Understanding Al Qaeda

[Meldread]

I keep reading here on DU that Al Qaeda hates us because we're at war in the Middle East, and that it is a result of our relationship with the Muslim World after we've thrown our lot in with Israel.

I cannot imagine a more twisted view. Although Al Qaeda regularly sites various 'offenses' committed by the United States, it is to gain support in the Muslim World, but it is NOT why they hate us.

Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist cult, and is truly no different in their logic than the Christian fundamentalist cults here in the United States. Al Qaeda hates the West and the United States in particular because they are rebelling against modernity. They seek a Utopian ideal which in their minds will bring about world wide peace, and an end to all things bad - as Utopian ideals tend to go. There is just one catch of course, the entire world needs to convert to Islam... and not just to any version of Islam... THEIR version of Islam.

The war Al Qaeda primarily fights is one in the Muslim World. The VAST majority of the people they kill are Muslim. They attack these Muslim's because they see them as aligning themselves with the West - the symbol of modernity. After all, if they cannot control Muslim's, then what hope do they have against the rest of the world?

Al Qaeda is - like all fundamentalists - bat shit crazy. They've lost their grip on reality, and because they know what they want will never come to pass, they've gone the nihilist route. In other words, the world is so fucked up in their minds, that it's better to blow yourself up and strike a blow against their (perceived) enemy rather than live another day. After all, they're getting rewards in heaven (or so they think).

I am unsure how many people are familiar with the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins. These books have sold millions and has had some impact on the thinking of many Christian fundamentalists here in the United States. Some of these fundamentalists would like to see the United States go to war in the Middle East - even use Nuclear Weapons there. Why? Because they believe that if World War 3 takes place then it is a sign of the End Times. Good Christians (in their minds), will be saved by the Rapture - effectively being sucked up into Heaven. Everyone else will be left on Earth to endure a time known as the Tribulation, during which period the Anti-Christ effectively rules the world... but this time is temporary, as eventually Jesus is supposed to return and fight the War of Armageddon - a war between Christ and the Anti-Christ. Jesus wins that war (of course!), everyone converts to Christianity, those that don't are sent to Hell, and all becomes right with the world.

Of course, in the mind of the Christian fundamentalist this is a good thing... and a good Christian would hasten along such an event, right? So they seek to create a World War 3 in the Middle East to hurriedly usher in the Rapture and Armageddon.

These two mindsets are exactly the same. They are bat shit loony. You cannot reason with these people, no matter what concessions you make. They are by their very nature insecure. The Christian fundamentalist like the Muslim fundamentalist member of Al Qaeda hates and rebels against modernity. They feel as if their way of life, their religion, their beliefs, their culture, their traditions - all of it - is being consumed and destroyed by the modern world.

There are legitimate strategic reasons to avoid entangling ourselves in the Middle East. The largest reason is that it DOES give Al Qaeda an easy way to incite moderate and fundamentalist Muslims against us. However, it would be a mistake to believe that Al Qaeda would suddenly change their minds about war with the West and the United States. At best we would experience a temporary respite as Al Qaeda turns its primary focus on Muslims in an attempt to recruit those that they can, and kill those that disagree with their fundamentalist view.

Sadly, there are many Muslims who may not particularly agree with Al Qaeda's tactics, but do feel sympathetic to their message - the protest against modernity. If we want to fight Al Qaeda it isn't bombs we need, it's a competing message that reaches and speaks to Muslim's around the world. We need to invest in reform minded Islam, empower them, give them a voice and a stage upon which THEY can speak out against Al Qaeda. At the end of the day this is not a war with the Western World it is a war within Islam itself not unlike the Protestant Reformation we saw in Christianity ushered in by Martin Luther. We need to reach out and help Muslim's find a way to integrate their faith into the modern world, making it seem more welcoming.

Until we see the day when millions of Muslim's take to the street to protest the bombing of Mosques by Muslim terrorists, the same way they protest Danish Cartoons, we will have to contend with these fundamentalist crazies having a strong voice within Islam.

It is also the fundamental reason we do not see the Left Behind crazies having as large impact as they might otherwise have... there are competing points of view within Christianity, and many Christians would openly and publicly reject these fools. However, when you hear conservative Christians speaking about being "persecuted" and act as if their religion is under siege - this is the same mindset had in the minds of millions upon millions of Muslim's around the world - making them sympathetic to Al Qaeda and its message. However, like the conservative Christian who may be sympathetic to the crazy Left Behinder wanting to usher in World War 3, they would in general still view what they seek as wrong and (hopefully) nuts.

There is a great deal of parallel, and hopefully it makes it easier for everyone to visualize and understand.

In the end, as I said, there is only one way to successfully fight Al Qaeda and that is with ideas. There are many good hearted Muslims who desperately want to embrace the West and the Modern World. They want reform in their religion, but here in the United States they are largely ignored. We need to empower them, to help them, and join them in reaching out a welcoming hand to the Muslim World.

I would encourage everyone who is interested in better understanding, and investing in reform minded Islam to look more into Irshad Manji. Here is http://www.irshadmanji.com/home">a link to her blog and you can learn more about her book there as well: "http://www.irshadmanji.com/the-book">The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith".

[Meldread]

1. Really, you unrecced this thread?

I'd love to hear the reason why...

Was it because I didn't support the "it's all America's fault" meme?

Or was it because I suggested that we give aid to Muslims like Irshad Manji who are reform mined?

I figured I'd get unrecs for one or the other, but it would be nice if people were more interested in debate rather than just a drive by... unfortunate.

Hopefully others who agree with the content of the post will show up and K&R this thread.

[patrice]

3. They ought at least to have the integrity to say why the unrec.

[Meldread]

4. I don't mind people unrecing my post - I just want to know why.

We're on a discussion forum. It contributes nothing to the discussion if people merely unrec and walk away. If someone genuinely disagrees with me, I encourage them to post so we can have an honest debate!

[Odin2005]

5. There are a lot of DUers that think AQ was an invention of the CIA or similar nonsense.

[Meldread]

8. Sigh. Well I guess our side needs "birthers" too, right?

I haven't seen this, but I don't really doubt it's true. I've seen similar stuff posted here before... what's sad is that it's hard to reason with such people. No matter how much evidence you try and show them otherwise, they'll always revert to their conspiracy theory. It's no different than the Birthers, and no different than those who fervently believe that the entire Moon Landing was a hoax.

[BeFree]

14. Gawd

Its as if you think the CIA never conspires to do anything?

The theory goes that the CIA used the AQ as a means to an end. And there is much evidence of that happening. To dismiss it out of hand is not very wise.

[TheWatcher]

19. It interferes with their accepted paradigm, and anything that falls outside of it

Is not allowed to exist, and if you try to say it is exists, you should immediately be mocked, laughed at, shouted down, locked up, isolated, marginalized, demonized, and put on psychotropic drugs to help you "feel better".

They are a cult all of their own.

I'm much more wary of blind sheep that don't question anything than conspiracy theorists.

[BeFree]

20. Never thought of it that way

The blind sheep are much more dangerous to our long term health.

Someone once told me that a book by an ex-CIA agent must be the truth!!

[Meldread]

24. Do not put words into my mouth.

I never said that the CIA never conspires to do anything. I simply said that the CIA creating and using Al Qaeda was nuts. And it is. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of AQ and the entire situation which gave birth to them. And no, it shouldn't be given serious consideration when it has no basis in reality, no more than the Birthers should be given serious consideration. Unless, of course, you're willing to debate Obama's birth certificate. I'm not.

If people cannot even agree to basic reality, then they obviously cannot be part of the solution to the problem. I'd lump them in with people who think Bush secretly plotted 9/11 and used AQ to carry it out. Such people, like Birthers, are so invested in their fake reality that they are no different than a religious fundamentalist. To reach them, you'd need to get them serious therapy and de-programming - just like trying to free them from a cult. As much as I'd like to get them the help they need, it's beyond my resources and ability, and therefore I refuse to waste my time dealing with them.

[BeFree]

28. words... mouth?

It was a question: "Its as if you think the CIA never conspires to do anything?"

Instead of assuming, it was more of a question to try and understand where you are coming from. So now I wonder why be so defensive? Anytime someone gets defensive like that it leaves one wondering what they are trying to hide.

The contention is that the CIA used AQ. And here you are saying No, they didn't.
What are you, an expert on the CIA? Do you have inside info? There being, as I said, much evidence that the CIA did use AQ, your protestations to the contrary are groundless, and therefore most of the rest of your seemingly special knowledge becomes doubtful. Not that it matters.

What matters is that the AQ, a recent arrival on the scene, is blamed for nearly all of America's foreign ills. A scapegoat and a profitable one at that.

[Meldread]

30. It's not being defensive, it's being dismissive.

Defensive would imply that I'm trying to defend something. I'm not. I'm dismissing the assertion that the CIA controls or uses Al Qaeda. To attempt to defend something, I'd have to at least assume the person I am arguing with is willing to accept basic facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there is only one set of facts - facts that are easily gathered through reputable sources.

----------

Here is my post #27 in response to #23 in response to the United States, the CIA, and the funding / use of AQ. These are the facts if your interested.

----------

Although we did fund the "freedom fighters" (MAK) to help fight the Soviets in the mid-to-late 1980's we did not help fund Al Qaeda. It is legitimate to question the wisdom of that action, but it is a mistake to assume that the United States was directly funding Al Qaeda. This is impossible as Al Qaeda had not yet come into existence.

The United States was giving money to the MAK (Maktab al-Khidamat) which was founded in 1984 by Abdullah Azzam and Osama bin Laden to raise funds and recruit foreign mujahidin for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

As the war with the Soviets drew to a close, power struggles broke out within the MAK. Differences of opinion emerged between Abdullah Azzam, who wanted to establish a pure Islamic government in post-war Afghanistan, and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, who wanted to use MAK's assets to fund a global jihad. The global jihad would seek to overthrow the governments in Muslim countries that they deemed as un-Islamic.

Osama bin Laden was one of the most important fundraisers for the MAK, and broke with them to form Al Qaeda.

Toward the end of 1989 Abdullah Azzam was killed by unknown assassins by the detonation of three mines, and later his three sons were killed in assassinations on their way to their local mosque for evening prayers. After Abdullah Azzam's death Osama bin Laden assumed control of MAK and the organization became absorbed into Al Qaeda.

To imply that the United States had ever intentionally funded Al Qaeda is false.

----------

I should further note that Osama bin Laden was greatly influenced by Ayman al-Zawahiri who wanted to create a global jihad. Although this should be obvious.

[BeFree]

32. Fine

You have a theory. My point is that it is obviously incomplete. Especially since you outright deny that the CIA has used AQ. That's just plain untrue. So the basis of all else you say becomes questionable.

[Meldread]

35. It's not a "theory" - it's factual information.

Therein lays the problem. If someone is completely unwilling to accept readily established facts then they're unreasonable and therefore are pointless to engage. It's exactly like trying to have a policy debate with a birther, because everything will revert to, "Well he's not a legally elected President anyway because he's not an American!"

The CIA and the United States used MAK. The MAK eventually merged into AQ.

Now, I'll happily admit there may be information out there that I don't know about, but the same is true for everyone. If you have CREDITABLE information from a reputable source about the CIA currently using AQ then post a link to it here and I'll read it. Otherwise, it is just a conspiracy theory that should be taken with a huge giant grain of salt, because you'd then be accusing the CIA of assisting AQ, which is carrying out terrorist attacks on the United States, which is major treason. It isn't something you toss out there lightly without substantial non-refutable proof. Not if you want to be taken seriously.

[BeFree]

42. Gawd, again

Now you are putting words on me that I never said.
I said the CIA has used AQ. And why wouldn't they? They use whatever means necessary...Duh!!

You, tho, say "...you'd then be accusing the CIA of assisting AQ" and that's just plain assholish. You really should stick to facts.

[Meldread]

46. So what -are- you saying?

I've been perfectly clear. The CIA does not (to my knowledge) provide assistance to AQ, and anyone who makes such a claim should offer up proof.

I take it that you're claiming that they aren't assisting but rather USING AQ. I would ask you to define what you consider to be "using."

I may have misinterpreted your messages because they were unclear to me. I know there are many people on these forums who believe, for example, that the CIA / Bush planned 9/11 and "used" AQ to carry it out. This is how I interpreted the word "use" - in the context that the CIA was using AQ to carry out clandestine missions against American citizens.

However, if you meant "use" in the sense that they are using certain members of AQ as double agents (for example) - then my understanding of what you were talking about is incorrect.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BreweryYardRat]

64. Those folks are confusing "funding" with "invention."

Is anyone willing to claim that the CIA didn't help fund Al-Qaeda and various other Afghan mujaheddin groups that were fighting the Russian occupation?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

2. I think it is important to recognize how a significant driver IS dynamic between Fundamentalists and

then also to see how non-Fundamentalists on both sides also benefit from the political power of their own extremists.

It's also too bad that it is generally forgotten how completely surrounded by End Timers the Bush Administration always was.

[Odin2005]

6. Excellent post! K&R

[sharesunited]

7. We drink beer and watch porn. And we treat Jesus as top prophet instead of Mohammed.

All punishable by death.

[wuushew]

9. In your mind why is the United States the poster child for modernity?

Great and advanced civilizations lay in closer geographic proximity to the Islamic world than we.

[Odin2005]

11. Eh, Americans and Europeans are both part of Western Civilization.

:shrug:

[wuushew]

12. How is my question invalid?

Why is Amerika such a larger target than say Japan or Korea? How is modernity being defined? Economically, culturually? We are not better educated than many other counties nor are we less prudish.

Let us again address our foreign policy as the ultimate source of our ills.

[Odin2005]

15. AmeriKa?

This isn't Maoist Underground, buddy. :eyes:

[wuushew]

16. calm yourself Odin

you get worked up to often.

[hack89]

58. Culturally, America is dominant in the world

Music, movies, fashion - Muslim kids are not being "corrupted" by Japanese or Korean CDs and DVDs. Buddhism or Shinto are also not spreading globally.

[wuushew]

59. Its not our century anymore

2 billion in Asia will assure otherwise. Bollywood is growing in importance as well.

[hack89]

60. Never said it was

just explaining why AQ sees America as the enemy.

[Codeine]

63. When people are reduced to using "Amerika"

they have ceased to have any credibility.

[BeFree]

17. Good question

I wonder why AQ never flew a plane into the Israeli capitol.

Surely the British have done more damage to their world.

So why attack just the US?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

21. They have been responsible for attacks in the UK as well

For example, they claimed responsibility for the London bombings during the G8 conference in July of 2005.

[Meldread]

22. The answer to your question is simple.

It can be answered in several parts.

First, it isn't about what it is in "my mind" - it's about what is in Al Qaeda's mind.

Second, they've placed a large target on the United States because we're the largest economy in the world and the last remaining "superpower" militarily. After all, if you're going to kill yourself why do it attacking Sweden? It's not the United States in particular that they hate, but the entire Western World. In their minds the United States is more of a symbol than a country.

Third, I use the word modernity because it is most appropriate to describe what they hate the most about the Western World. To understand why they hate it, you have to understand that they exist as a result of a cultural backlash. Their way of thinking has largely already been dealt with in the Western World - equal rights for women, human rights, freedom of religion, etc. All of these ideas and concepts conflict with Al Qaeda's vision. These are modern concepts that are slowly beginning to flow throughout the world, in huge thanks to Western culture. It is also beginning to take root in the Muslim world, which is why 98% of all the victims of Al Qaeda's terrorism are Muslim.

There is the answer to your question.

[Flaneur]

40. Or could it because Sweden isn't occuping Iraq, Afghanistan...

...lobbing rockets into Pakistan, and Yemen, and Somalia, and blindly supporting Israel?

[Meldread]

44. Or it could be because we don't have any intentions of converting to their world-wide theocracy?

Here is Al Qaeda's own words spoken by Mustafa Abul-Yazeed, third in command of Al Qaeda to Al Jazeera.

"God willing, (Pakistan's) nuclear weapons won't fall into the hands of the Americans and they will be seized by the fighters and used against the Americans."

"We are part of a Muslim world that wants happiness for all humanity. If the Americans agree to our conditions : leave Muslim nations, stop supporting Israel, stop supporting oppressive regimes in the region, and stop killing Muslims and release prisoners. If they met these conditions we would offer a long truce, say ten years. Then we will ask them to become Muslims and if they refuse, we will Impose the Jizyeh or tax. And if they refuse we will fight them. This is our view of peace and we don't think they will agree, so we should prepare for the fight."

----------

That's straight from the horses mouth. If we ceased doing all the things you just listed, we'd get a ten year truce! All we have to do after that is convert to Islam, or accept the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya">Jizyeh tax, or die! Yay! It sounds like a stellar deal, doesn't it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. But they're nine feet tall, bright blue, and are connected to the World Tree.

Or whatever.

[L0oniX]

13. So you're saying that if we weren't involved with anything that goes against them that they'd ...

attack other Muslims who are not fundamentalists? That may not be a bad thing. Letting or getting them all to fight each other is better than us having to fight them ...especially right now when our country has enough troubles within.

[Meldread]

25. That's not what I'm saying.

It's unfortunate, but there is really nothing we can do to get Al Qaeda to stop hating us. They stand opposed to the West, and they see the United States as a symbol of all things Western. If we wanted to make peace with Al Qaeda we'd have to do the following:

1. Denounce everything virtually everyone who reads this post stands for - human rights, equal rights for women, freedom of religion, free speech, etc.
2. Convert to Islam - and not just any brand of Islam... THEIR brand of Islam.
3. Obey the leaders of Al Qaeda implicitly.

That is how we achieve peace with Al Qaeda, and of course - that is unacceptable.

What I said was that AT BEST, that if we left the Middle East entirely that Al Qaeda would turn their attentions inward toward the Middle East as a whole. They'd focus on trying to take down allied governments to the West, and in all likelihood they'd have much more success at doing so without us there.

Let me try and give some comparisons which should help visualize the problem. These comparisons are not absolute or approximate, but they help illustrate why we have such difficulties.

In the United States we are considered "radical" liberals, but if we were to go to Europe we would be fairly mainstream. Likewise, our mainstream liberals here in the United States would be considered conservatives in Europe. Now, in the Muslim World our mainstream conservatives would be considered "moderates." These are the people Al Qaeda wants to kill. Like mainstream conservatives in the United States, they're interested in upholding tradition and are fairly intertwined with their faith. Beyond that our radical conservatives - the Religious Right - are their mainstream conservatives. Finally, that brings us to the absolute fringe. In the United States that is the Left Behind folks, the people who want to start World War 3 to help hurry along the Second Coming of Christ, and in the Muslim World this is Al Qaeda.

Just like in the United States, Christian Conservatives may not entirely agree with the Left Behind folks, they still would consider them part of the group, crazy though they may be. They would feel sympathetic toward their cause as fellow Christians, and would try to defend them if they were attacked. It is the same in the Muslim World. The "moderates" and "mainstream conservatives" view Al Qaeda as kindred Muslims. They may not agree with their tactics, or agree with their purpose, but they feel solidarity with them when they're under attack.

Therefore, just as when we have to deal with the Left Behind folks here at home, we don't want to send out secularists to attack them. That will just cause them to be defended by conservative Christians of all stripes. We send out Christians to attack them, to point out the flaws in their arguments, to condemn them, thus not making the argument about "you're attacking my faith" but rather "their interpretation of the faith is wrong." In essence, you've created two factions within the faith with each side seeing the other as heretical.

The approach should be no different when it comes to dealing with Al Qaeda. If predominantly Christian nations attack Muslim nations, they feel solidarity with Al Qaeda and rally behind them. The words of Christians and Secularists cannot sway the deeply devout who will view every word as a lie to sway them away from their faith. Instead, we need reform minded Muslims - Muslim's who embrace human rights, equal rights for women, freedom of religion, an open and healthy relationship with the West, etc. They are equivalent of moderates and liberals of all stripes here in the United States - to speak out, stand up, and offer an alternative vision for Islam.

In the end it is a war of ideas. It is similar to the Protestant Reformation; which in this case would be mainstream Muslims as Catholics and reform minded Muslims as Protestants.

[Cleita]

18. Right now I can't read any further than this.

"Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist cult, and is truly no different in their logic than the Christian fundamentalist cults here in the United States."

But I will.

[Meldread]

26. I don't mean to imply...

I don't mean to imply tactics or strategy are similar or the same. It is an imperfect comparison to help illustrate world view and philosophical outlook.

In the United States fundamentalist Christians often feel as if they are under siege. That the whole world has become "secular" and that people are attacking "Christians." Fundamentalist Islamists feel exactly the same way, and it is that feeling and that sense of alienation that has given birth to Al Qaeda. It is not a feeling or rationality based in reality, but rather it is a desire to restrain, contain, and turn back progress. Both groups feel that their ideals - if only people embraced them wholeheartedly - would lead to a better world. They see themselves as victims, and believe their cause to be just and good... and this allows them to do many things (and then justify them) that rational people would never consider or do.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNN0LHI]

27. Would you mind listing all the religions that do not fit the definition of a cult?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/CULT

Main Entry: cult
Pronunciation: \ˈkəlt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

[Meldread]

29. I intended for the word to be understood in its colloquial usage.

Not its literal use. Obviously, every religion is a cult. As an atheist I don't have a dog in this fight, but that doesn't mean they want to blow me up any less. (Perhaps they want to blow me up more. :P)

[BeFree]

31. Problem

You say: "We need to reach out and help Muslim's find a way to integrate their faith into the modern world, making it seem more welcoming."

We need, imo, to stay out of their countries. We need to take our modern world, as unsustainable as it is, and reform it first. We need to let them be, not, as you say, make our world seem more welcome to them. Making our world more welcome to them is pushing our world onto them and is a big mistake.

[chrisa]

33. But, there lies the problem.

Al-Qaeda will always be an enemy of the Western world. Pulling all soldiers out of the Middle East will not stop that. I don't support any form of war, but I believe these groups do need to be watched. This is where good intelligence comes into play. They should never be allowed to amass armies, or get bio or nuclear weapons.

This is not an attempt to fear-monger, but they would have no problem laying waste to the Western world. Not because they're "evil," and that non-sense, but because they're fundamentalists following a vision. They don't like our way of life, and want all cultural influences out of their country, which they see as the one main roadblock to their utopian Islamic paradise. As radicalized as they are, Al-Qaeda is still made up of rational beings. You want them to like you and stop attacking you, but they make peace impossible with their extremist views and inability to accept any view other than their own. This is the paradox.

Pulling out of their country won't cause them just to kill each other, as a poster above said. This is a global war now that will never end (like the drug war), which can be better fought with good intelligence and effective law enforcement, rather than bombs (unless necessary).

[BeFree]

34. Yep

Our modern world is addicted to bogeymen and AQ is the best incarnation at this time.

If, as the OP states, they object to the modern world, then what are the main objections? I mean, I am not an expert so I ask for some clarifications.

What we have now is chicken littles running around screaming the sky is falling and AQ is the reason. Yall are gonna have to do better than that if your gonna convince anyone that AQ is the biggest threat EVAH!

[Meldread]

36. The reason your wrong:

Because Al Qaeda doesn't give a shit about our world. Leaving their countries, this is agreeable to me for the reasons that I have stated in this thread, but it will not satisfy Al Qaeda. It will not bring an end to their terrorism against the West, against Muslims, or against the United States. They will come here regardless because Al Qaeda WANTS us stuck in wars with Muslim nations, and America stupidly does exactly what Al Qaeda wants.

They learned from their war against the Soviet's that you can cripple a super power by getting them embroiled in an endless war. That is what they want to do to the United States, and at the same time - as we kill Muslims - they can call it a crusade and use it to recruit more to their cause.

What we want instead are Muslims who agree with basic human rights, equality for women, freedom of religion - all "modern" concepts for a pluralistic society - to speak out against Al Qaeda. They must offer an alternative to Al Qaeda because it is a war of ideas. If you allow Al Qaeda to win this war of ideas, then they'll turn the entire Muslim world (roughly 1 billion or more people) against the West and the United States. If you allow Al Qaeda to accomplish their stated objectives, we'd literally head for World War 3 as they'd seek to use biological and nuclear weapons against the West in an attempt to convert us all to Islam.

--------

Here is Al Qaeda's own words spoken by Mustafa Abul-Yazeed, third in command of Al Qaeda to Al Jazeera.

"God willing, (Pakistan's) nuclear weapons won't fall into the hands of the Americans and they will be seized by the fighters and used against the Americans."

"We are part of a Muslim world that wants happiness for all humanity. If the Americans agree to our conditions : leave Muslim nations, stop supporting Israel, stop supporting oppressive regimes in the region, and stop killing Muslims and release prisoners. If they met these conditions we would offer a long truce, say ten years. Then we will ask them to become Muslims and if they refuse, we will Impose the Jizyeh or tax. And if they refuse we will fight them. This is our view of peace and we don't think they will agree, so we should prepare for the fight."

[BeFree]

45. Finally

You wrote something which makes sense and it only took about 10 posts to do so.

The modern ideas of equality are important. But we have just in the last 20 years even got close in our society and we are far from perfect.

The best we can do is be a good example. But, like you say, we are embroiled in wars that we have been suckered into, and have set a bad example in doing so.

And we've got politicos running around yelling "Fear the Muslims."

It doesn't look good. We (white males) are a minority and if we don't get our shit together we will be crushed given the advanced weapons that are becoming more and more available. It's just that your message, if that is what it is, isn't very clear. But that is why we have discussions, eh? To clear things up?

[Meldread]

48. Yes.

The entire purpose of this thread was to promote Muslims like http://www.irshadmanji.com/home">Irashad Manji who want to challenge the fundamentalists within Muslim culture.

I see our conflict with Al Qaeda differently than the majority of American's see it. I see it as a war within Islam itself. Al Qaeda is fighting to promote their particular brand of Islam, and the majority of people they kill are Muslim - individuals they deem as un-Islamic.

I believe that rather than invading Muslim nations, embroiling ourselves in endless conflict, we are better served through better use of intelligence and aligning ourselves with reform minded Muslims. This is in contrast to our current view and treatment of Muslims...

Our goal should be to turn the Muslim world against Al Qaeda because fundamentally Al Qaeda is a Muslim problem. Every time AQ blows up a mosque I want to see Muslims around the world out in the streets marching and protesting, the same way they were out marching and protesting the Danish cartoon depiction of Mohammad.

[BeFree]

49. Agreed

So why is the CIA, etal, playing right into the bad guys hands? Why doesn't the CIA take your advice and do the right thing?

It really is easy to do, so why ain't they doing it?

[Meldread]

52. Because they're idiots.

People give the CIA and the American government too much credit. It's full of idiots.

I feel sorry for the American's lost in the recent attack against the CIA by Al Qaeda in Afghanistan... but it should tell you all that you need to know about the CIA and the American government. Who in their right mind brings all the high profile leaders of the CIA in Afghanistan to one central location? They were supposed to be some of the most qualified and senior agents in the CIA, and apparently not a single one of them thought going to a dangerous region of Afghanistan, along with many other high target CIA agents was a bad idea.

It is the incompetence of bureaucracy and politics... and a sheer unwillingness to think outside the box. Too many people view the CIA as some shadowy organization, when in reality they probably couldn't find their own asses with both hands.

It's the same thing going on right now with the full body scanners. Really, people think that's going to make us safe? Apparently they've never watched a prison documentary. The next step Al Qaeda will take will be to insert the stuff up their ass... that ain't gonna show on a full body scanner. Surely, I hope someone has thought of this... but what are they going to do? Force us all to strip naked and have a cavity search?

Another example would be recent TSA guidelines that prevented people from using blankets in the last hour of flight... because, you know, a terrorist would totally not want to blow up the plane except in that last hour - not an hour before, or soon after it takes off into the air.

This is the incompetence of our government on display... and Al Qaeda laughs... and our government plays right into their hands.

[BeFree]

54. Incompetence?

Not going to argue with that. Except to say that there is obviously some things we don't know. And that exactly is how and why conspiracy theories get started.

"Why are they doing such stupid shit?"

Too, you must realize that the full circle you've now come, is what some people would decry as being just like birthers. Yes, you could be said to be as crazy as the birthers.

But not I. No, I say you just haven't explored all the ways this shit could be happening. You have a clue as to what is happening, but your "incompetence theory" is not enough, and could be totally wrong.

Money, and power, are what runs these shadowy things, and the PTB are more than happy to have folks just put it down to incompetence. That lets the real criminals just sneak away.

[Meldread]

55. Of course there are things we don't know.

They're a secret intelligence agency. :P

But they aren't operating without oversight. Even if the oversight is poor (and I believe it is), the President at the very least knows what is going on. This means that they can be held accountable, and their actions are at the very least given a quiet nod. All of the bad things the CIA has done in the past (such as fucking around down in South America) was sanctioned by our government at its highest levels. The CIA isn't a rogue agency as some people like to believe.

But yes, conspiracy theories are inevitable when dealing with any secretive organization.

"That lets the real criminals just sneak away."

If the CIA does anything that is criminal, as I said, it has been sanctioned by the highest levels of our government. Thus, you'd have to lay the blame at the feet of the President of the United States and likely key members of Congress as well.

----

Also, I wouldn't call it an "incompetence theory" I would call it as pretty obvious based upon the performance we've seen. People place too much faith in our government and in its institutions.

Although, I would throw the CIA a bone and not place the failure of America's approach to terrorism entirely on their shoulders. A great deal rests on the shoulders - virtually 75% of the blame or more - on politicians. When Al Qaeda strikes us in a terrorist attack... what is our immediate response? We look for a nation to invade! Of course, if you want to accuse our elected leaders of being corrupted, incompetent, greedy, and power hungry - these are all things I will completely agree with.

[wuushew]

37. Show me an "ism" can reliably project action on a global scale

It doesn't exist. Nationalism triumphed over Communism, the cultural unity Ottoman Empire likewise ultimately a failure, Pan-Arabism failure, united Christendom joke for over a Millenia, etc. The saying that all politics are local has a great degree of truth to it. To whatever extent the U.S. finds itself inserted into or blamed in these local or regional issues is in many cases resultant of our willful interference.

The threat you claim Al Queda presents cannot exist owning to the organizational structure is has created. The hierarchy of man made artificial constructs follows thusly: the State > corporation > group > individual. To achieve wider aims would so alter the structure of a movement as to also change its aims and actions. Iran for instance is founded fundamentalist Islam but yet the responsibly of conducting the business of the state has limited and directed in ways not dissimilar to other governments both democratic and non-democratic.


Such random acts of individual and small scale violence will NEVER be more a blip in an actuarial sense, yet we do not waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to conquer shark attacks and lightening strikes. Blood and treasure is being thrown carelessly to the wind. The contemporary economic and political factors which create religious fanaticism will in many cases resolve themselves with the passage of time with or without our oversight.

[Meldread]

38. You are over looking the ability of a small handful of individuals...

You are over looking the ability of a small handful of individuals to have a great deal of impact on a larger group. My concern when it comes to Al Qaeda is not their conventional terrorist attacks, it's the potential for their radical view of the world to sway enough people that it could cause the collapse of some weakened Muslim nations. For example Pakistan is all but a failed state, it is a realistic possibility that Al Qaeda could bring down such a weak state.

I doubt Al Qaeda's ability to govern under even favorable conditions... such governance would effectively make the state look similar to Afghanistan. However, to allow them to operate unchallenged would allow their ideology to spread. In so doing, they may have the ability to carry out more terrorist attacks, not to mention the possibility of getting their hands on the Pakistani nukes - a stated goal of Al Qaeda. If such a thing were to happen, we could see at the very least complete regional instability. Even if Al Qaeda never used it against us, we'd still face an economic backlash. This says nothing of a moral obligation to try and prevent the massacre of millions of innocent people.

Perhaps my largest concern is the potential for Al Qaeda to make serious investments in genetics and biology. It is rather clear that Al Qaeda has the ability to recruit and convert well educated individuals, and as such we have to consider the implications of that... such as the potential in the next 10 to 15 years of the ease at which we may be able to genetically engineer viruses.

Imagine a virus that was genetically programmed to lay dormant for a month or more, but is highly contagious long before any symptoms show. It is deadly, with the possibility of killing 90 out of every 100 people it infects. A single Al Qaeda terrorist infects himself with this super virus, then travels all around the Western World and into enemy Islamic nations. This virus then begins to spread globally... and before we even know what is happening, millions of people start to die. It would be the equivalent of the Black Plague but on a world wide scale.

This could potentially be done in a small lab, with only a few handful of individuals even aware of what is being done. It would be infinitely more deadly than a nuclear weapon. To ignore the possibility of a small group of individuals, devoted to killing massive numbers of innocent people, is not only foolish but dangerously neglectful. Such thinking should have ended with WWII - when conventional military warfare became obsolete. We now live in a world where a small handful of individuals can effectively hold the entire planet hostage, and as our technology and knowledge both expands and improves, the number of individuals required to do damage on a world-wide scale will continue to shrink.

[wuushew]

47. That is baloney, technical achievements are the result of institutions not individuals

the tangible benefits from much of chemistry, physics and biology are through large organizational institutions usually setup by the state. The fields themselves are ones of ever growing complexity, they dictate ever greater facilities and funding. They are not fields that will ever become do it yourself hobbies.

Where will these terrorist facilities exist? How will the institutional knowledge be preserved and disseminated over many years, how will adequate resources be provided and how will qualified personal be recruited?


What you describe is implausible.

[Meldread]

50. Answers to your questions:

If we became isolationist, and allowed the issue to "resolve over time" then we open up the possibility of Al Qaeda establishing more permanent bases. They could even potentially bring down some weaker nation states such as Pakistan, Afghanistan or Yemen. They would accomplish this through sympathetic allies or through outright assassination of government officials and double agents within those governments sympathetic or aligned with their cause. All of this is highly plausible for them to accomplish without United States intervention.

I do not support military intervention, but we must intervene to collect intelligence, and carry out strategic operations to try and keep Al Qaeda fragmented. This prevents them from developing "large organizational institutions."

Al Qaeda has proven that they have the ability to recruit highly educated individuals, but even ignoring out right recruitment there is still plenty of room for corruptibility (greed) and sympathy with the cause. Raising funds is not a major issue for Al Qaeda, although requiring the necessary equipment could be an issue... but it is not impossible.

Given that Al Qaeda is completely devoted to their cause and determined, it is not unreasonable that if allowed to operate without some measure of intervention by the United States that they could accomplish large scale terrorist attacks akin to what I outlined.

[wuushew]

51. I am am telling you those things are beyond the organizational scope of terrorism

Do you think Al Queda operates like Cobra from G.I. Joe? Look at the conditions in the world which Islamic terrorism now exists. If oil money fuels violence what happens when fossil economy exausts itself by the end of this century? You seemed determined to find a reason to fight threats that are vague and speculative.

[Meldread]

53. You are thinking of things in terms of how they exist currently.

Under current conditions such would be virtually impossible to pull off. We are in complete agreement. I am not saying that it is possible right now.

I am saying this: If we completely ignore Al Qaeda as a threat, then given 10 to 15 years, it is highly possible that they could develop a strong enough organizational structure to plan such an attack.

Al Qaeda is not vague or speculative. They've been pretty clear about their goals, their intentions, and how they intend to achieve them.

I am not advocating military conflict. I am advocating better use of intelligence agents, and finding ways to empower reform minded Muslims who wish to speak out against Al Qaeda. The only time we would need to directly intervene would be to prevent a planned terrorist attack or to assassinate key Al Qaeda leaders. You do not need a military for that.

[bik0]

66. It's plausible that Al Qaeda can recruit sympathizers and converts within institutions

It's plausible that Al Qaeda can recruit sympathizers and converts within institutions who have access to technology and scientific knowledge.

[Fire1]

39. Thanks for this Meldread. I'll be watching 'Dateline' tomorrow

instead of 60 Minutes.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. The bottom line is that Al Qaeda's leaders seek power

Osama Bin Laden (if he is still alive) wants to overthrow King Abdullah and put himself on the throne of Saudi Arabia and put his allies in charge of the other Arab states. What convinces people to follow them is another issue and I think you do have some good points on that particular front.

[lib2DaBone]

61. Al Qeada was created by Robert Gates of the CIA in 1981 to fight the Russians.

What else is there to understand?

Al Qaeda will show up whenever and wherever the oil companies need an enemy to justify corporate hegemony.

[votingupstart]

65. not sure if your serious...

isn't that like saying the french invented the US when they helped us with that little British problem?

- the is no question that the CIA funded / trained / equipped / etc mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan to counter the USSR, and when the war was finished some of those same fighters then went on to fight with various groups some exposing a radical interpretation of Islam such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda however lets not forget that some went to fight for the "northern alliance" also.

I would caution in jumping to blame -- if you teach a man to fish and feed himself and then 20 years later he uses that same knowledge to kill all the fish in his pond are you still responsible?

Besides the oil companies don't really need another boogieman to justify anything, they have bought enough politicians over the years to justify anything they want.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.