fleeing taliban and AQ, they chose to go into Iraq. Iraq had little to do with the pan-islamist movement that needs to be combatted, although NOW it has changed.

It already is.

This comes back to a topic that I raised some time ago.

If I declare war on you, does it even matter what you think ?

It is already a war, whether you agree with me or not.

The best thing would be in ending the war as decisively and quickly as possible.

This is where I differ with the Bush administration. Instead of going after the fleeing taliban and AQ, they chose to go into Iraq. Iraq had little to do with the pan-islamist movement that needs to be combatted, although NOW it has changed.

Arya, too many people here think the war began on 9-11.

They were trying to blow that building up in 1993.

And they were committing terror overseas before that.

They've been coming for a long, long time.

Sounds harsh if you say it like that, doesn't it? :D
Fact is that we cannot defeat terrorism. We can't even defeat AQ, cuz that is already splintered. It's like a cancer that we poked a scalpel into - the bits have spread all over the world, the patient is dead.
The idea of creating this caliphate (if that is their motivation) will outlast the lot of us, even if they never realise it, they'll still fight for it.
You have a wrong idea of what constitutes defeating terrorism.

Of course you cannot eradicate the ideology to the point of not a single person in the world believing in it. Hell, the Nazism is still around. But what we CAN do is deprive them of the capability to wage a war, reduce them to the level of a minor annoyance like the neo-Nazis are today. THAT will mean their defeat.


So here's my war on terror:
1) Quit antagonising average people in the middle east. The more you make policy with which Joe Blow from Beirut disagrees, the more likely it is that the next AQ preacher has a new recruit.
And here again we have an attempt to present Al-Qaeda as a liberation movement.

The Joe Blow who disagrees with American policies will not go to Al-Qaeda. The Joe Blow who will go to Al-Qaeda is the Joe Blow who disagrees with the American sexual depravity and their arrogant refusal to accept the one true faith.

And why, exactly, should Joe Blow from Beirut dictate American policy while simultaneously taking offense when America tries to dictate policy to Beirut?


2) Step up the emergency services. As London has shown, good emergency response plans save lives, and plenty of them. Give those response teams more funding too.
Makes sense in light of the refusal to fight, I suppose. If you're not willing to fight back, you should be prepared to continue to absorb damage one-sidedly, which will require a hell of an emergency service indeed.


3) Foster trade with the middle east (not just in oil!). Free trade is the way cultures meet each other, always has been. The way globalisation is set up now, all Joe Blow in Beirut gets to see is McDonalds, which is probably selling pork too.
Trade in what? What (other than oil) does the Middle East (other than Israel) have for sale?


4) Fund and support moderate Muslim movements.
And make them look like Western proxies and collaborators?


5) The rest of the money you save is still good for going to Mars and ending World Hunger, HIV, Malaria and Cancer. What's left you can get in tax cuts.
Nope. The rest of the money and then some will be consumed by the growing damages from the actions of terrorist organizations, who will continue operating unchallenged and safe from retaliation.

Right now, they number in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions. Supporters, activists, actual operatives, fundraisers, trainers.


Would you provide a source to back up that claim please?

I remember the attack on the Indian parliament building got next to no coverage here in the US.

When Rajiv Gandhi got blown up, there was next to no coverage here.

Like you said, the US doesn't notice until it happens here.

In Dec 99, an Indian airplane in Nepal - IC814 - was hijacked by Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists..by the same method that 9/11 terrorists did.

In exchange for the hostages, the Indian govt released the chief of JeM - Moulana Masood Azhar and Omar Sheikh and Omar Sheikh is the guy who wired $100 K to Mohd. Atta days before 9/11.

Terrorism has globalised. It is freakin time everybody realises that what affect one country will sooner or later will affect you...it is just a matter of time.

Would you provide a source to back up that claim please?
Let's start with the 5,000 in the US... from the Washington Times.

U.S. intelligence agencies are watching several groups of Middle Eastern men thought to be part of an infrastructure of as many as 5,000 al Qaeda terrorists and their supporters in the United States, The Washington Times has learned.

Small groups of about a half-dozen men in Seattle, Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta are under surveillance by FBI and other intelligence agencies and are thought to be part of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, said intelligence officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In one case, five men of Middle Eastern origin rented rooms in Seattle and conducted activities that officials would not specify but called unusual.

"One [intelligence] estimate is that there are up to 5,000 people in the United States connected to al Qaeda," one U.S. intelligence official said.

The 5,000 figure was reported in classified intelligence reports sent to government policy-makers within the past month and is an increase from earlier estimates.

Earlier this year, U.S. government officials put al Qaeda numbers in the United States at more than 100 active members with hundreds of sympathizers.

Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials detected signs of preparations for an attack against a cruise ship in Los Angeles in late May.

Two men were spotted at the Port of Los Angeles World Cruise Center in San Pedro, Calif., about 25 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, U.S. law enforcement officials said.

The men were spotted as they measured the length of the pier near the cruise center by walking off the distance and videotaping the center from the Vincent Thomas Bridge that crosses the main port channel, the officials said.

The men were spotted by a dock worker, who notified authorities. They left the area before being identified or questioned.

Officials said such surveillance activity is an integral part of terrorist planning, although they did not rule out that the men may have had another purpose in being there.

The intelligence and other information prompted the U.S. Coast Guard to issue a warning on June 7 that terrorists were targeting U.S. ports, bays, rivers and shores.

Would you provide a source to back up that claim please?

We could just go to Kashmir and count that many. Or Indonesia. Or South Waziristan. Or Chechnya. Or Yemen. Or Sudan. Or Somalia.

And here again we have an attempt to present Al-Qaeda as a liberation movement.


It doesn't matter how WE perceive Al Qaeda- its how 'Joe Blow' does. If he perceives them as a lberator force- then he'll go to them. If he sees them as a fringe minority (which they are- they are just high profile) then he won't go to them.

Terrorism has globalised. It is freakin time everybody realises that what affect one country will sooner or later will affect you...it is just a matter of time.

A lot of countries HAVE been living with terrorism for decades- as you pointed out Pakistan/India, Spain, Northern Ireland, Colombia, Russia, France (Corsica) etc etc. It is only when something affects the United States that 'Something must be done!'
:mad:

I remember the attack on the Indian parliament building got next to no coverage here in the US.

When Rajiv Gandhi got blown up, there was next to no coverage here.

Like you said, the US doesn't notice until it happens here.

It's just kind of hard sometimes to care about what's happening halfway around the world, in a place where we've never set foot. Maybe one can care on a theoretical level, but in terms of real pragmatic thought and action what's happening in Kashmir and India is not something I personally feel that I have control over.

We could just go to Kashmir and count that many. Or Indonesia. Or South Waziristan. Or Chechnya. Or Yemen. Or Sudan. Or Somalia.

You DID make the distinction between Al Qaeda members and people who sympathise/support with them didn't you...? Because there is a big difference between the training camps on Afghanistan and a person in say, Canada for instance, who identifies and sympathises with them. They're not the same.

Hence my dubiousness regarding your 'millions of Al Qaeda' statement.

Perhaps we would operate differently if their numbers/violence were larger, but it would be a sad day for Enlightenment Liberalisim if we do. :(
The brilliant book, the link to which Aryavartha has posted yesterday, has something to say on the matter:

Democracy and liberalism are not a sufficient defence and this is a fact that the ideologues of ‘freedom’ need, equally, to comprehend. There is a fatal flaw in the liberal mind. Having established, in structure and form [though seldom in substance], a system of governance that corresponds to its conception of democracy, it feels that nothing more needs to be done. The ‘Truths’ of the liberal ideology are, as the American Declaration on the Rights of Man expresses it, ‘Self Evident’. They require no proof, no reiteration, and no defence - certainly no defence by force of arms. Once democracy [or even the ritual of quinquinneal elections] is established, according to liberal mythology, the mystical ‘invisible hand’ keeps everything in place; the ‘superior wisdom of the masses’ ensures order and justice.

This is just so much rubbish. As we should know after living with falsehoods for fifty years now. Truth does not triumph; unless it has champions to propound it, unless it has armies to defend it.

But while the ideologues of ‘freedom’ wrap themselves up in complacent superiority, irrational cults are actively, and passionately, advocated; virulent doctrines are insidiously planted in the pervasive confusion, both among the young who find the opportunities of the world inadequate to meet their expectations, and among the old who mourn the disintegration of familiar values and institutions. Democracy is an imperfect institution; it has numerous flaws, and perhaps only a single virtue - all its alternatives are manifestly worse. But the disparities, the injustices, even the monumental inefficiency and corruption that democratic systems tolerate and appear to breed are more than adequate, ifselectively highlighted and skilfully manipulated, to create an immense reservoir of frustration; if the subjective sense of deprivation or of discrimination within a community - irrespective of realities - can be sufficiently heightened, it is not difficult to convince the susceptible that violence offers the only solution; and that the indiscriminate violence of terrorism is the most efficient of the available options.

You DID make the distinction between Al Qaeda members and people who sympathise/support with them didn't you...? Because there is a big difference between the training camps on Afghanistan and a person in say, Canada for instance, who identifies and sympathises with them. They're not the same.

Hence my dubiousness regarding your 'millions of Al Qaeda' statement.

Like Arya, I don't like to make the distinction - to me they are all cooperating to the same end - the violent spread of Dar al-Islam.

Like Arya, I don't like to make the distinction - to me they are all cooperating to the same end - the violent spread of Dar al-Islam.

Riiight... so the individual who goes about their daily business, shopping, cleaning, picking the kids up from school and who privatley sympathises with Al Qaeda in their mind- deserves the same punishment as those who attempt to blow up a niteclub.....

Ok, thoughtpolice it is then! :p

It doesn't matter how WE perceive Al Qaeda- its how 'Joe Blow' does. If he perceives them as a lberator force- then he'll go to them. If he sees them as a fringe minority (which they are- they are just high profile) then he won't go to them.
Why would an aggrieved person go for support to a movement that does not promise to satisfy his grievances? Why would people aggrieved by poverty or lack of freedom go for support to an organization that promises them neither freedom nor prosperity?


A lot of countries HAVE been living with terrorism for decades- as you pointed out Pakistan/India, Spain, Northern Ireland, Colombia, Russia, France (Corsica) etc etc. It is only when something affects the United States that 'Something must be done!'
:mad:
You are falling into the classic "all terrorists are the same" trap. They are not. The IRA terrorism was a qualitatively different phenomena from the present day Islamist terrorism.

Riiight... so the individual who goes about their daily business, shopping, cleaning, picking the kids up from school and who privatley sympathises with Al Qaeda in their mind- deserves the same punishment as those who attempt to blow up a niteclub.....

Ok, thoughtpolice it is then! :p

No, members of the various Kashmiri militant groups, members of the Wahabbi madrassas in Pakistan, the al-Q and Taliban hiding in South Waziristan, the Bali bombers, and the Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines - they all hold the same goal by the same means.

Not every Muslim - nor every sympathizer who merely thinks the thoughts.

Why would an aggrieved person go for support to a movement that does not promise to satisfy his grievances? Why would people aggrieved by poverty or lack of freedom go for support to an organization that promises them neither freedom nor prosperity?


Because they are uneducated, aggrieved and looking for someone to blame--- Al Qaeda tells them who is to blame and who will fix it. Then US troops go wading through his town- he begins to see them as invaders and he believes AQ is right.


You are falling into the classic "all terrorists are the same" trap. They are not. The IRA terrorism was a qualitatively different phenomena from the present day Islamist terrorism.

Oh no, no. I'm not- trust me. its the 'your either with us or against us' mentality. This isn't the War on Islamic Terror, or the War on Terrorists who hate our Freedoms, this is the War on Terror- period.

They are now (in this modern geopolitical gambit) all the same. Terrorist = Terrorist = must be dealt with the same way as the others. Otherwise it makes you look weak, negotiating with certain groups because they have more palpable goals.

I know they're different- but to the wounded elephant that is the US right now- a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist- and shoot first ask questions later. We've BEEN living with this for decades- welcome to the party, better late then never ;)

No, members of the various Kashmiri militant groups, members of the Wahabbi madrassas in Pakistan, the al-Q and Taliban hiding in South Waziristan, the Bali bombers, and the Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipines - they all hold the same goal by the same means.

Not every Muslim - nor every sympathizer who merely thinks the thoughts.

So you DID make the disctintion then...:D ;)

Thats all i wanted to hear.

So you DID make the disctintion then...:D ;)

Thats all i wanted to hear.

There are still plenty to be killed.

Because they are uneducated, aggrieved and looking for someone to blame--- Al Qaeda tells them who is to blame and who will fix it. Then US troops go wading through his town- he begins to see them as invaders and he believes AQ is right.
And then Joe Blow suddenly subscribes to the Caliphate ideology?

Give me a break with the projection thinking.


Oh no, no. I'm not- trust me. its the 'your either with us or against us' mentality. This isn't the War on Islamic Terror, or the War on Terrorists who hate our Freedoms, this is the War on Terror- period.

They are now (in this modern geopolitical gambit) all the same. Terrorist = Terrorist = must be dealt with the same way as the others. Otherwise it makes you look weak, negotiating with certain groups because they have more palpable goals.

I know they're different- but to the wounded elephant that is the US right now- a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist- and shoot first ask questions later. We've BEEN living with this for decades- welcome to the party, better late then never ;)
On the contrary. It appears to me that it is the PC crowd who demands to make it a war on ALL terrorists. The US, very clearly, focuses on the Islamic terrorism, but is forced to pay the verbal tax to the whiner crowd who keeps demanding that the US either fights them all or none of them.

It already is.

This comes back to a topic that I raised some time ago.

If I declare war on you, does it even matter what you think ?

It is already a war, whether you agree with me or not.

The best thing would be in ending the war as decisively and quickly as possible. Which is why they have chosen the terrorist route - i.e. hiding behind women and children. The only way to "end it decisively" is to "kill them all", but when "them all" includes, by definition and design, people not actually involved in the violence, you run into thre catch-22 of do we or do we not advocate genocide to prevent genocide?
This is where I differ with the Bush administration. Instead of going after the fleeing taliban and AQ, they chose to go into Iraq. Iraq had little to do with the pan-islamist movement that needs to be combatted, although NOW it has changed.
Oh I agree. I thought we should have been marching on Fahd's palace in Saudi, not playing in the Iraqi sandbox.

And then Joe Blow suddenly subscribes to the Caliphate ideology?

Give me a break with the projection thinking.

Caliphate ideology? I never said or alluded to that at all. I don't believe there is a single org called AQ- therefore that theory doesn't wash with me. Bin Laden might perscribe to that ideology- but i doubt the dozens of groups 'linked' to him do.

You appear to be jumping to that assumption/ projection thinking that everyone who has the phrase ....linked to Al Qaeda.... is involved in a Caliphate ideology.


On the contrary. It appears to me that it is the PC crowd who demands to make it a war on ALL terrorists. The US, very clearly, focuses on the Islamic terrorism, but is forced to pay the verbal tax to the whiner crowd who keeps demanding that the US either fights them all or none of them.

Hey, the 'PC' crowd didn't coin the phrase 'War on Terror', George Bush did ok? Blame him not them. Call it a Crusade, War against Fundamentalism, Death to Islam... whatever floats your boat- doesn't make a difference to me- i've still being living in a place where terrorism existed before this Global War took off and the US govt finally decided enough was enough.

We have a problem here.

What is islam and who is a muslim?

What is islamism and who is an islamist?

What are the boundaries between islam and islamism?

These are questions to be pondered.

Some here would like to say it is islam = islamism and that all muslims need to be targetted. This is a ridiculous and even counterproductive view (when fighting islamism) and this is unfortunately gaining currency.

Others here are pretending that islamism does not exist or that it is not a threat (malaria is a bigger threat and cars kill more people..:rolleyes: ) which also contributes to pushing more people towards the former view.

Needless to say, both are wrong, and while both of these fight, islamism grows into an increasingly bigger threat..

The brilliant book, the link to which Aryavartha has posted yesterday, has something to say on the matter:

People who are interested in how terrorism works and how to combat it, SHOULD read that book by K.P.S Gill.

It is an excellent account by the man who defeated Khalistani terrorism (Sikh seperatism in Indian Punjab) in a decisive way. It is one of the very few terrorist movements to have been defeated comprehensively in history.

Which is why they have chosen the terrorist route - i.e. hiding behind women and children. The only way to "end it decisively" is to "kill them all", but when "them all" includes, by definition and design, people not actually involved in the violence, you run into thre catch-22 of do we or do we not advocate genocide to prevent genocide?

So the question is,

how do you combat terrorism without becoming a terrorist?

How do you combat islamist, without becoming a mirror image of the islamist?


Oh I agree. I thought we should have been marching on Fahd's palace in Saudi, not playing in the Iraqi sandbox.

KSA and Pakistan - if these two places are cleared up, 90% of islamism will be done for.

<quote.This is just so much rubbish. As we should know after living with falsehoods for fifty years now. Truth does not triumph; unless it has champions to propound it, unless it has armies to defend it.
But it still comes down to defining exactly who those armies are supposed to kill. The classic paradigms just don't work with terrorism. Infiltration is highly problematic, preemptive strikes are largely impossible, and wholesale slaughter of the larger group in question might be effective, it is ethically unpalatible. What remains is the willingness to defend onself at the point of attack - where the enemy has proven his intent - and chase every survivor down untill there are no more. Then do it again. And again. But that would require a population willing to defend themselves - like in Israel - rather than wait for rescue.

We also need to stop allowing any apology for agressive violence. Period. No positive spin media - at all. There is NO justification for terrorisim, and apologizing for their actions gives them undeserved legitimacy.

Kill the violent ones and make no apology for their, or your, actions. That would be a good start.

People who are interested in how terrorism works and how to combat it, SHOULD read that book by K.P.S Gill.

It is an excellent account by the man who defeated Khalistani terrorism (Sikh seperatism in Indian Punjab) in a decisive way. It is one of the very few terrorist movements to have been defeated comprehensively in history.
I started looking at it, but I really need to download it so I can read it at my leisure. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a practical way to do that. Do you have a better link?

Caliphate ideology? I never said or alluded to that at all. I don't believe there is a single org called AQ- therefore that theory doesn't wash with me. Bin Laden might perscribe to that ideology- but i doubt the dozens of groups 'linked' to him do.
In this case, we simply have nothing to discuss as you are in denial regarding the core of the problem and its true scale. The ideology in question goes well beyond Bin Laden and is being promoted by some of the largest parties in the entire Muslim world for at least a century by now, ever since the fall of the last two Caliphates- the Ottoman empire in the Middle East and the Mogul empire in India. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are not the source of this ideology, they are merely its faithful servants, its military wing, they continue the war that has been waged for a hundred years on dozens of countries, but to which the West paid little attention until this war has finally reached the West's own back yard.


You appear to be jumping to that assumption/ projection thinking that everyone who has the phrase ....linked to Al Qaeda.... is involved in a Caliphate ideology.
In my case, it is an assumtion based on a fair bit of study. And you don't seem to understand what I mean by "projection thinking".


Hey, the 'PC' crowd didn't coin the phrase 'War on Terror', George Bush did ok? Blame him not them.
But it was coined to appeace them. Paraphrasing Erasmus, truth in the modern Western society has to be concealed by the cloak of political correctness.:headbang:

I started looking at it, but I really need to download it so I can read it at my leisure. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a practical way to do that. Do you have a better link?

I dunno right now, but I will try to find.

satp.org is an excellent resource for conflicts in south asia. If you want to get a pulse on what is going on in the sub-continent (daily updates, analysis, data etc), satp is where you should start with.

I dunno right now, but I will try to find.

satp.org is an excellent resource for conflicts in south asia. If you want to get a pulse on what is going on in the sub-continent (daily updates, analysis, data etc), satp is where you should start with.
I try to read the Asian Times at least once or twice a week... but then, I'm abnormal... :p

It's just kind of hard sometimes to care about what's happening halfway around the world, in a place where we've never set foot. Maybe one can care on a theoretical level, but in terms of real pragmatic thought and action what's happening in Kashmir and India is not something I personally feel that I have control over.

Khodros, pl read this here by Womble


The ideology in question goes well beyond Bin Laden and is being promoted by some of the largest parties in the entire Muslim world for at least a century by now, ever since the fall of the last two Caliphates- the Ottoman empire in the Middle East and the Mogul empire in India.

This is why you should try and pay attention to stuff happening half-way across the world. Because sooner or later, the consequences will affect you.

Who thought the fall of Barhanuddin Rabbani would affect US?

But it did. It is an important piece on the train of events that caused 9/11. Now you probably don't even know who the heck Barblahblah Rubber guy is.:D :p

That is partly why the Bush administration gives you the simplistic "They hate our freedom" version.

But it still comes down to defining exactly who those armies are supposed to kill.
This is the key question, in fact. This is what I am trying to make people understand: that you cannot fight "terrorism", you can only fight SOMEBODY's terrorism. You cannot make do with vague rhetorics like " we must stand for tolerance and equality and not allow oppression to get the upper hand". We have to think in concrete terms: tolerance OF WHO OR WHAT? WHOSE equality TO WHOM? WHOSE oppression OF WHOM?

WHO is the enemy? WHICH extremists? WHICH religious fanatics?


The classic paradigms just don't work with terrorism. Infiltration is highly problematic, preemptive strikes are largely impossible, and wholesale slaughter of the larger group in question might be effective, it is ethically unpalatible. What remains is the willingness to defend onself at the point of attack - where the enemy has proven his intent - and chase every survivor down untill there are no more.
Which is why defeating this breed of terrorism requires a lot of study. The Islamist movement's structure should be studied and their ideology carefully analysed in search for weaknesses where we could hit them. We need to know the key people, removing whom will disrupt the operational capabilities of the terrorists. We need to know the key ideologists and devise ways to deal with them- kill them, or delegitimize them, or pit them against an indisputable authority on Islamic jurisprudence who would expose them as the frauds they are. We need to know first hand, and not by guessing or by projection of "how I would think if I were them", how their recruitment works so we would know how to counter it. We need to know how they maintain themselves financially. We need to know, know and then know some more, and defend ourselves in the meanwhile. And when we have learned how they REALLY work, we will know how to break them.


We also need to stop allowing any apology for agressive violence. Period. No positive spin media - at all. There is NO justification for terrorisim, and apologizing for their actions gives them undeserved legitimacy.

Kill the violent ones and make no apology for their, or your, actions. That would be a good start.

Absolutely. There is no way we can defeat the Islamists out there if we are going to tolerate them in our own homes.

snip
Which is why defeating this breed of terrorism requires a lot of study. The Islamist movement's structure should be studied and their ideology carefully analysed in search for weaknesses where we could hit them. We need to know the key people, removing whom will disrupt the operational capabilities of the terrorists. We need to know the key ideologists and devise ways to deal with them- kill them, or delegitimize them, or pit them against an indisputable authority on Islamic jurisprudence who would expose them as the frauds they are. We need to know first hand, and not by guessing or by projection of "how I would think if I were them", how their recruitment works so we would know how to counter it. We need to know how they maintain themselves financially. We need to know, know and then know some more, and defend ourselves in the meanwhile. And when we have learned how they REALLY work, we will know how to break them.
Agreed. Which also means that there can be no squeemishness on the part of the studiers over the sensabilities over anyone's religion. If we are to delegitimize and/or defeat this breed of religious terrorisim (which, IMO will soon jump from radical Islam to "southern-hemisphere" Christianity - doubling (or trebeling) the problem) we need to not be afraid to say HOW a particular religion is manipulating/being manipulated by the terrorists. Which means (horror of horrors) secular theologians need to be involved.

We have a problem here.

What is islam and who is a muslim?

What is islamism and who is an islamist?

What are the boundaries between islam and islamism?

These are questions to be pondered.

Some here would like to say it is islam = islamism and that all muslims need to be targetted. This is a ridiculous and even counterproductive view (when fighting islamism) and this is unfortunately gaining currency.

Others here are pretending that islamism does not exist or that it is not a threat (malaria is a bigger threat and cars kill more people..:rolleyes: ) which also contributes to pushing more people towards the former view.

Needless to say, both are wrong, and while both of these fight, islamism grows into an increasingly bigger threat..Where in this spectrum would you put:

Robert Spencer: http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/sites.php

Bat Ye'or: http://dhimmitude.org/

Ali Sina: (among others at: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Authors.htm)

FMAT: http://www.freemuslims.org/

Where in this spectrum would you put:

Robert Spencer: http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Daniel Pipes: http://www.danielpipes.org/sites.php

Bat Ye'or: http://dhimmitude.org/

Ali Sina: (among others at: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Authors.htm)

FMAT: http://www.freemuslims.org/

Ali Sina is an apostate and says that islam is islamism and that muslims need to come out of islam. He is welcome to his opinion and in fact some apostacy is needed in islamic world for balance, but his solution is not a practical one. He serves a purpose by filling the void of open apostates and providing a platform for debating that and he is good at that.

Regarding others, I do not fully know what their opinions are. But I know Jihadwatch is a good resource for news collection. I have read some article of Daniel Pipes (seems OK from the little I have read from him). I have no idea who Bat Ye'or and what FMAT is.

If Pakistani terrorism was not responded to by spending on fighting terrorism, the whole of J&K would have been gone as would have Punjab to Khalistani terrorism as would have the North East states to Paki aided seperatists there.
Oh come on, you wouldn't give a shit about the people there, to you it's just the knowledge that India is bigger on the map than Pakistan.

There can be no economical growth in the face of political unstability caused by terrorism.
Without economical growth, in the long run you won't have the money to fight the diseases that you have mentioned.
What political instability? When the RAF was doing its Urban Guerilla Warfare in Germany, the country remained stable and growing.
In some areas there is instability, not exclusively because of terrorism, but also because of the way officials react to it.

Of course, you ignorant apologist.
And that's what you call "sarcasm".
You remind me so much of Germany and France in earlier times...

Let's make a war on coconuts, because you see, accidents are the same as cold and calculated murder
To the person who dies it's of no importance. To the relatives it is just a different direction they channel their anger - instead of the terrorist's fault, it becomes FEMA's for example.

You have a wrong idea of what constitutes defeating terrorism.

Of course you cannot eradicate the ideology to the point of not a single person in the world believing in it. Hell, the Nazism is still around. But what we CAN do is deprive them of the capability to wage a war, reduce them to the level of a minor annoyance like the neo-Nazis are today. THAT will mean their defeat.
And why are Neo-Nazis no issue anymore? Because no one accepts them to have any grasp of reality. You think WWII killed Nazism? De-Nazification killed Nazism, not guns.
You're talking about the destruction of Islamist groups - don't you think others will simply take their place?
Look at you, to my knowledge no terrorist ever killed any of your relatives or friends, and already you're full of hate. What do you expect to happen to those who stay behind with their relatives killed in this crusade (which it would be if you want to really physically destroy every Muslim group you consider to be contrary to your world view)?

The Joe Blow who will go to Al-Qaeda is the Joe Blow who disagrees with the American sexual depravity and their arrogant refusal to accept the one true faith.
And you think religious fundamentalism just appears out of thin air?

And why, exactly, should Joe Blow from Beirut dictate American policy while simultaneously taking offense when America tries to dictate policy to Beirut?
Because people are hypocrites. You, me, and Joe.

Makes sense in light of the refusal to fight, I suppose. If you're not willing to fight back, you should be prepared to continue to absorb damage one-sidedly, which will require a hell of an emergency service indeed.
Yes, afterall terrorism could blow up 20, 30 a hundred people every six months or so.
Which is much worse than the damage caused by any given Hurricane for example. We're not going to war against hurricanes, are we? And we can't defeat Terrorism anymore than we can defeat Katrina - any attack will miss the target and hurt people who aren't involved (which is no better than what they do - terrorists make a point with their attacks, people are collateral damage).

Trade in what? What (other than oil) does the Middle East (other than Israel) have for sale?
Anything Israel has can be found in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and any other country even remotely similar.
To argue that Israel is somehow superior to its neighbours is racist at best.

And make them look like Western proxies and collaborators?
Note that that is not a problem if we can convey to people that
a) our involvement does not change their views on issues
b) the West is not their enemy.

Nope. The rest of the money and then some will be consumed by the growing damages from the actions of terrorist organizations, who will continue operating unchallenged and safe from retaliation.
Growing? Is that so?

My strategy comes from only one thing: The belief that a Person, no matter whether Islamist, moderate, rich or poor, black or white, has deserved exactly the same treatment.
I think we've had plenty of time to move beyond this sorry revenge-business which drives you guys.
Terrorists murdered more than 3000 people in New York, and we went and killed even more people in Afghanistan?
How many Palestinians, or Pakistani and Indian Civilians were killed because of some belief that we need to hit back? And how many people has that saved?

And why are Neo-Nazis no issue anymore? Because no one accepts them to have any grasp of reality. You think WWII killed Nazism? De-Nazification killed Nazism, not guns.
You're talking about the destruction of Islamist groups - don't you think others will simply take their place?
Look at you, to my knowledge no terrorist ever killed any of your relatives or friends, and already you're full of hate. What do you expect to happen to those who stay behind with their relatives killed in this crusade (which it would be if you want to really physically destroy every Muslim group you consider to be contrary to your world view)?


And you think religious fundamentalism just appears out of thin air?


Because people are hypocrites. You, me, and Joe.


Yes, afterall terrorism could blow up 20, 30 a hundred people every six months or so.
Which is much worse than the damage caused by any given Hurricane for example. We're not going to war against hurricanes, are we? And we can't defeat Terrorism anymore than we can defeat Katrina - any attack will miss the target and hurt people who aren't involved (which is no better than what they do - terrorists make a point with their attacks, people are collateral damage).


Anything Israel has can be found in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and any other country even remotely similar.
To argue that Israel is somehow superior to its neighbours is racist at best.


Note that that is not a problem if we can convey to people that
a) our involvement does not change their views on issues
b) the West is not their enemy.


Growing? Is that so?

My strategy comes from only one thing: The belief that a Person, no matter whether Islamist, moderate, rich or poor, black or white, has deserved exactly the same treatment.
I think we've had plenty of time to move beyond this sorry revenge-business which drives you guys.
Terrorists murdered more than 3000 people in New York, and we went and killed even more people in Afghanistan?
How many Palestinians, or Pakistani and Indian Civilians were killed because of some belief that we need to hit back? And how many people has that saved?

You just cant get past the fact that a dead terrorist cant hurt anyone .We accept the fact they are out there and want to kill us for a variety of reasons. So we hunt them and kill them before they kill us . Its that simple , no one wants to sit around quaking waiting for a bomb to go off...they like to see " action " being taken . This killing and revenge etc. etc. stuff has been going on for thousands of years . There is always some group that claims to be ordered by God to clean shit up or whatever . Back in the old days you would just round up the lot of them and have a big bonfire .:D Or just put a bunch of their heads on sticks as advertisements and a warning that they should go someplace else and install their ideal form of government . Ask yourself " What would Ghengis Khann do ?:D

And why are Neo-Nazis no issue anymore? Because no one accepts them to have any grasp of reality. You think WWII killed Nazism? De-Nazification killed Nazism, not guns.
You're saying it as if one was possible without the other. If the Nazi regime continued to exist, Nazism outside it would also continue to thrive. It was the military defeat that destroyed the Nazi power and allowed for de-nazification of Europe.


You're talking about the destruction of Islamist groups - don't you think others will simply take their place?
Others? Meaning whom?


Look at you, to my knowledge no terrorist ever killed any of your relatives or friends, and already you're full of hate.
Wrong on both counts. And you are, politely speaking, an arrogant asshole. "To your knowledge"? What the fuck would you know about what has or has not happened in my life?

I've lost a good friend in a suicide bombing three years ago.

That aside, why would there be anything wrong with hating people who seek to promote religious imperialism by means of random murder of innocents? If anyone deserves hatred, it is them.


What do you expect to happen to those who stay behind with their relatives killed in this crusade (which it would be if you want to really physically destroy every Muslim group you consider to be contrary to your world view)?
The same thing that happened to the families of the SS officers killed in the war or executed at Nurernberg.

The desire for personal vengeance is short-lived and powerless when directed against an entity which cannot be defeated by personal action. In the absence of a structure that positions hatred as a consistent, attractive ideology and a matter of piety and pride, personal vengeance is not to be feared.


And you think religious fundamentalism just appears out of thin air?
No it doesn't. It also doesn't materialize the moment someone takes offense on Bush's yesterday speech or on yesteryear's airstrike that killed a few civilians too many. Islamism is an ideology that had a century to evolve, refine itself and root itself within the Muslim population.


Because people are hypocrites. You, me, and Joe.
And this is supposed to be a valid argument? That Joe Blow from Beirut's hypocricy has to be catered to?


Yes, afterall terrorism could blow up 20, 30 a hundred people every six months or so.
Or thousands in a single strike once the group gains the technological capabilities. Or tens of thousands if they get their hands on the most basic WMDs. Or hundreds of thousands if today's terrorists become tomorrow's dictators of a country Taleban style.


Which is much worse than the damage caused by any given Hurricane for example. We're not going to war against hurricanes, are we?
I also don't use my toothbrush as a screw driver and my screw driver to brush my teeth. It wouldn't be good for the task. Which doesn't mean that either of them is useless. Different methods for different tasks.


And we can't defeat Terrorism anymore than we can defeat Katrina - any attack will miss the target and hurt people who aren't involved (which is no better than what they do - terrorists make a point with their attacks, people are collateral damage).
What a monumental pyramid of fallacies.

Terrorism is not a force of nature, it CAN be and has been defeated in the past.

Not all attacks miss the target. It's all about knowing the enemy, and the more we know, the more effectively we will be able to fight.

Hurting people who aren't involved as a collateral in the process of defeating a group that is using murder of innocents as their primary tactic is not morally equivalent to the actions of this group, for a simple reason: the terrorists are the initiators and the perpetuators of violence. If we lay down our weapons tomorrow, the Islamic terrorists will continue to kill to advance their cause. If the terrorists were to lay down their weapons tomorrow, the war would be over.


Anything Israel has can be found in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and any other country even remotely similar.
To argue that Israel is somehow superior to its neighbours is racist at best.
Wait a minute. We were on the subject of what, other than oil, the Middle Easter countries could offer for trade. Are you saying that it is racist to argue that Israel is superior to other Middle Easter countries in science, technology and economy? Or did you just try to pull a bait-and-switch to accuse me of racism?


Note that that is not a problem if we can convey to people that
a) our involvement does not change their views on issues
b) the West is not their enemy.
OF COURSE it will remain a problem. You can "convey" them anything you want, but if the ideology of religious supremacy and jihad for faith dominates the discourse, it will be a waste of effort.

To quote the most important ideologist of Islamism, Sayyid Qutb:

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.


Growing? Is that so?
Yep. The longer the terrorists can operate unchallenged, the bigger capabilities for destruction they will accumulate.


My strategy comes from only one thing: The belief that a Person, no matter whether Islamist, moderate, rich or poor, black or white, has deserved exactly the same treatment.
And a murderer has deserved the same treatment as the innocent? A neo-Nazi the same treatment as someone struggling against racism?

To hell with your one thing, then.


I think we've had plenty of time to move beyond this sorry revenge-business which drives you guys.

Terrorists murdered more than 3000 people in New York, and we went and killed even more people in Afghanistan?
How many Palestinians, or Pakistani and Indian Civilians were killed because of some belief that we need to hit back?

Revenge? Can anyone in this thread direct me to a post of mine that would talk about revenge?

It's funny how the appeaceniks always try to paint their opponents as vengeful. No, Leonstein, it's not about revenge, it's about preventing the terrorists from killing more people, preventing them from blowing up you and yours one day.

And how many people has that saved?
Good question. Now answer it. How many people have been saved by the destruction of the Taleban? How many did not get killed because the masterminds and the bombmakers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad were assassinated? How many more lives would have been lost if there was no one to stand up to the murderous rampage of the Islamists in Kashmir, in the Philippines, and how many lives could have been saved if the Big Whine of the appeaceniks did not make the powers that be so reluctant to intervene?

I've lost a good friend in a suicide bombing three years ago.
I'm sorry then.

As for your arsehole speech, just forget it. I'm not in the business of arguing with people who seem blinded with rage as soon as one disagrees with them.

As with the horrible horrible threat to the very existence of the earth, which is apparently what you believe terrorism to be, I'll just let it be. It'll run out of steam soon enough.

*Looks at thread title.*

...Uh-oh...

*Puts on flame-retardent suit.*

Agreed. Which also means that there can be no squeemishness on the part of the studiers over the sensabilities over anyone's religion. If we are to delegitimize and/or defeat this breed of religious terrorisim (which, IMO will soon jump from radical Islam to "southern-hemisphere" Christianity - doubling (or trebeling) the problem) we need to not be afraid to say HOW a particular religion is manipulating/being manipulated by the terrorists. Which means (horror of horrors) secular theologians need to be involved.

Of course. Anyone who analyses the religion and culture has to be brutally honest and unbiased. They have to start with a non-ethnocentric view and start from there. In doing this, we have to keep a tight reign on the behavior of our agents in the field. By backsliding at all into the very behavior we are trying to de-legitimize, we risk the obvious response of a hyper-sensitive backlash.

You know, if the Bush administration had put as much effort into actually politicking against the actual enemies of the state rather than Democrats and whistle-blowers, we'd be in much better shape right now. If they had put Rove together with a real expert on Islamic culture--a really competent and brilliant guy--and demand that they work together thoroughly, we might have had something, as there can be no doubt about Rove's brilliance in the propagandic arts...as long as Administration officials had the balls to put a tight leash on him.

But no, their greatest efforts have gone into dividing the country while we're in this struggle.

Oh come on, you wouldn't give a shit about the people there, to you it's just the knowledge that India is bigger on the map than Pakistan.

No you idiot.

http://in.rediff.com/news/tnblast.htm

http://in.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/14blast.htm

This is what happens when Pakistani terrorism is unchecked. If you have not guessed it, it is my hometown and I picked up the blown remains of my friend to cremate and I never could explain to his parents why their son had to die.

In some areas there is instability, not exclusively because of terrorism, but also because of the way officials react to it.

Meh. Officials react to terrorism.

To the person who dies it's of no importance.

To the person who lives nearby, there is a world of difference.