NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565750,00.html
Turning their Backs on Jihad

More and more prominent terrorists are defecting from the cause. The Egyptian theologian Dr. Fadl is the best known, but many others are likewise reconsidering. Experts see it as a delayed reaction to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Apparently there are some mounting disagreements in the circles that started AQ. What do you think of this? Does it mean anything, and is this a way the "War on Terror" could actually end?

Keine Ahnung and all that.

hmm, just sounds like they grew up. Not sure if this has any bearing on Islamic terrorism as a whole. It seems that Bin Laden is still committed, and I would think that a generation from now, he will be a hero for future terrorists, regardless of what he does (short of renouncing terrorism).

They will certainly be going to bed without supper tonight.

They will certainly be going to bed without supper tonight.

If I was there leader I'd send them straight to the bin without supper.

I still have a few friends in southeastern Europe, and they've been noting a change among the more radical of their muslim neighbours. Many of them still see the US presence in Iraq as reprehensible - but they're not seeing the mujahideen/Freedom Fghters/Terrorists as being a solution, just more of the problem.

Plus, I think our hanging on in Iraq and Afghanistan is starting to pay off. It's a point of honour among Jihadists that the West is "weak", that we don't have any real strength, that we'll cut and run after a few casualties. But we didn't; and now a lot of people on the other side are saying "now what?"

That other war, the one on drugs isn't finished either.

CEO Bush opened a box of Pandora and now the cover is lost.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565750,00.html


Apparently there are some mounting disagreements in the circles that started AQ. What do you think of this? Does it mean anything, and is this a way the "War on Terror" could actually end?


The war on terror is probably never going to end, depending on the next president...

Plus, I think our hanging on in Iraq and Afghanistan is starting to pay off. It's a point of honour among Jihadists that the West is "weak", that we don't have any real strength, that we'll cut and run after a few casualties. But we didn't; and now a lot of people on the other side are saying "now what?"

*nods* over the past few years the Taliban has tried repeatedly in vain to overrun isolated NATO positions within Afghanistan not noting that you can't hope to defeat a NATO force with air superiority in such battles

if anything the Taliban's recent switch to strictly unconventional warfare shows just how depleted it has become in terms of a fighting force and in force projection

Heh, I was just reading up on this Dr. Fadl character, and this is some interesting stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyed_Imam_Al-Sharif
Al-Sharif criticizes the hijackers of 9/11 on the grounds that they “betrayed the enemy,” because the visas to the U.S. they received were a kind of contract of protection.

The followers of bin Laden entered the United States with his knowledge, and on his orders double-crossed its population, killing and destroying. The Prophet — God’s prayer and peace be upon him — said, ‘On the Day of Judgment, every double-crosser will have a banner up his anus proportionate to his treachery.’

[...]

Al-Zawahiri denies that by attacking a country which gave them visas the 9/11 attackers were “betrayed the enemy,” saying, “even if the contract is based on international agreements, we are not bound by these agreements.”

Heh, I was just reading up on this Dr. Fadl character, and this is some interesting stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyed_Imam_Al-Sharif

A banner up his anus....

Wiki. Waay too easy.

*nods* over the past few years the Taliban has tried repeatedly in vain to overrun isolated NATO positions within Afghanistan not noting that you can't hope to defeat a NATO force with air superiority in such battles

if anything the Taliban's recent switch to strictly unconventional warfare shows just how depleted it has become in terms of a fighting force and in force projection

The Taliban was never a serious contender for conventional military forces to begin with. And much as unconventional warfare is morally distasteful to the Western public, it very much works as they are still around to make guerilla strikes against military and civilian targets.

Of course the Taliban could have been finished off if Curious George hadn't decided to one-up Daddy by suddenly diverting the forces from Afghanistan for his Iraq Adventure. Now we have two occupied Middle-Eastern countries with growing popular resentment and painful if not crippling insurgencies to deal with for the price of one completely flushed out and modernized country.

Perhaps we should be happy there's trouble brewing at the core of Al Qaeda...

Prior to 9/11, Al-Qaeda's focus was on eliminating "corrupted", Western-backed Arab despotisms and replacing them with regimes that better reflected the precolonial patterns of authority. They were getting nowhere fast. The point of the attacks on September 11 (and I'm speculating here, with a little help from Gwynne Dyer) was to create a cause celebre by inciting American aggression against Islamic regimes. Their logic was most likely that the Gulf despotisms of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc would have to pick sides (ie: the West) in the conflict and in so doing would make themselves targets for popular revolt.

Seven years on, bin Laden's gambit hasn't accomplished much. The Gulf regimes are still all firmly in place. Saddam Hussein is out of Iraq, but Al-Qaeda has lost the country to Iranian-backed Shi'ites, a relatively hostile regime that nevertheless commands greater domestic legitimacy. Gaddafi bizarrely managed to recast himself as a Western ally, and in so doing actually strengthened his hold on Libya. The big winner in this actually appears to be Iran, which lost two unfriendly regimes on its borders and has managed to gain regional influence, international prominence and economic strength.

So its not surprising that senior members of Al-Qaeda are reconsidering their positions. Terror is a tactic--not a goal--of the organization and its inability to advance their agenda since 2001 means they ought to be looking at other strategies.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565750,00.html


Apparently there are some mounting disagreements in the circles that started AQ. What do you think of this? Does it mean anything, and is this a way the "War on Terror" could actually end?

I think the War on Terror will end when the American government wants it to end. There will always be terrorists, and while it's starting to get old, the War hasn't exactly hurt its initiators politically.

What's happening in Al-Qaeda reminds me of reports I've read about the FARC in Columbia, and I think it's a similar syndrome. When you're a revolutionary group, when you don't have any real political power, you only need symbols to inspire followers. Promises can be as empty as you like, as long as you make them. However, once you start to actually gain power, people realize you're no better than the guys you promised you'd replace, and on top of all that, staying with you means getting shot at.

<snip>

So its not surprising that senior members of Al-Qaeda are reconsidering their positions. Terror is a tactic--not a goal--of the organization and its inability to advance their agenda since 2001 means they ought to be looking at other strategies.

Very good post.

I think that the focus of AQ is on Pak. There is a defacto Waziristan which has negotiated deals with Pak army/govt as if they were sovereign. Reports are pointing to an imminent takeover of Peshawar.

Also, the recent attack on the US/NATO post killing 9 Americans....the taliban are not a "spent force" at all. There is literally a pool of young,jobless and angry millions where they can recruit from.

Prior to 9/11, Al-Qaeda's focus was on eliminating "corrupted", Western-backed Arab despotisms and replacing them with regimes that better reflected the precolonial patterns of authority. They were getting nowhere fast. The point of the attacks on September 11 (and I'm speculating here, with a little help from Gwynne Dyer) was to create a cause celebre by inciting American aggression against Islamic regimes. Their logic was most likely that the Gulf despotisms of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc would have to pick sides (ie: the West) in the conflict and in so doing would make themselves targets for popular revolt.

Seven years on, bin Laden's gambit hasn't accomplished much. The Gulf regimes are still all firmly in place. Saddam Hussein is out of Iraq, but Al-Qaeda has lost the country to Iranian-backed Shi'ites, a relatively hostile regime that nevertheless commands greater domestic legitimacy. Gaddafi bizarrely managed to recast himself as a Western ally, and in so doing actually strengthened his hold on Libya. The big winner in this actually appears to be Iran, which lost two unfriendly regimes on its borders and has managed to gain regional influence, international prominence and economic strength.

So its not surprising that senior members of Al-Qaeda are reconsidering their positions. Terror is a tactic--not a goal--of the organization and its inability to advance their agenda since 2001 means they ought to be looking at other strategies.

Leave it to terroists to show the world how to successfully fail at what you're trying to accomplish. It appears America's monopoly on fail has come to an end.

It appears America's monopoly on fail has come to an end.
I never believed that the US had a monopoly on fail anyway... they just tend to have more cameras pointed at them when they're fucking things up ;)

A banner up his anus....

Wiki. Waay too easy.
You'd think so, wouldn't you. But...

http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/3621/128/
http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2008/06/jihad-and-dr-fadls-inner-rebellion.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/13/heretic.alqaida.part.two

Unless all these sources grabbed it from wiki, we'd have to say it's probably real. Best bet would be to find the original text, but I can't be bothered right now.

Unless all these sources grabbed it from wiki, we'd have to say it's probably real.
Given what happened here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7495754.stm I wouldn't be too shocked.

Best bet would be to find the original text, but I can't be bothered right now.

Ditto.

Who went and knocked up Al-Qaeda?

Shotgun wedding please.

I think that the focus of AQ is on Pak. There is a defacto Waziristan which has negotiated deals with Pak army/govt as if they were sovereign. Reports are pointing to an imminent takeover of Peshawar.



It does look like they've been successful in Pakistan, although I'm inclined to think they could have accomplished that without demolishing the WTC.

There is an ideological split, yes, but seeing as how Al-Qaeda has served as a network between different groups with (more or less) coinciding goals, that's not surprising. It can be good news though.

I suspect that Dr. Fadl may have been influenced by the Egyptian security apparatus to have a change of heart, so I'm not convinced that it's a bona fide change we're seeing from him. But it is good that it has been broadcast.

Some relevant links:
Imprisoned Leader of Egypt’s Islamic Jihad Challenges al-Qaeda (http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373842)
Al-Qaeda’s al-Zawahiri Repudiates Dr. Fadl’s “Rationalization of Jihad” (http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2374135)
Both from the Jamestown Foundation.

See also:
The Rebellion Within -
An Al Qaeda mastermind questions terrorism. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright)
...from the New Yorker.

Also of interest,
The unraveling (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=702bf6d5-a37a-4e3e-a491-fd72bf6a9da1)
...from The New Republic, where it's shown how Noman Benotman, a former jihadist, has asked AQ to stop their operations, as have Sheikh Salman al-Oadah (http://www.islamtoday.net/english/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=1521) from Saudi Arabia.

The people who will defeat Al-Qaeda are the majority of muslims. The US would be far better off investing its money in a health and social security system to prevent home grown terrorists, rather than blowing it on a futile war on terror.

The people who will defeat Al-Qaeda are the majority of muslims. The US would be far better off investing its money in a health and social security system to prevent home grown terrorists, rather than blowing it on a futile war on terror.

But.. but.. wasting money is what governments are for!