|
Al-Qaeda has plenty of substance; it can
best be seen as a support network for militant groups in the Arab and Muslim
world. Yes, it still does exist, and is more more powerful than ever, due to
the effect the Bush ‘war on terror’ has had on the world, but it
has lost significant support in the Muslim and Arab worlds due to bin Laden’s
assertion that US/UK civilians must now be viewed as complicit in the US/UK
government’s policies toward Israel and toward the Middle East generally.
This assertion has been turned down by almost all Muslim/Arab militant groups, as
contrary to the precepts embedded in Islam that provide for the safety of
innocent persons (a precept similar to that developed in the West and that has
its most detailed _expression_ in the Geneva Conventions and other sources of
law). Thus al-Qaeda has much of its doctrinal influence, but gained
credibility as it continues to provide training, technical, and communication
services. Bin Laden himself has reached an all-time high in terms of personal
credibility (despite his disputed call to include US/UK civilians in acceptable
target lists, which many blame on Ayman Thawahiri), thanks to the US focus on
him and its inability to grab him. Bin Laden’s stature worldwide is
something that US policy makers don’t like to acknowledge but one doesn’t
have to travel much internationally to come to understand that this happened. ‘The Saudi’s’ aren’t
financing bin Laden. The Saudi government and establishment view him as a
dangerous wild card and would love to see him apprehended. Some individual
Saudi citizens do support al-Qaeda, directly and indirectly. But he receives
considerably more funds from elsewhere, at least as late as 2004. Finally, Harry reminds us of a critical
fact: we still don’t know for sure that bin Laden ‘did’
September 11th. Yes, he did approve it after the fact, but he has
yet to assert responsibility, and oddity that stands out the more one thinks
about it. Of course, whether or not he is responsible, he does have
a number of other crimes to answer for, for which he has IIRC claimed
responsibility. Cheers, Lawry From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Harry Pollard Ed, I have maintained for several years that Al Qaeda is more form than
substance. I am sure it still exists in fairly battered form, but the majority
– perhaps all – the bombings seem to be the actions of small
disaffected groups – probably financed by our friends the Arab leaders
– particularly the Saudis. My thinking in this direction was stimulated by 9/11. Osama did not
claim responsibility for this – indeed at the time I felt he was as surprised
as the rest of us. When he finally made a statement it was more congratulatory
than triumphal. However, our politicians, military, and media, find it easier to have
an entity to blame and the entity of choice is Al Qaeda. This is not to deny that terrorist groups in Harry ******************************* of 818 352-4141 ******************************* From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Weick I find this line of thought
scary. It suggests that terrorisim of the kind that precipitated the
During the sixties and seventies people
thought they could change the system or even bring it down by marching,
shouting and throwing rocks. That doesn't work any more. The
globalized state has become immune to it. Much stronger means are now
required. Ed July 22, 2005 Why
Do They Hate Us? Not Because of
By OLIVIER WHILE
yesterday's explosions on London's subway and bus lines were thankfully far
less serious than those of two weeks ago, they will lead many to raise a
troubling question: has Britain (and Spain as well) been "punished"
by Al Qaeda for participating in the American-led military interventions in
Iraq and Afghanistan? While this is a reasonable line of thinking, it
presupposes the answer to a broader and more pertinent question: Are the roots
of Islamic terrorism in the Middle Eastern conflicts? If the
answer is yes, the solution is simple to formulate, although not to achieve:
leave Conflicts
in the First,
let's consider the chronology. The Americans went to Another
motivating factor, we are told, was the presence of "infidel" troops
in Islam's holy lands. Yes, Osama Bin Laden was reported to be upset when the
Saudi royal family allowed Western troops into the kingdom before the Persian
Gulf war. But Mr. bin Laden was by that time a veteran fighter committed to
global jihad. He and
the other members of the first generation of Al Qaeda left the Middle East to
fight the Soviet Union in From the
beginning, Al Qaeda's fighters were global jihadists, and their favored
battlegrounds have been outside the Middle East: Second,
if the conflicts in What was
true for the first generation of Al Qaeda is also relevant for the present
generation: even if these young men are from Middle Eastern or South Asian
families, they are for the most part Westernized Muslims living or even born in
It is
also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had
been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political
support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don't distribute
leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a
rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.
Even
their calls for the withdrawal of the European troops from The
Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim
community; they are a lost generation, unmoored from traditional societies and
cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their
expectations. And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form
of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are. |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
