What does winning against al Qa’eda mean to you?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Per Usama bin Laden’s fatwas “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” (1996) and “International Fatwa” (1998), al Qa’eda’s strategic goals are to gain territory for a base to export conflict; to provoke a clash between Muslims and non-Muslims; to force United States forces to withdraw from Muslim lands; to eliminate of US and western support for Israel, both a long-standing and more recently reiterated goal, and to establish a new caliphate with Sharia governance.

This paragraph is generally consistent with what I said, except for your assertion of "a new caliphate with Sharia governance," which does not seem to be supported by the linked source[/url]. Was that was something mentioned in the primary source but not the op-ed?

Quote

Imposition of a new Muslim caliphate with Shari’a based legal system entails eliminating all civil liberties as well as most basic human rights for women.

His fatwa criticizes the Saudi government (as should anyone who is genuinely concerned with human rights). I'm certainly not going to defend Saudi Arabia's status quo w/r/t human rights. I find it appalling that the USA is so closely allied with the country. Clearly, our motives are also something other than human rights.

Quote

The Salafi ideology is the desire to establish and govern based solely on the Quran and Sunna. Specific goals include the rejection of pluralism and secular governance, the legitimization of violence including against Muslims, and the need for revolutionary transformation to Islamic fundamentalism, for more/primary docs see the Militant Ideology Atlas.

I noticed in his 1996 fatwa, Bin Laden was especially vocal in his stance against usury. This is consistent with the attacks on WTC and Bin Laden's stance against the USA's use of military and other tools of foreign policy to force capitalism (directly or indirectly) on other nations.

Man fabricated laws were put forward permitting what has been forbidden by Allah such as usury (Riba) and other matters. Banks dealing in usury are competing, for lands, with the two Holy Places and declaring war against Allah by disobeying His order {Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury} (Baqarah; 2:275). All this taking place at the vicinity of the Holy Mosque in the Holy Land! Allah (SWT) stated in His Holy Book a unique promise (that had not been promised to any other sinner) to the Muslims who deals in usury: {O you who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah and relinquish what remains (due) from usury, if you are believers * But if you do (it) not, then be appraised of WAR from Allah and His Apostle} (Baqarah; 2:278-279). This is for the "Muslim" who deals in usury (believing that it is a sin), what is it then to the person who make himself a partner and equal to Allah, legalising (usury and other sins) what has been forbidden by Allah. Despite of all of the above we see the government misled and dragged some of the righteous Ulamah and Da'ees away from the issue of objecting to the greatest of sins and Kufr. (We bemoan this and can only say: "No power and power acquiring except through Allah").

Further, it seems that, according to the fatwa, a primary objective is to persuade the USA's military to leave the Saudi peninsula.

The regime is fully responsible for what had been incurred by the country and the nation; however the occupying American enemy is the principle and the main cause of the situation . Therefore efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the Grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come -by the Permission of Allah- when you'll perform your decisive role so that the word of Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels (Kaferoon) will be the inferior. You will hit with iron fist against the aggressors. You'll re-establish the normal course and give the people their rights and carry out your truly Islamic duty. Allah willing, I'll have a separate talk about these issues.

My Muslim Brothers (particularly those of the Arab Peninsula): The money you pay to buy American goods will be transformed into bullets and used against our brothers in Palestine and tomorrow (future) against our sons in the land of the two Holy places. By buying these goods we are strengthening their economy while our dispossession and poverty increases.

Muslims Brothers of land of the two Holy Places:

It is incredible that our country is the world largest buyer of arms from the USA and the area biggest commercial partners of the Americans who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men and financial supports.

To deny these occupiers from the enormous revenues of their trading with our country is a very important help for our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture. By doing so we would have taken part in (the process of ) cleansing our sanctities from the crusaders and the Zionists and forcing them, by the Permission of Allah, to leave disappointed and defeated.

Quote

To try to conceive of al Qa'eda as being purely ideological and divorced from baser or more traditional incentives is overly idealistic (nevermind the 72-virgins incentivization).

Agreed. It's also overly simplistic to believe that a victory on the part of al Qaeda will allow the world "to regress all the way back to a twisted version of 7th century." That belief seems more like left over fear mongering propaganda from the last administration than reality justified by al Qaeda's actions. Their use of technology, for example, has opened a Pandora's Box that will ensure that western culture has an outlet with the populace to (gradually) adopt or to reject as they please). It may not happen as quickly as we would like to see, but then again, it's has taken nearly 150 years to get the US from our Civil War to a black president (and we still have more progress to make w/r/t civil rights).

Even if al Qaeda wins their war against the USA, that won't, in itself, mean that they will be able to push their political agenda through to the populace. That will be a much tougher battle for them, especially if they want Muslims to unite together.

Quote

Al Qa’eda’s operational goals and methods to achieve those aims include but are not limited to:

Terrorism against civilians throughout the world per from the 1998 fatwa:

“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it ….

Which is permitted by the Koran only because it has been done to the Muslim populations, with whom they identify, first.

Quote

Economic collapse of the US and western economy, reiterated from more recently.

A case could be made that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq contributed to the Bush administration pressuring Greenspan to keep interest rates low (against Greenspan's better judgement), which resulted in increased demand for mortgage backed securities, leading to increased demand for mortgages, ultimately leading to a housing bubble and its subsequent burst. It would be much more difficult (but not necessarily impossible) to make a credible case that the wars were the primary contributing factor.

Quote

That pretty well illustrates, at least for me, that human rights aren't at the forefront of al Qa'eda's goals.

I it was not my intention to imply that human rights were at the forefront of al Qaeda's goals with my post. I don't believe that to be the case. But, I also don't believe that al Qaeda hates us because of our freedom, as has been claimed many times (not necessarily by you).

Quote

Al Qa’eda are *not* nationalist-separatist terrorists. They’re not freedom-fighters sticking up for the common man, whether he is ‘brown, black, or yellow.’

Agreed. It is unfortunate that the USA treated the mujahideen as freedom fighters in the late 70's through early 90's (i.e. during the Carter, Reagan, and G.H.W. Bush administrations), supplying them with funding and training. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan showed potential and promise for offering real reform in Afghanistan, but since they were socialist and supported by the Soviet Union, the US worked to undermine them. Now we are dealing with the repercussions of that decision to undermine socialism at the expense of human rights.

Quote

Reading that excerpt requires some critical analysis. Don’t get me wrong: it’s an incredibly interesting excerpt!

Don't get me wrong, it is a propaganda piece, but that propaganda is also interlaced with facts. OTOH, the rhetoric we've heard from our own government regarding terrorists is also weighted heavily with propaganda.

In the end, if one wants primary data regarding the goals of al Qaeda, nothing is better than the words of Bin Laden himself.

Quote

More importantly: to what audience do you think it’s directed?

It seems to be directed primarily at US citizens, and the citizens of our allies, to counter the propaganda of our own government, since the status quo of our foreign policy, which is what al Qaeda wants to see changed, isn't going to change without strong pressure from within, from the people.

Quote

It’s not a basic strategy statement, it’s political rhetoric to be heard by tacit and explicit supporters, predominantly in the Muslim world.

To be fair, I cut out the strategy aspects of the statement, since you asked about the motivations and goals, not strategy.

A strategy related excerpt:

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.
…

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.
That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.

Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations – whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction – has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.

And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.

And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost – according to the lowest estimate – more than 500 billion dollars.

Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.

As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the blee-until-bankruptcy plan – with Allah's permission.

It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.

It is the American people and their economy.
…

And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him, "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction – assuming they exist – is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."

But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.

So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future.

It would appear from both the transcript and actions of al Qaeda that they are using the same strategy that we enabled them to use against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And, in our need for vengeance after the WTC attacks, we fell right into their trap of attritional war.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

I generally view al Qaeda as Marx viewed religion in general, as the opiate for the stupid masses. It's not so simple as hating American freedoms, as tritely suggested, but in the upper class not having the will to give up the palaces so the bulk of the Arabs can live better. Just like Latin America. The easiest way to maintain that society is to keep the women uneducated, and the men (well, the non leaders) dying in a never ending war against the West. I doubt they have any illusion of winning this war, or in killing all the Jews without massive nuclear failout in the Middle East.

True victory would be convincing these people to direct their efforts towards using the oil money to build infrastructure and to educate all the people. There is a declining window of opportunity here. It takes a couple generations to change society and that may be how long they have.

That's the win win victory. A US win is one where we no longer need to spend tens of billions or more each year fighting the problem.

If victory is just defined by the Al Queda group, then it may be possible to neuter the leadership to the point where it is no longer relevant. But if a new group takes over the same role (like the constantly emerging elements in Northern Ireland or Palestine whenever the lead one makes peace), it's not much of a victory.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Per Usama bin Laden’s fatwas “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” (1996) and “International Fatwa” (1998), al Qa’eda’s strategic goals are to gain territory for a base to export conflict; to provoke a clash between Muslims and non-Muslims; to force United States forces to withdraw from Muslim lands; to eliminate of US and western support for Israel, both a long-standing and more recently reiterated goal, and to establish a new caliphate with Sharia governance.

This paragraph is generally consistent with what I said, except for your assertion of "a new caliphate with Sharia governance," which does not seem to be supported by the linked source[/url]. Was that was something mentioned in the primary source but not the op-ed?

The 1996 and 1998 fatwahs are about the actions to reestablish their imagining of a caliphate. He writes about the Ummah - that's a term used with specific connotations by Salafist fundamentalists for Caliphate. The concept is throughout both fatwahs.

UBL also doesn't mentioning using terrorist tactics, but that's what they were about rationalizing/legitimizing as well. Would you argue that those documents have no relation to acts of terrorism by al Qa'eda? That's what they are used to justify, however. One might think of the two fatwahs as roughly equivalent to executive orders by a President. Re-establishment of a caliphate with Shari'a law is the over-arching strategic goal.


I think -- & I’m confident you’ll tell me I’m wrong if you think otherwise -- you are extrapolating criticisms of US foreign policy that you and others may have and what you would like to see as goals for the US to al Qa’eda. E.g., “a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. … a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. … a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.....” Those may be your goals, but they’re not al Qa’edas. Usama bin Laden was not a poor, downtrodden Bedouin who overcome obstacles.


Potentially illustrative example: When James Von Brunn’s cited his grievances against the Federal Reserve Board and his belief that Barack Obama is not a US citizen and therefore has no right to the presidency as motivation to attack the Holocaust Museum in DC, would you uncritically accept those and not dig further? Of course not.

If you are genuinely interested in understanding the motives and goals of al Qa'eda and the radical Salafist movement, I'll again recommend what I consider to be the best open-sources translations of the primary documents, many predating 9-11:
Jihadists’ strategy: The Canons of Jihad,
Strategy and Operational views: The Terrorist Perspectives Project, and
Abu Mus’ab al-Suri’s Jihad Manifesto: A Terrorist’s Call to Global Jihad (He’s the Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason of late 20th Century global Salafism all rolled up into one vitriolic human.)

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

UBL also doesn't mentioning using terrorist tactics, but that's what they were about rationalizing/legitimizing as well. Would you argue that those documents have no relation to acts of terrorism by al Qa'eda? That's what they are used to justify, however. One might think of the two fatwahs as roughly equivalent to executive orders by a President. Re-establishment of a caliphate with Shari'a law is the over-arching strategic goal.

I guess I'm interpreting the fatwas more literally than you are.

Bin Laden's greatest criticism in the fatwas of Saudi Arabia's departure from the Sharia is the adoption of some western economic practices, specifically usury.

Quote

I think -- & I’m confident you’ll tell me I’m wrong if you think otherwise -- you are extrapolating criticisms of US foreign policy that you and others may have and what you would like to see as goals for the US to al Qa’eda. E.g., “a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. … a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. … a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.....” Those may be your goals, but they’re not al Qa’edas.

According to the primary documents you asked for and I provided, those are the goals of al Qaeda. Furthermore, those are goals for which the actions of al Qaeda seem generally rational.

What do you consider to be the symbolic significance of selecting the WTC and the Pentagon as targets? If al Qaeda attacked us because of our freedoms, why was the Statue of Liberty not targeted? Instead, the targets were military and economic symbols. Why do you think that was?

Quote

Usama bin Laden was not a poor, downtrodden Bedouin who overcome obstacles.

Are you suggesting that someone born rich cannot have compassion for those less fortunate? Bin Laden's desire for Sharia suggests that not to be the case.

Quote

If you are genuinely interested in understanding the motives and goals of al Qa'eda and the radical Salafist movement, I'll again recommend what I consider to be the best open-sources translations of the primary documents, many predating 9-11:

I might check out the books if I have time, but I can't see them as a substitute for primary data (i.e. the words of Bin Laden himself w/r/t the goals of his organization).

In Mein Kampf, Hitler made the observation that a significant factor for Germany losing WWI was that the propaganda about the enemy was not consistent with the reality. I think that would be a fair observation today w/r/t the WOT.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I think -- & I’m confident you’ll tell me I’m wrong if you think otherwise -- you are extrapolating criticisms of US foreign policy that you and others may have and what you would like to see as goals for the US to al Qa’eda. E.g., “a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. … a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. … a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.....” Those may be your goals, but they’re not al Qa’edas.

According to the primary documents you asked for and I provided, those are the goals of al Qaeda. Furthermore, those are goals for which the actions of al Qaeda seem generally rational.

No, it appears to be according to two documents that fit what you wanted to see. You can't ignore the rest. [Edit -- that's wrong, actually you or anyone else can. I won't, however.] None of those goals you've indentified include killing 10M people or acquiring nuclear weapons.

Quote

What do you consider to be the symbolic significance of selecting the WTC and the Pentagon as targets? If al Qaeda attacked us because of our freedoms, why was the Statue of Liberty not targeted? Instead, the targets were military and economic symbols. Why do you think that was?

Um, "freedoms" is your argument (among others). There is an underlying fundamentalist backlash against modernization ... but that is a further discussion. Al Qa'eda targeted buildings that symbolized threats or offenses to the goals of their version of the desired caliphate, the radical Islamist 'Ummah' and threats to their power.

Quote

Quote

Usama bin Laden was not a poor, downtrodden Bedouin who overcome obstacles.

Are you suggesting that someone born rich cannot have compassion for those less fortunate? Bin Laden's desire for Sharia suggests that not to be the case.

Nope, not all all. Is that another strawman? I'm trying to explain why your interpretations of Qa'eda's goals are not correct. Imposition of Shari'a law would not interfere with UBL's privilege nor is it necessarily evidence of compassion.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I believe the primary goal of al Qaeda is to motivate the USA towards a just foreign policy, one that promotes human rights over capitalist interests wherever the two conflict. They want a US foreign policy that doesn't unfairly support Israel over the rights of Palestinians. They want a US foreign policy that does not justify killing civilians by the USA and their allies while hypocritically denouncing civilian US casualties as victims of terrorism.....

Quote

According to the primary documents you asked for and I provided, those are the goals of al Qaeda. Furthermore, those are goals for which the actions of al Qaeda seem generally rational.

This needs it's own response, imo ... and I genuinely hope that I am just reading it wrong.
Did you really mean to state that al Qa'eda's actions [terrorism] "seem generally rational"?

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No, it appears to be according to two documents that fit what you wanted to see. You can't ignore the rest.

Pot, meet kettle!

Edit to add: I didn't ignore the rest. I quoted the relevant parts. "The rest" (including the fatwas to which you linked) is also generally consistent with my observations.

Quote

Quote

What do you consider to be the symbolic significance of selecting the WTC and the Pentagon as targets? If al Qaeda attacked us because of our freedoms, why was the Statue of Liberty not targeted? Instead, the targets were military and economic symbols. Why do you think that was?

Um, "freedoms" is your argument (among others).

??? Apparently I need to clarify something I wrote. From which statement did you draw that conclusion?

Quote

There is an underlying fundamentalist backlash against modernization

More specifically, against capitalist imperialism.

Quote

Al Qa'eda targeted buildings that symbolized threats or offenses…

Exactly. They were symbolic of an attack on a foreign policy that utilizes military force to further capitalism throughout the world, without respect for human rights (i.e. if the interests of capitalism and the interests of human rights are not aligned, promoting capitalism is given priority).

Quote

Quote

Quote

Usama bin Laden was not a poor, downtrodden Bedouin who overcome obstacles.

Are you suggesting that someone born rich cannot have compassion for those less fortunate? Bin Laden's desire for Sharia suggests that not to be the case.

Nope, not all all. Is that another strawman?

Another strawman? I haven't presented any straw man arguments in this discussion. I'm simply trying to figure out why you think Bin Laden's moneyed background is relevant and not a red herring.

Quote

I'm trying to explain why your interpretations of Qa'eda's goals are not correct.

I eagerly await such an explanation. Thus far, I'm only hearing the same sort of propaganda that I heard from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

I'd really like to have a constructive discussion on the topic, but you seem to be discarding the primary data that I'm providing and dismissing valid observations without analysis.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

No, it appears to be according to two documents that fit what you wanted to see. You can't ignore the rest.

Pot, meet kettle!

Or perhaps pot meet entire set of cookware?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

No, it appears to be according to two documents that fit what you wanted to see. You can't ignore the rest.

Pot, meet kettle!

Or perhaps pot meet entire set of cookware?

/Marg

Should I take you flippant reply as a refusal to address the issues of the discussion on their merits? That's disappointing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

This needs it's own response, imo ... and I genuinely hope that I am just reading it wrong.
Did you really mean to state that al Qa'eda's actions … "seem generally rational"?

Given their stated goals, yes their actions were generally rational. Of course, if one doesn't accept their stated goals as their goals, then the actions could be interpreted as irrational. However, I'm quite reluctant to accept an irrational explanation when a more plausible rational explanation is available.

That the actions were generally rational does not imply that they were not abhorrent. War is abhorrent.

Having said that, I do not believe the civilians deaths from al Qaeda's in their attacks are any more or less tragic than the civilian deaths caused by our own attacks and economic sanctions. Why are they innocent civilians when their attacks kill them but collateral damage when we cause the deaths?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Krip 2]

Hi NG

A riddle without a answer

The problem isn't al Qa'eda its the political challenges in the middle east.

When will isreal makes peace with their neigbors and their neighbors make peace with isreal?

Only themn will al Qa'eda or their replacement be defeated.

One Jump Wonder

[cliffwhite 0]

Quote

[

What are the ‘right’ or ‘best’ metrics to assess winning against al Qa'eda?

Quote

I think that before that question can be answered we have to determine exactly who al Qa'eda is.
Do you have an answer?
I reread 1984 in 2001 .

Blues ,
Emmanuel Goldstein

2muchTruth

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites