Al-Qaeda's biggest target? Other Muslims

[Taraz]

Very interesting blog post by Juan Cole about how Al-Qaeda works. He has been studying and following religion in the Middle East as a professor since 1984.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/al-q...vement-al.html

[Bill Haywood]

Thanks!

[Taraz]

I'm shocked nobody is interested by this. I realize the guy is probably at least partially politically motivated, but he raises some interesting points.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked nobody is interested by this. I realize the guy is probably at least partially politically motivated, but he raises some interesting points.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked anyone could be remotely suprised by this.

but then people keep thinking its a religous fight rather than a political one so perhaps I shouldn't be shocked.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked nobody is interested by this. I realize the guy is probably at least partially politically motivated, but he raises some interesting points.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm shocked anyone could be remotely suprised by this.

but then people keep thinking its a religous fight rather than a political one so perhaps I shouldn't be shocked.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this and you know this, but it seems like it's lost on the vast majority of people in the United States. Everyone is trying to claim that Islam is just a violent religion and that explains it all. I just wish this information would be publicized more.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is trying to claim that Islam is just a violent religion and that explains it all. I just wish this information would be publicized more.

[/ QUOTE ]


That view of Islam doesn't explain "all", but it explains "a lot". However applying that view to Islam as a whole is not as correct as saying that view is a correct conclusion derived from a literal wording of parts of the Koran, and the interpretation of same by important Islamic clerics, and the uneducated masses as whole *not including* Moslems in western countries for the most part.

But the point you make about AQ targeting various Moslems as well as westerners and western countries really doesn't detract from that view. It just means that when various groups of Moslems intepret "unbeliever" to include Moslems who either don't belong to their specific sect, and/or don't adhere to their worldview. So the bottom line is that radical Islam is a threat to western countries and democracy, but they just happen to also be a threat to some Moslems/Moslem countries, that don't believe exactly as they do.

And I want to make another point that I have often. Which is that even *if* it is true that a majority of Moslems don't adhere to the radical/violent interpretations and views of terrorist organizations, if they also refuse to publicly and vigorously fight those views within their own religion, then the protestations of some, and especially western apologists, that the majority of Moslems don't think/act that way, not only can't be taken at face value, but also can't be the basis of foreign/defense policy.

To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them, just because they claim they don't condone terrorism, when all the while hiding or enabling terrorists. And the same goes for the citizens of any dictatorship of any ideology. The fact that to speak up or act might endanger their own lives doesn't change anything about this.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nonsense to say that these villagers are analagous to aiders and abetters.

Worse when you treat them as such and justify attrocities against them, your enemies are laughing fit to bust.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To illustrate the previous paragraph I would say this. If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nonsense to say that these villagers are analagous to aiders and abetters.

Worse when you treat them as such and justify attrocities against them, your enemies are laughing fit to bust.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]



You got it dead backwards. They howl in laughter/glee when people like you maintain the above view that they can perpeterate their terrorist deeds and then "melt" back into their neighborhood and that be openly known there, but that we are supposedly caught in an ethical catch-22 where we can't do anything about it just because those neighbors, for whatever reason, choose not to act/inform against the terrorists. And this is all the more so if the terrorists are actually conducting their actions from that very area, instead of fleeing there from another one where they committed same. And the fact that some people or governments might over-react doesn't change the above.

To use a further not so hypothetical example, a government knows that persons in a given village are committing certain terrorist acts. So let's look at the various actions they might take in response *after* they ask for help/information and are denied same by the villagers:

1) Bomb the village and wipe out everone - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's not right to kill innocents (defined by you) who didn't actually commit the deed!";

So then they say how about

2) Bulldoze some houses of the families of suspected terrorists - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's just not right to implement mass punishments, even when the villagers knowingly are harbouring the terrorists by refusing to inform on them!";

So then they say how about this

3) Build a fence around the village so that the terrorists in it can't travel to areas where they habitually commit their acts - "Oh no!" you cry - "that still is mass punishment because those villagers can't travel to work and do other stuff!".

So then the government asks, "you mean if the villagers just choose not to help, whether because they support the actions of the terrorists or are afraid of them, we can't do *anything* unless we get lucky and catch the terrorists red-handed?"

And you say, "yep that's right!".

And the terrorists say, "hahahaha. What fools and weak persons these westerners are who inisist on these ethical interpretations, leaving us free to continue to do our dirty deeds. HAHAHAHAHA!"

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Bomb the village and wipe out everone - "Oh no!" you cry - "it's not right to kill innocents (defined by you) who didn't actually commit the deed!";

[/ QUOTE ]
That's besides the point. What happens to the hearts and minds of the people whose support your enemies thrive on?

Do they think 'fair enough BluffThis & co are wise and just' or do they think 'BluffThis!'s enemies were right all along BluffThis & co are bad bad people'?

The reality is that the terrorist groups can only thrive in an environment filled with a deep sense of injustice (doesn't matter whether the grievence is real) and the only ways to deal with this are containment or dissipation.

I don't like containment but its acedemic because it isn't possible. The resolution is to work against the sense of injustice and blowing up villagers many of whom are no friends to the terrorists is a disaster.

The rest is all the same nonsense. You're doing the job of your enemies for them.

[ QUOTE ]
And the terrorists say, "hahahaha. What fools and weak persons these westerners are who inisist on these ethical interpretations, leaving us free to continue to do our dirty deeds. HAHAHAHAHA!"


[/ QUOTE ]
It is a problem for liberalism that those with facist tendencies think its weak but they are very wrong. Also you have a very strange idea of what your enemies are trying to achieve, generally they don't carry out their activites just for the sake of it.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If a terrorists perpetrates a terrorist act, and then goes and hides in his village, and the government and citizens of that village do not either act against the terrorist or hand him over to outside authorities, then they collectively are collaboraters, the equivalent in our western legal systems of aiding and abetting after the fact. And they then have no right to think that there should never be some "collateral damage" spill over to them, just because they claim they don't condone terrorism, when all the while hiding or enabling terrorists. And the same goes for the citizens of any dictatorship of any ideology. The fact that to speak up or act might endanger their own lives doesn't change anything about this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that the innocent villagers have some obligation to turn their violent neighbours in to some external government (however they are supposed to do that) even under threat of immediate retribution?