Why do terrorists attack selected countries only?

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Let’s assume for the moment that our domestic Taleban really believe their rhetoric that their counterparts in the Muslim world are attacking us because “they hate our freedom, our way of life, our democracy.” Curtailing our freedoms and turning our societies into Orwellian police states could all really be a clever ploy to neutralize the very reason Muslim terrorists are at war with us.

Why, for example, would someone who hates freedom and democracy have any reason at all to attack a police state?

Could it be our Knights of the Apocalypse aren’t really as clueless and morally challenged as they appear?

Well Spook:

I suppose we could spend years discussing this issue, but the fact remains that the Muslim extremists are attacking only a few countries now because those countries stand in the way of their stated goals. There was an interesting study about Islamofascist violence and who and what it targets. Rarely do these people go after the Russians, Chinese and Indians because they know that not only will no apologies be forthcoming nor will any efforts be made to understand their “legitimate” grievances but they will get whacked and whacked hard.

What exactly does the US deserve to be attacked for? Our support of Israel? That support has only really been in place since 1967 and has wavered over the years depending on who was president. Neither Reagan or Bush 1 were great friends of Israel, nor were the Clintons who hosted Arafat more than any other world leader. Carter was extremely anti-Israel and this has been documented in his speeches and comments during the negotiation process.

So, is it our investment in the oil infrastructure? Many of these nations are begging for more to rescue their moribund oil sectors and not just from the US, but China and France and Russia and India as well.

Then, it must be for our support of oppressive regimes? But the regimes that they want to institute are even more oppressive.

Okay, then it must be our support for corrupt regimes that do not respect human rights. Well then why is it that the nations with the closest relations to the US have the better records and those that are most against the US have the worst records: Syria, Iran, former Afghanistan, former Iraq, Algeria?

So there are many questions to challenge your view of things. Also, I would immediately assume from this conversation that you have never been to the Middle East even once.

I have and now I am going to pontificate.

The religious aspect is mostly bullshit. What we see is a mafia, a gang that is set out to take territory. If this were in NY and we had mafias going around blowing things up and terrorizing civilians to get money, you would be against it and would view the perpetrators as criminals. These people are smart, a hell of a lot smarter than you. They know how to use the media. They perfected it during the Palestinian “struggle.” Top PR firms were brought in to bear and they have honed that message to perfection. Throw in the anti Semitism that exists among the media and intellectual elite in the West and you have a perfect storm. Willing cooperation to get rid of those pesky Jews and find an appropriate victim that represents the pet views of those who want to continue to beat the drum of marginalized oppression of Brown Peoples everywhere. Ain’t true though.

The Middle East is filled with gangs because there are no civil structure in place. The closest Western example I can think of to indicate the kinds of problems that we are having and going to have is Sicily and Calabria. There you have the economic backwardness and organized lawlessness that are so symptomatic of the problems facing the Middle East. You have the same wealthy patrons buying off threats and bashing in judges, media or indpendent citizen groups to ensure they keep playing the game. Wake up. Your stance is not principled. It is intellectually bankrupt, cowardly or deliberately skewed for reasons that only you truly can know and understand if and when you are willing to do so.

I think I have a pretty good idea of why and how you came to think as you do. You are not alone. BUT wouldn’t it be a concept, an idea to actually step foot even once in the Middle East just to see how things are in practice? Then, go even further and try to imagine running a business in most of these Arab nations, living there, educating your children, especially your daughters and THEN ponder what we are working to change. The only sad irony is that all the women’s, children’s, gay, human rights, environmental groups that claim to share certain principles are not only silent about the Arab World but actually loudly critical of what we are trying to do? Explain to me why. Look at the lack of progress in the past 60 years and also the silence in the West. Look at what we have accomplished in three short years and what do we get? Praise? Admiration? No. Blanket condemnation. Please explain to me how people who claim to have certain principles can criticize those who are doing most to see those principles advanced? Bewildering. This is why the left will not be winning any elections in any consistent manner for the far foreseeable future. What does it stand for? What will it do to advance its aims? If, that is, it can even definite its aims.

[quote=“fred smith”]Well Spook:

I suppose we could spend years discussing this issue, but the fact remains that the Muslim extremists are attacking only a few countries now because those countries stand in the way of their stated goals. There was an interesting study about Islamofascist violence and who and what it targets. Rarely do these people go after the Russians, Chinese and Indians because they know . . . .[/quote]

I stopped reading right about here. It’s the credibility thing.

"WHAT HAPPENED IN BESLAN?

The Beslan tragedy is the worst terror-related human catastrophe in the history of Russia. There are at least 335 victims, mostly children, who died as a direct result of this terror act. Over 700 victims, also mostly children, have been hospitalized, a large number of them with very serious injuries.

On September 11, 2001, Russian people and the whole world stood by the people of the United States, Canada, and all other countries whose citizens became victims of that unprecedented terrorist attack. The Beslan hostage crisis is an example of the same type of terrorism that has perpetrated the September 11th attack."

moscowhelp.org/en/index.html

Keep reading and spare the dramatic posturing.

Al Qaeda was involved in Beslan? Did I miss something here?

Now, with that framework in mind, go back and reread my post. After all, I am not bringing the Basque separatists, nor those in Catalonia nor those in Corsica nor the IRA into this discussion am I? I am talking about the global Islamofascist terroristic forces as exemplified by al Qaeda. Now, put away your faux shock and give me a real answer.

[quote=“fred smith”]Keep reading and spare the dramatic posturing.

Al Qaeda was involved in Beslan? Did I miss something here?

Now, with that framework in mind, go back and reread my post. After all, I am not bringing the Basque separatists, nor those in Catalonia nor those in Corsica nor the IRA into this discussion am I? I am talking about the global Islamofascist terroristic forces as exemplified by al Qaeda. Now, put away your faux shock and give me a real answer.[/quote]

Unless I’m mistaken your thesis was “Islamofascist violence.”

You’ve heard of Kashmir, right? You may even have been there.

"Kashmir terrorism part of global war, says Powell
Aziz Haniffa in Washington

US Secretary of State Colin Powell Tuesday reiterated Washington’s pledge that the United States-led campaign against terrorism will stamp out not only Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network, but all of its global manifestations, including the terror network’s appendages in Kashmir.

With India’s External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh beside him, Powell strongly condemned the attack on the Srinagar legislature that killed at least 38 people, when a member of the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad group carried out a suicide attack in a car laden with explosives."

rediff.com/us/2001/oct/03ny5.htm

It has been argued by the perpetrators of the school abduction that their intent was not promotion of a Muslim caliphate but to fight back against oppression in Chechnya and that their intention was not to blow up the school and that many of the deaths were caused by excessive overreaction on the part of Russian soldiers, which we have seen as well in their brutal campaign in Chechnya.

Also, I have mentioned Kashmir as an area in the past where Pakistani insurgents funded by that government have been active.

You are either being obtuse or deliberately missing the point though: Why is it that al Qaeda has not targeted skyscrapers in Beijing, Moscow or Bombay? Why is it that bombing campaigns have not been unleashed against Russian targets (by al Qaeda and its network) or in India or in China? THAT is my point.

If for example al Qaeda were to fly a plane into a skyscraper in China, I wonder what the government there would do. Nuke attack on a Middle Eastern target? I seriously believe that given the capability that China if attacked ala 911 would have responded to the center of the support (the mountains of Afghanistan) that would have turned the entire area to glass and be damned for the perilous, pain-staking searches from cave to cave. THAT too is my point.

Now, do you understand where I am coming from or are you going to persist in MFGRizing this debate to run off on tactical tangents? Up to you, but don’t expect me to remain interested.

So one last effort: I am talking about al Qaeda and Islamofascism not localized terrorist efforts by Chechens and Pakistani insurgents unless connected with these overall efforts.

Let’s just say al Qaeda then Islamofascism is too difficult for you to wrap your mind around.

Actually, I’ve always had a problem with that term. See, the reason is that “fascism” is a form of totalitarian government principally characterized by racism, hypernationalism, and a strong alliance between corporate and government power.

bin Laden’s theoretical Caliphate would appear to have the racism thing down, but “hypernationalism” doesn’t seem to make sense for a would-be pan-Muslim movement, and there definitely doesn’t seem to be any alliance between corporate and government power (that’d be more Dubai-style, although that’s just “the government owns everything and is incorporated” rather than “the government and the largest parts of the business sector are engaged in mutually beneficial corruption.”

So what’s fascist about it? Totalitarian, sure, although it’s so anti-modernization that I wonder if even that term (smacking as it does of state control of modern media etc) can really apply. Speaking of, wouldn’t an Islamo"fascist" state sort of need to exist, before it could be a state?

Personally I just prefer the term “theocrat.” No need for fancy made-up terms, just call it what it is: unquestioned rule by an arch-conservative religious authority.

How does this differ from what is present in Syria? Iran? or previously in Afghanistan?

Actually, there is a strong element that interestingly hates the Shia as much as the Kurd. Enemy of my enemy and all that. Perfectly understandable given that two sworn enemies like Hitler and Stalin could see room for cooperation and opportunity advancement. Why not in these particular situations?

Actually the economies of most Middle Eastern nations are highly statist. I see no reason why this should be suprising.

not necessarily.

that’s more like it.

Given that the Baathist parties of both Syria and Iran as well as Nasser’s Egypt among other Pan-Arab nationalist movements were directly based on the Hitler fascist model of the 1930s, I believe the term is appropriate.

But that is not what really happens in practice is it. Again, I would question that religion is any more important to the corrupt mafiosos who rule Iran, or those in Syria or those in Lebanon or those in Palestine with those previously in Afghanistan and Iraq than the “Catholicism” of the Italian and Spanish “dons.” Eventually, no matter who participates in the revolution, if there is no code for protecting human rights or constitution that safeguards democracy, in the end, all you get is the bigger or more ruthless fish taking over the power to control the sources of income. We have seen that time and time again. I would really wonder therefore how long any religious element of any al Qaeda “Caliphate” would last before the angling and patronage began but then that too would be in full accordance with what occured under the previous Caliphate so I guess you would unintentionally have a point there.

[quote=“fred smith”]Well Spook:

I suppose we could spend years discussing this issue, but the fact remains that the Muslim extremists are attacking only a few countries now because those countries stand in the way of their stated goals. There was an interesting study about Islamofascist violence and who and what it targets. Rarely do these people go after the Russians, Chinese and Indians because they know that not only will no apologies be forthcoming nor will any efforts be made to understand their “legitimate” grievances but they will get whacked and whacked hard.[/quote]
al Qaeda does not go after Russia, China, India because those groups do not stand in the way of al Qaeda’s goals in the Middle East (no support for Israel, no bases in Saudi Arabia, etc). Note also that the US has responded by attempting to “whack and whack hard” something or another in the region where the terrorists operate. Obviously we went after the secular state instead when our enemy was theocracy; nevertheless there assuredly was a swift and violent response.

Ask a terrorist. I’ve still not seen a link to bin Laden’s earliest manifesto, and I’ve seen it argued on another topic on this board that bin Laden’s latest are just efforts to manipulate American political elements, so I guess I can’t claim to know for sure.

Please be more specific. “Many of these nations” doesn’t let us evaluate how close their links are to theocratic terrorism.

Nobody thinks a regime is oppressive if they agree with what it does. Of course the theocrats wouldn’t object to a theocratic state; they’d be the ones getting to play king.

You seem to throw that card around a lot. All any of us in the audience can do is ask you to enlighten us with the specific details of your experience.

Aside from that’s what they plan to do once they get power, this is essentially correct; the theocrats of the bin Laden / al Qaeda variety want to set up a new government uniting the Middle East (and, per what you’ve said, eventually the world) so of course there are elements of a power grab in there. Of course it’s garbed in religious fanaticism, as that seems to be what sells to the population (not in the brain of the mafia or part of the revolutionary vanguard or whatever) in the Middle Eastern context. Kind of like how class-based arguments were what the revolutionary vanguards used for their power grab in Russia and China. But yes, it is essentially a power grab. And…?

I’d also point out that I’ve always argued that we should treat terrorism like you say – as a mafia, as a crime prevention and criminal prosecution issue, not a “war”. I don’t think that logic has many supporters in the US, unfortunately.

Hey now, no need to get personal. Spook’s smart enough not to strap a bomb to his chest and call it a political statement.

That’s why we hear so much mainstream support for the Palestinian cause? (But I don’t want this to devolve into some discussion of the Israel-Palestine issue; my only point here is that if they knew how to use the media so effectively, there would be more than a network of college students taking the Palestinian side, and fewer sanctimonious articles from Thomas Friedman in the NYT about how Palestine needs to step up.)

Heh. One side thinks they’re all anti-Semites; the other side thinks they’re all Jews. Brilliant.

Okay now, really. Can we limit the allegations of anti-Semitism to where it’s at least somewhat on-topic?

Funny, I believe I made that point somewhere, and talked about how it’s fruitless to push for political change until that civil society exists?

So it’s about corrupt regimes in the Middle East?

I’m sorry, I’m not sure which stance of Spook’s you’re attacking here. Was it the argument that the US should not abuse civil liberties?

Fred, you’re one source that’s lived in the Middle East. There are other sources who have lived in the Middle East with very different opinions. In fact, your time in the ME was as a foreigner. My understanding (from the very little I’ve been able to glean from these boards, and please do correct me if I’m wrong) is that you studied there for four years, half of which was in Israel (in what I’m guessing was probably one of the more conservative schools). We’ve had cites from natives, people who’ve lived their whole lives in the ME who see things differently from you.
Obviously it would be best if everybody participating in this discussion had spent some time in the ME. But in the absence of direct experience, we’re left with the problem of choosing sources. Of course I give weight to your experience there (and, honestly, I wish you’d tell us more about it.) However you can’t expect to step in and trump any other Middle Eastern source that we’ve heard that disagrees with you, just because we the audience don’t have direct experience ourselves.

Okay, I’m only speaking for myself here, can’t claim to speak for anyone else. But when I look at life in the ME, I say to myself “there but for the grace.” If I could blink my eyes and ensure that everyone there would have equal rights; that women, children, gay people, all people, and our planet were respected – of course I would. The problem is that the world does not work that way. You can’t fix someone else’s problems for them and you can’t live someone else’s life for them. Why? Because people are never any good at that. It just doesn’t work. People always wind up screwing it up. Meanwhile we just do what we can, and try to focus on the things that we can change – the behavior of our own countries in the West, mainly, whether in supporting people doing bad things or not supporting people doing good things, or whether acting in issues that really are of concern only to us – provide (material and spiritual) support and sympathy where we can, and acknowledge that that’s where our effective role ends.

I’d draw a parallel with someone in an abusive relationship. Someone who just won’t leave. There’s a real strong desire to go in there and pull that person out. But that doesn’t work. Unless someone comes out of that situation as a product of her own decision, she’ll just run back to it and resent her would-be white knight, or she’ll find another situation that repeats the first. If there’s a chance for charges to be filed and a batterer to be arrested, then the cops do try to do that, though it doesn’t usually solve the survivor’s problems; and of course we try to get the children out if it’s possible, because we actually have a chance with them if we get them early enough. But beyond that, there’s nothing we can do except offer advice and support and shelter when things get bad.

Because we haven’t been playing the supportive role to the best of our abilities, and because we haven’t accomplished very much in those three short years (it’ll take a LONG TIME) and most of us remain skeptical of what we’ll accomplish in the next thirty. We’re thinking with a white-knight savior attitude, when that’s really not going to help anything.

We have the same aims you do: freedom, peace, and mutual respect for all people. Well, okay – we acknowledge that freedom doesn’t mean “being exactly like us,” and that it may well mean freedom to be something diametrically opposed to us (or it isn’t freedom at all). Of course if that happens, well, we’ll have to respond when it does, but we at least acknowledge it as a possibility. Other than that, we acknowledge that the means currently being used to achieve those aims are counterproductive, however good and productive they may feel.

Anyway, this entire post of mine has been completely OFF TOPIC here. In a vain attempt to save it, I’ll just throw in that I am opposed to imprisoning people without trial. Everybody should get a writ of habeas corpus and a speedy trial schedule, or else walk free, and this BS about not documenting arrests needs to stop. We’re the leader of the free world, and we’re above that, so let’s act like it. (and don’t tell me that we have to keep detainees secret or the terrorists will find out they’ve been captured – c’mon, you know when somebody stops coming to meetings or answering communications. Terrorists are smart enough to figure out who’s missing.)

How does this differ from what is present in Syria? Iran? or previously in Afghanistan?[/quote]
It’s the corporate angle. Stalin owned all the state enterprises, of course, but that doesn’t make him fascist (he was a different variety of totalitarian).

Actually, there is a strong element that interestingly hates the Shia as much as the Kurd. Enemy of my enemy and all that. Perfectly understandable given that two sworn enemies like Hitler and Stalin could see room for cooperation and opportunity advancement. Why not in these particular situations? [/quote]
My error. I meant pan-Sunni, not pan-Muslim. Either way it doesn’t respect national boundaries, which challenges a traditional understanding of nationalism.

Actually the economies of most Middle Eastern nations are highly statist. I see no reason why this should be suprising.[/quote]
Statist != fascist; 1970s China was highly statist and was a communist, not fascist, totalitarian state.

Given that the Baathist parties of both Syria and Iran as well as Nasser’s Egypt among other Pan-Arab nationalist movements were directly based on the Hitler fascist model of the 1930s, I believe the term is appropriate.[/quote]

Ahh, but those are the states that are missing the “Islamo” part of the equation. The Baathists are modeled after fascists, no doubt about it (though I’m not sure who constitutes their separate corporate class, so their claim to a “fascist” label may be in doubt aside from their anti-communism). But it’s the Saudis who actually believe in the Wahabbi stuff; Saddam was secular, Nasser was secular, and…

Syria as a state supports terrorism for its own political ends that have little to do with theocratic Wahabbite Islam.

But that is not what really happens in practice is it. Again, I would question that religion is any more important to the corrupt mafiosos who rule Iran, or those in Syria or those in Lebanon or those in Palestine with those previously in Afghanistan and Iraq than the “Catholicism” of the Italian and Spanish “dons.” Eventually, no matter who participates in the revolution, if there is no code for protecting human rights or constitution that safeguards democracy, in the end, all you get is the bigger or more ruthless fish taking over the power to control the sources of income. We have seen that time and time again. I would really wonder therefore how long any religious element of any al Qaeda “Caliphate” would last before the angling and patronage began but then that too would be in full accordance with what occured under the previous Caliphate so I guess you would unintentionally have a point there.[/quote]
Well, I’m not sure I understand the need to say all that, but if you’re granting me a point I’ll take it.

Theocracy is not in any way incompatible with massive governmental corruption; priests throughout history have been known to be less than, well, holy. It all just depends on the stated ideology of the regime and who its consequential ideological enemies are. In the same way, American ideology is for democratic meritocracy; in actuality there’s much more nepotism, general corruption and [monetarily-based] oligarchy than is widely acknowledged.

Power corrupts. The Islamist theocrats simply want the law for those too low to be above it to be Shari’a law, while the pan-Arab fascists want it to be a secular one.

[quote]
Also, I would immediately assume from this conversation that you have never been to the Middle East even once.

You seem to throw that card around a lot. All any of us in the audience can do is ask you to enlighten us with the specific details of your experience. [/quote]

This constant harping on US policies as being responsible for why we are being attacked. First, al Qaeda cut its teeth fighting the Russians in Afghanistan which was justified in my view as a legitimate fight against an occupying power. What happened later was this group seemed to think that they were invincible and had God on their side and were free to do whatever they wanted. Absolute power BUT they have lost and lost repeatedly. Now, they like Hitler and his bids for world power or the communists after him will have to learn that they are not going to get what they wanted. Who do you think that Hitler was more concerned about? France or England? and why?

Anyone, I would argue, who has been in the Middle East for any period of time, will actually end up talking to locals who discount alot of this crap that only “seasoned journalists” with political agendas seem to grind out. Naturally, enough though, when the elements who are seeking to influence public opinion pick up on how this works, they naturally play up to those elements with the result that the “seasoned journalists” crank it up even more which allows the elements to see the success of the strategy which causes them to xxx that is what I mean. Anyone who has been to the Middle East immediately knows how gangsta driven so much of local politics and economics is. Think Sicily. But no one on that island goes around blaming the US for its poverty and its corruption and its lack of freedom or development. They blame Rome. haha

And you will not see agreement with me entirely here if you are arguing that we need to treat terrorism as a criminal matter. It differs in that they unlike most mafias are willing and able to wage war against us. If it were just a matter of trying to coopt corrupt judges and police, that would be different, but it is not. Therefore, I would argue that they are mafias but need to be treated as hostile nation states with military solutions not only criminal courts and police.

Ah but how many of the leaders are doing the bomb strapping? How many of them are drugged, intimidated, shamed or indoctrinated individuals? The cannon fodder if you will? How many top al Qaeda leaders have done any of the suicide bombing themselves. They leave that to others. In fact, many of the delusional would-be jihadists find their passports gone soon upon arrival where many are drugged, forcibly indoctrinated and tortured and shamed into serving as bomb fodder.

Not exactly, but for years, most Western nations and certainly the elites have treated the Palestinian-Israeli problem as one between two equal nation states that both have pluralistic democratic systems. On the contrary, what we really were seeing was forced negotiations between Czechoslavakia and Nazi Germany with Israel forced to give up its gains for peace while the other side continues its relentless attacks and staged demonstrations.

We do not have that luxury for a number of reasons. First, we do not have the time. The problem has thrust itself in front of us as did Germany and Japan in WWII. We must move forward, though this will be more a war of attrition like our victory in the Cold War. It will take 50 years.

Partially, but even worse it is about corrupt regimes in the Middle East that fund or wink at terrorism to acheive their political and sometimes economic aims as was seen with Syrian involvement in Lebanon and Hezbollah and Taliban drug running.

What abuses? How many cases? Why is Europe now looking at implementing the same measures, ones by the way, which the UK and France have used frequently in the past themselves. Also, how are these abuses so different from the anti-racketeering laws of the 1970s? Please explain.

Point made. Fair enough. Most of my time was in Arab nations. I was only at Hebrew University a short time.

Hmmm. I disagree for a few reasons. We had to defend Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia from communism and to a large extent, we did that. We must also defend regimes like Algeria’s from being overthrown if something far worse will come. Ditto for Pakistan. That is what we saw with the disaster that occurred in Iran after the shah was overthrown. This was Carter’s biggest mistake. So while we dealth with imperfect regimes in Latin America and East Asia, once the outside pressure was off, most of them evolved into democratic nations that respect human rights to a much larger extent than the regimes that exist in the nations where we lost, gave up or chose not to fight.

I disagree with the personal analogies though I understand where you are going. We civilized the Germans and Japanese, no one thought Chinese could ever have a working democracy. Taiwan has proved them wrong. We are in for a long fight, but we will win if we keep people on the point. Iran and Syria must be overthrown though. We cannot allow such huge amounts of support and territory to remain outside the interdiction system. Right now, Iran is funding an awful lot of terrorism and Syria is very complicit. I was just in Syria last year. Everyone EVERYONE knows where the former Baathists are hiding, who they are and where they live. They ALL know they are funding the efforts in Iraq and are behind the insurgency to some extent. Why are we allowing these bases to remain unchallenged, unthreatened, unaddressed?

What do you mean?

Pakistan is now talking to India.
Pakistan has ended support for military insurgency in Kashmir.
Pakistan is no longer supporting the Taliban.
Pakistan has cracked down on the al Qaeda arresting many top operatives.
Pakistan is cooperating with Afghanistan.
Pakistan has ended the nuclear black market which existed for 40 years.
Libya has given up its wmds.
Saudi Arabia has held elections.
Saudi Arabia is looking at letting women get certain rights.
Saudi Arabia has cracked down on terrorist funding.
Saudi Arabia has cracked down on al Qaeda in the country.
Iraq is free of Saddam.
Iraq had an election.
Iraq is drafting a constitution.
Afghanistan is free of the Taliban.
Afghanistan is no longer persecuting women on an institutional level.
Afghanistan had an election.
Syria is out of Lebanon.
Lebanon had an election.
Palestine had an election.
Palestine lost the Intifada.
Yemen is cooperating in rounding up al Qaeda.
Kuwait is giving women the right to vote and hold office.
Bahrain had an election.
Qatar had an election.
Algeria’s civil war is waning because so many insurgents are going to fight in Iraq.

So what is it that we have not accomplished in three years? Hmmmm?

Yes, we agree here, but do you think that the left is advancing its stated aims by fighting against the Bush administration and its initiatives? Do you not see that elections are taking place, that democracy (highly imperfect) is emerging, that Middle Eastern societies are beginning to publicly debate their problems? That terrorism is increasingly being renounced.

Who is not getting a fair trial? Who is not getting a speedy trial? How many people are we talking about here? I can think of Jose Padilla. Anyone else? And this is a crisis? This is why it is difficult to take the left seriously. It studiously refuses to admit that there may be an urgent necessity of treating these people as a military force and not just as a whoops, didn’t dot all the i’s or cross all the t’s, then let him go. I am sorry but when thousands of lives are at stake, this takes precedence over any such sensibilities. Sue us in 20 years when the problem is over.

I disagree with the question’s central assumption. First of all, “al-Qaeda” is not a huge global organization–it’s a few hundred people who are mostly in hiding. Most of these terrorist actions are carried out by people who are inspired, but not controlled, by bin Ladin. Even its name was chosen by Western officials, though later embraced by its putative members.

Russia has indeed suffered terrorist attacks. China, not so much that we know of, but that’s probably because Xinjiang is a police state, and not because Muslims haven’t tried to bomb them. The Uighurs and Chechens are mostly secular, and their complaints are ethno-national and not articulated in religious terms.

Groups claiming a religious motivation in rough solidarity with “al-Qaida” have attacked Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Britain, Egypt, and maybe the Philipplines. This is not only very international, it seems so random as to smack of desperation. (If Denmark turns out to have the lowest defenses, they’ll attack Denmark, then think of some justification.) Several years after 9-11, none of these people have accomplished anything remotely so impressive.

The ultimate goals of these people? Well, the top people want to overthrow the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Now they have marriage ties to the Taliban, and so they’re (I guess) equally interested in restoring the Taliban to power. Both of these are do-able. As for expanding their territory to include Central Asia or large swathes of the Middle East (let alone the world), that’s fantasy. They’d have to overcome important ethnic, geographic, and religious divides (not to mention rival warlords as ruthless as they are), and I don’t think they can do it. They’d be doing well to ever control any state at all.

Now the masses may well seek a worldwide Islamic caliphate, the destruction of Israel, whatever. The American masses also support equally unlikely goals, like feminism in the Middle East. But the conflict is also a bit like a football game, with both sides cheering on their representatives out of some kind of group pride. In this light the name of their team mascot is basically arbitrary.

Nice post, SJ.

I am not aware that al Qaeda was a name given by Western officials, where did you get this from? Also, there is a vast amount of coordination. More than many suspect. How could the 911 attacks be planned so thoroughly, and originally there were to have been similar attacks on London and other cities ALL before there was any invasion of Iraq so this 711 being the result of Britain’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is so much poppycock AND why were al Qaeda cells in place in Spain since the early 1990s? 311 too had nothing to do with Spain’s involvement in Iraq but was a well orchestrated plan that has been in the offing since the Soviets left Afghanistan and the al Qaeda representatives looked further afield to continue their successful onslaughts, inspired no doubt by the similar rapid success of the spread of Islam immediately following the death of Mohammad back in the 640s.

But not orchestrated by al Qaeda. That is the difference in my view.

Again, there is no indication of al Qaeda involvement there either.

I disagree. I think that the timing has been carefully planned in many of these attacks and while desperate also shows a very good sense of strategy. Don’t underestimate them.

Possible but I think that there are bigger fish to fry for them. I think that al Qaeda is now on the run and has limited resources but so does the US army. I think that they attack with very specific goals at very specific times to carefully husband their resources. Again, don’t underestimate them. While some of these attacks are copycats or tied in with al Qaeda goals by disparate groups, the original core remains deadly and we will not be able to take it out until we get rid of all possible support bases: Syria and Iran must go.

I think that you are confused. The bin Ladens are closely tied to the Saudi royal family. Osama married into the Taliban but was disowned by his billionaire family so I am not sure if this is actually correct or not.

I agree but remember it can and was done by many people in the past. What you are saying is that it ultimately not sustainable and even here I would have to disagree. Most recently the Ottomans held onto most of this territory from 1500 to 1880, the rest of it until 1917. That is a pretty good throw of the dice in my opinion.

Most of the masses I have come across in the Middle East are interested in no such nonsense. They want food, they want to marry off their daughters in style, they want jobs. No one except these nut jobs gives a f*** about the Caliphate. Most hate Israel in the way that some disparage Blacks in the States or Turks in Germany or Arabs in France. But while there is a visceral detest, there is no urge to action.

I disagree. Most Americans don’t give a toss about feminism in the Middle East including most ironically the Democrats and liberals who claim to care about such things. A few very few are interested in promoting these goals in the Middle East over the long term. Why? Because we realize that until women are liberated in the Middle East, there can be no rising standards of living or improved education or improved tolerance. THIS sickness in relations between men and women in the Middle East is one of the absolute keys to resolving these problems and it will take time, but I think that we are on the right side of history. The British had no end of a time getting rid of suttee and overturning the barring of untouchables from everyday life, but despite the onerous odds, they were right to do so.

I am sure that while this is true of some, it is certainly not true of most of the representatives of the right on this forum who I would argue have been very consistent and articulate about their goals and purposes and strategies. I think that you do them a disservice when you suggest that this is just a pissing match. That is why I have been eager to attempt to get people to articulate their moral goals and what constitutes justice and find out whether they support gay and women’s rights, etc. When they do, they are trapped. Why aren’t they supporting them in the Middle East then and why do they hate someone like Bush so much for attempting to promot their own stated aims? It is that kind of conundrum from which most of them shy most desperately. I don’t think in nearly 2.5 years on this forum that I have ever had a satisfactory answer from anyone on the left to account for this discrepancy. What I get is attempts to throw red herrings in the way with remarks such as well then why aren’t you invading Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? What about China? This type of nonsense is what passes for an intellectual position with many of them and if they were in debate class they would score the F they so richly deserve.

Here’s a good article on “al-Qaeda” from the Christian Science monitor:

csmonitor.com/2005/0802/p04s01-wogi.html

And here’s its entry from wikipedia, which looks good:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

The above also discusses where the name came from.

Since I think there isn’t really an “al-Qaeda” international organization, the reason why “it” hasn’t attacked Russia or China is because the Muslim peoples who DO attack those countries are too secular to identify with Osama bin Ladin and count themselves part of his jihad.

[quote=“spook”]
The Beslan tragedy is the worst terror-related human catastrophe in the history of Russia. [/quote]

If you ignore the 70 years of rule by the Soviet Union.

Let’s see we have Pinochet as a rightist dictator that often gets mentioned, but what about all the leftist dictators that left such destruction: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Allende, leaders of North Korea, leaders of Vietnam, all the failed Middle Eastern “socialists,” etc. Why just stop with Russia. Hell, al Qaeda is in its infancy compared with the destruction wrought by “well-intentioned” leftie liberals.