Putting It In Perspective: "IRAQ: The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians"

[Guest]

From James Dunnigan's Strategy Page--

___________________

IRAQ: The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians

May 12, 2004: A Sunni Arab terrorist group in Iraq, claiming to be working for al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, displayed a video on an al Qaeda website (the Arab language Muntada al-Ansar Islamist Web site) showing the beheading of American businessman Nick Berg who was apparently kidnapped in Iraq earlier. Berg’s body was found on May 9th outside Baghdad. The beheading was announced as retaliation for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has been the most active, and most senior, al Qaeda operator in Iraq. The United States is offering a ten million dollars reward for his capture. Many of al-Zarqawi’s followers are in Fallujah and currently fighting American marines.

The Muntada al-Ansar web site regularly announces which terrorist group is claiming responsibility for attacks. The recent suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia were announced on the site. The use of videos of attacks and murders of captives is considered a recruiting tool and good propaganda. The videos are rarely shown on English language web sites, as they are intended for the hard core terrorist audience. Al Qaeda knows that such videos will turn off many in the West, but has found that it does wonders for al Qaeda recruiting and contributions. Al Qaeda has been unable to win any meaningful victories, so they invent success by declaring the slaughter of people via suicide bombings, or beheadings, to be a victory over the enemy. Historically, this doesn’t work, and such atrocities simply inflame the opposition. Consider, for example, the September 11, 2001 attacks and what the United States has done to al Qaeda since then.

Al Qaeda is taking advantage of a uniquely Arab concept of “victory.” Having been on the losing side of history for so many centuries, most Arabs accept just about anything as a “victory.” For example, Saddam Hussein declared himself the winner of the 1991 Gulf War because he was still running Iraq after it was over. Of course, the main, and widely publicized, reason he was still in power was because Arab nations refused to join the coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait unless the U.S. agreed NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Earlier, Saddam gained much perverse praise from the Arab world for getting Iran to agree to stop the war that had raged between the two nations throughout the 1980s. This war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, in an attempt to grab some Iranian oil fields while Iran’s armed forces were in disorder following a revolution in which Islamic radicals overthrew the king (Shah) of Iran. The Iranians quickly got their act together, pushed the Iraqis out of Iran and spent the next eight years trying to get to Saddam. For thousands of years, the Iranians (or Persians or Parthians or whatever) have been pounding Arab armies into the ground. So Saddam’s ability (via the use chemical weapons and billions of dollars worth of Russian arms) to stop (if not exactly defeat) the Iranians, was, to many Arabs, a real victory.

Now all this Iran/Arab stuff plays a special role in Iraq. To the surprise of many Sunni Arabs, the Shia Arabs fought, during the 1980s, to defend Iraq from the Shia Iranians. Actually, about three percent of Irans population is Arab, so in some cases you had Shia Arabs fighting Shia Arabs in this war. But the Iraqi Shia Arabs (over half the population), via a combination of fear, nationalism and financial incentives, were compelled by Saddam (a Sunni Arab) to serve in the war against Iran. What was being played was the race card. The Iranians are an Indo-European people, and have been defeating, and generally lording it over the Arabs, a Semitic people, for thousands of years. Memories are long in this part of the world, and in this case, ethnic memory trumped religion. Normally the Sunni and Shia Moslems do not get along very well. Conservative Sunnis consider the Shia heretics. And the fact that most Shia are Iranians does not help matters either.

Al Qaeda is a basically a Sunni Arab organization that attracts recruits who are not Arabs, but who MUST be Sunni. Al Qaeda was founded by members of the conservative Wahabi form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia. To a Wahabi, even contact with infidels (non-Moslems) is forbidden, and it is the duty of all Moslems to convert or kill the infidels. One should not lose sight of al Qaeda’s core values and goals. When you do focus in on those values and goals, the video of an American civilian being beheaded makes some kind of perverted sense.


May 11, 2004: Shia resistance to the al Sadr militias is growing and becoming more public. There have been public demonstrations outside buildings occupied by al Sadr gunmen, asking them to cease their militant actions. Most Shia Arabs consider al Sadr to be a Saddam wannabe and want no part of him. Al Sadr has publicly ordered his gunmen to attack coalition troops, but attacks are haphazard and inept. American and British troops have continued to arrest or kill al Sadr gunmen, and eject them from government buildings they have been occupying. Over a hundred al Sadr gunmen have been killed in the last week as a result, and several hundred others arrested or simply disarmed.

In Fallujah, combined marine/Iraqi patrols have entered the city. So far, there has not been much resistance. But the marines know the heavily armed gangs are still there, and will have to be dealt with.

(all emphasis mine - mh)

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Tonto 1]

Quote

So Saddam’s ability (via the use chemical weapons and billions of dollars worth of Russian arms) to stop (if not exactly defeat) the Iranians, was, to many Arabs, a real victory.

Would those be the chemical weapons supplied by the US to Saddam?

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[PhreeZone 20]

Its interesting to see this:

Quote

May 11, 2004: Shia resistance to the al Sadr militias is growing and becoming more public. There have been public demonstrations outside buildings occupied by al Sadr gunmen, asking them to cease their militant actions. Most Shia Arabs consider al Sadr to be a Saddam wannabe and want no part of him. Al Sadr has publicly ordered his gunmen to attack coalition troops, but attacks are haphazard and inept. American and British troops have continued to arrest or kill al Sadr gunmen, and eject them from government buildings they have been occupying. Over a hundred al Sadr gunmen have been killed in the last week as a result, and several hundred others arrested or simply disarmed.

Because just yesterday a lot of people on here were saying that every one of the locals were all supporting the actions of a few.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Guest]

May 13, 2004: Muqtada al Sadr now has the Shia clerical establishment and most Shias visibly against him. Coalition troops are killing dozens of his armed supporters each day as the al Sader gunmen are driven from government buildings they had occupied, by force, for weeks. Al Sadr has been told that he must disband his militia and surrender and stand trial for the murder (of rival Shia clerics). He is desperately trying to avoid this. He could flee to Iran, but that would destroy much of the popular support he has left. But the Shia clergy, backed by coalition troops, see they have al Sadr by the throat and are not likely to let him continue to act like a "little Saddam" (as he is now known on the streets.)

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."