nerdgirl

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

Strongly concur and well-said. At the same time, I do think these cases bring forth issues that are very much worth discussing. The clear-cut cases in which someone uses a bomb are, uh, clear-cut. There is, imo, value in post-hoc analysis. I'd switch “may have” for “would have.” It does, imo, become a question of intention and capability. Wanting to do something, which includes, imo, grandiose talking about it, is not the same as the capacity to do something. And effectively making TATP explosives are more difficult experimentally than the TSA would like us to believe. Doesn't mean it's impossible as the London 7/7 bombers demonstrated. The value of good intelligence *and* good intelligence analysts in invaluable. Data isn't information until a human recognizes its significance. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I thought of NickDG’s Thread on “Pssst, Hey Kid, Need a Bomb . . . ?” when I read what I thought were a couple very interesting Op-Eds in Sunday’s NY Times. Both made explicit or implicit cases for prioritizing domestic intelligence investigations and law enforcement over civil liberties. (To be explicit on my part, “interesting” does not necessarily equal agree or disagree in whole or parts.) What the two Op-Ed writers discuss both relates to the Zazi case as well as actions by domestic intelligence and law enforcement … but is more wide-ranging than the specific question Nick asked, i.e., why I made a separate thread. Playing Chicken With Suicide Bombers by “John Farmer Jr., a former attorney general of New Jersey, is the dean of the Rutgers School of Law at Newark and the author of ‘The Ground Truth.’” “As a society, we have weighed the risks to public safety in curtailing police power against the risks to public liberty of allowing too much police power. The balance we have struck is reflected in our constitutional protections. The question posed by terrorism, however, is whether the stakes — possibly tens of thousands of deaths — are sufficiently higher to alter that balance in favor of greater government power.”“The larger issue raised here is whether there is a viable alternative to the nerve-racking game of chicken that law enforcement must play in terrorism cases. The obvious — though extremely unpopular — alternative is the passage of a preventive detention statute. “Such statutes have been upheld in the context of people with a demonstrated proclivity toward violent conduct, like sexual predators; the concept could be adapted, in a way that withstands constitutional scrutiny, to cover people with a demonstrated proclivity toward terrorism. That approach would give law enforcement additional means to disrupt potential terrorist plots. It has the virtue of honesty, obviating the strained and sometimes disingenuous use of material-witness and false-statement statutes that are now frequently used to arrest and hold suspected terrorists, and would remove the temptation to criminalize conduct that borders on free speech. “Still, preventive detention is hardly a panacea. What should the burden of proof be in using 'civil commitmen'” regarding terrorism? When should that burden be adjusted, if ever? How often would a subject’s status be reviewed? How long may someone be held? There is, moreover, something about detaining someone before he has committed an offense that runs counter to our core constitutional values.” What do folks think of Mr. Farmer's ideas? As a country have the memories of 9-11 faded, are we fatigued (justifiably?) by anti-terrorism efforts (e.g., TSA security theater), are we fatigued by suspected excesses in the name of counter-terrorism, or are we just pre-occupied with other domestic politics (recession & health care)? And The Hatfields and McCoys of Counterterrorism by “Michael A. Sheehan is the former deputy commissioner for counterterrorism at the New York Police Department and former ambassador at large for counterterrorism at the State Department.” (He served in both Pres Clinton’s and Pres GW Bush’s administrations in different capacities.) “So, what lessons can we draw from this case [Zazi] regarding the state of our counterterrorism efforts in New York and nationwide? First and most obvious, we must remain vigilant and aggressive in finding domestic terrorist cells. “Second, we are reminded that intelligence operations using telephone intercepts and informant networks are the key to foiling Al Qaeda. There are limits to defensive strategies in our major cities: barriers, detection devices and uniformed patrols have their role, but in a sprawling city like New York the only real way to prevent a terrorist attack is to penetrate the cell before it can act. “We have apparently thwarted Al Qaeda’s effort to attack us again, one of many such instances over the last eight years. Our domestic investigators must stay focused in their relentless pursuit of terrorist cells in America. Their ability to do their job should not be watered down by lawmakers or their departments. “At the same time, the men and women of the New York Police department must be careful to minimize mistakes and to stay clearly within the law when they investigate United States citizens and residents. But given a choice — and there are always choices made every day in this city by investigators on the street — we should err on the side of action, not passivity. Mr. Zazi and his deadly bomb recipes remind us why.” What Mr. Sheehan somewhat dismissively, imo, calls ‘passivity’ is respect for civil liberties. From what I have seen, & I’m not following the domestic case *that* closely, it does not appear to me that anyone’s civil liberties were violated in the investigation and arrest of Mr. Zazi. There are a couple dozen suspected &/or unindicted co-conspirators, and it’s unclear to me whether “internecine conflict” (to use Mr. Sheehan’s phrase) between the NYPD and FBI was the problem (i.e., did someone ‘jump the gun’ to get credit?) or something else. Anyone who’s ever worked in any capacity with the NYPD knows that they can make skygods look humble. Most of the time, they’re also really good at what they do. (There are notable & quite public exceptions.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Are you sure? (Not w/r/t your viewing habits [obviusly you know those better than anyone ] but the effect on the reported household viewing figures.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A better question would be "how have we come to such a bitterly divided state of affairs?" It is a good question too. (Better is just so subjective, eh?) A couple things need to be established: is the “state of affairs” really that bitterly divided historically? Or are we extrapolating from memories of the recent past that may not be a rosy as we want to remember them? More interesting to me ... perhaps not you ... if Pres Obama is as close as you portray to Pres Bush, particularly w/r/t policy choices, that should suggest that the origin of the 'divide' has less to do with actual policies – if his really are so similar to Pres Bush – and that the divide is more a partisan creation of those in the minority. If he's really, as you repeatedly sggest, just extending the Bush adminstration, shouldn't the division be less? Or maybe there are other explanations? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

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. 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. 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. The radical Islamists/global Salafists want to regress all the way back to a twisted version of 7th century CE caliphate. “Twisted” not as a normative judgement but in recognition of the selective exceptionalism, i.e., cell/sat phones, RPGs, AK-47s, internet marketing – okay; everything else that *they* don’t want – not okay. USB also recognizes the importance of oil: “The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world” and explicitly calls on Jihadis to *not* destroy oil infrastructure: “I would like here to alert my brothers, the Mujahideen, the sons of the nation, to protect this (oil) wealth and not to include it in the battle as it is a great Islamic wealth and a large economical power essential for the soon to be established Islamic state.” 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). E.g., it's difficult to argue that he's any less interested in oil than other states. 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 …. “We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.” Economic collapse of the US and western economy, reiterated from more recently. Acquisition and use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, e.g., discussion of how to acquire nuclear materials here: “Acquiring weapons [of mass destruction] for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons [nuclear, biological, chemical], then I thank God for enabling me to do so.” – UBL, Jamal Isma’il, December 1998 “We have the right to kill four million Americans, two million of them children.” – Abu Ghaith, “Why We Fight America,” 2002 “If a bomb was dropped on them that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands … this is permissible.” – Sheihk Nasir bin Hamid al-Fahd, “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels,” 2003 “If those engaged in jihad establish that the evil of the infidels can be repelled only by attacking them with weapons of mass destruction, they may be used even if they annihilate all the infidels.” – Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (a.k.a. Abu Mus’ab al-Suri) That pretty well illustrates, at least for me, that human rights aren't at the forefront of al Qa'eda's goals. Al-Suri's writing skirt a very fine line just to side of advocating genocide against anyone who he deems an infidel. Among the best open-sources to understand the goals and motives of al Qa’eda and the global Salafists are 3 short books that contain 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 global Salafism all rolled up into one vitriolic human. 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.’ They certainly don’t care about the common woman: “pious female companions …; they should adopt the life style (Seerah)” (basically give up all autonomy of personhood – nerdgirl). Trying to portray them as freedom fighters, as the second quoted sleection in your post does, disregards much. That excerpt that you selected to illustrate your view of al Qa’eda’s goals also favorably characterizes the 19 hijackers of 9-11: “freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19.” Reading that excerpt requires some critical analysis. Don’t get me wrong: it’s an incredibly interesting excerpt! More importantly: to what audience do you think it’s directed? It’s not a basic strategy statement, it’s political rhetoric to be heard by tacit and explicit supporters, predominantly in the Muslim world. I could write and cite lots more … but suspect most have stopped reading. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What do you think are al Qa'eda's motivations and goals? And on what do you base those conclusions? Primary documents? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm of the opinion, others may disagree, that the core of al Qa'eda (300-500 individuals in NW Pakistan) are irreconciable. They need to be removed from society, which includes capture and detention. What you suggest is part of the reducing motivation of tacit and explicit supporters. Historically, it's worked with other non-state actors, including but not limited to Provisional IRA. At this point, there's not anyone I can identify in the military, DoD, the USG, or NATO whose goal is to create a duplicate of America, which is not to say that there have not been some glaring attempts in the past. E.g., trying to implement and enforce a direct adaptation of Maryland's traffic code in Baghdad in 2004-2006. Really. The overwhelming thrust of strategy (US OEF-Afghanistan and NATO ISAF) today is focused on counterinsurgency, which prioritizes the population and a population-centric approach, i.e., what is sometimes called "Clear [insurgents], hold [make an area secure and stable], and build [reconstruction]." How strategy translates operationally and tactically to individual deployed soldiers and Marines on the ground may be something else. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Ironically, that's what the Soviet Union was trying to do in the 80's. Ummm ... the Soviet Union relied on conventional military strategies and tactics. It's a tremendous over-simplication (to put it diplomatically) to compare the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to international development or reconstruction or to compare the Afghanistan resistance in the late 1970s to al Qa'eda, nevermind the vastly different balance of power internationally, i.e., there is no more USSR. While this might not apply to all, I'm confident that you recognize that al Qa'eda does not equal the Taliban. /Marh Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Analytically, reducing their capability, reducing the motivation of tacit and explicit supporters (i.e., effective deterrence), and reducing the vulnerability of US and allies (physical, psychological, and financial) to the point at which al Qa’eda is no longer a strategic threat. Threat = F[C, M, V]. I generally agree, with the caveat that reducing al Qaeda's motivation will require the USA to take steps that coincide with the overall objectives and goal of al Qaeda, producing a win-win (again, sunken costs notwithstanding). As a clarification, nothing in my response cited above is inherently in concurrence or implied by your caveat. Al Qa'eda's objectives and methods are anathematic to me and in direct opposition to liberal societies (& that’s “liberal” in the Enlightenment meaning not that of late 20th/early 21st American politics). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As a general group, no. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Analytically, reducing their capability, reducing the motivation of tacit and explicit supporters (i.e., effective deterrence), and reducing the vulnerability of US and allies (physical, psychological, and financial) to the point at which al Qa’eda is no longer a strategic threat. Threat = F[C, M, V]. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, they have. For example, “Classroom classics” include songs in praise of Pres Lincoln, President Washington, Rev Martin Luther King Jr, Christopher Columbus, and two praising the US military ("MILITARY MEDLEY(Air Force, Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines)" and "THANK YOU MILITARY"). There's also "FIGHTING FEAR WITH FRIENDSHIP" "(A request made by Pres. George W. Bush to America's children) "Words- Sam Francis Music- Merrill Jenson Children of America There's a way to conquer fear. It's time that we all get along So hate will disappear. There's one thing that we can do And we should start today. We'll fight fear with friendship There is no better way. CHORUS Fighting fear with friendship It is our Nation's call Our President has asked the ‘kids' To be a friend to all! Fighting fear with friendship There's letters we can send. Tell the ‘kids' throughout the world We want to be their friend! Children of America We love our liberty. We wish that kids throughout the world Also could be free. If only they could feel our hearts They would know how much we care. We all want peace on earth for children everywhere! CHORUS (Bridge) Regardless of our color or nationality, We should respect our differences And friends we all should be. CHORUS (Tag) Let's tell the kids throughout the world We want to be your friend. I wonder what would be the reaction if President Obama had made that request to America's school children? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No, that’s actually pretty cool imo. Folks musicians have been writing & adapting songs praising leaders and criticizing leaders for hundreds of years. Just not heard in heavy rotation on MTV or whatever cable station actually plays music videos these days. I haven’t looked at anything beyond what has been posted here in this thread & the others, so am speculating and inferring on a lot of the wider context. I can look at it from 2 different perspectives …. & there probably are more. First, strategically things like this just give those who are critical of the President over things he has little to no control the excuse to be more critical, including but not all-inclusively those who are just looking for another excuse or rationalization to engage in Blackwashing, the platform to do so. Second, imo, there _is_ some cult of personality to it. I don’t care who or what the person represents, I’m skeptical of cults of personality. There's a thin line between songs of praise and nationalist cults of personality ... sometimes where that line falls is different for different people. I love patriotic songs - a lot of them are pretty well written as folks songs, imo, e.g., the adaptation of Katherine Bates' poem about Pike's Peak into "America the Beautiful" and Irving Berlin's "God Bless America." Do the lyrics of the adaptation in question also suggest some evidence of a whole lot of underlying residual racism and class issue that some folks don’t want to acknowledge? (Yeah, prolly that too.) I’m still trying to figure out what is wrong with in some folks idea of “equal pay for equal work”? If two humans do the same job equally well, why should one get less or get more? Of course, the real world ain’t fair, so we still have racial pay disparities all of which favor whites. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

On what do you base that or how did you come to that conclusion? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Although I have no hesitancy to ask pointedly American-directed question, as the OP I have some level of authority on what I originally wrote & intended, if nothing else (unless your psychic powers are working these days? ) ... otoh, to where & what topics any thread goes in tangents is totally out of my control. What one might infer from that ... & would be accurate in this case ... is that imo, “winning” against al Qa’eda is not something that is solely dependent on one nation-state. Imo, the US alone cannot singly defeat al Qa’eda. You and others might disagree. Central al Qa’eda, i.e., the estimated 300-500 irreconcilable individuals in NW Pakistan most closely affiliated with UBL and al Zawahiri, are part of a much larger decentralized, transnational network. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It refers to viewing broadcast or cable television programming, so watching videos/DVDs and gaming would not be included in those results. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting & perhaps novel metric. I like that.

Other than staying off the dining room table and using their very fancy litterbox, I don't force them to do anything. They're cats. My mom got me one of those birds/fish/whatever videos for cats one year for Christmas. They had zero interest. When I travel, I do try to leave the local NPR station playing on a radio. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In my -- ever -- humble opinion, that's a really good question. And, to me, there are (at least) two questions embedded in there: (1) what does it mean “to win” from an analytical perspective? and ... (2) what does it mean “to win” from the perspective of the average American, the average citizen of an allied/NATO nation-state, or the average citizen of a non-aligned nation-state? The range of answers for all is likely to have some variation both intra- and inter-nationally. What are the ‘right’ or ‘best’ metrics to assess winning against al Qa'eda? Is the fact that the US has not been attacked since 2001 evidence that we are winning against al Qa’eda? One of my favorite liberal arts PhD’s asserted yesterday in a speech he gave at an event held at the National Press Club in DC that Al Qa’eda’s influence and abilities to execute attacks have been significantly decreased from the eastern end of the Mediterranean through southeast Asia since 2007. What would it mean to win against al Qa’eda for you? Usama bin Laden & Ayman al Zawahiri's dead bodies? What? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. And at least for the US household calculation, dogs watching TV regardless of channel selected don't count. (My cats watching TV don't either ... altho' they sleep most of the day.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's per household. Good point. (Did ya really think that I didn’t think of that? ) The average US household size has been steadily declining (US Census Bureau data). The most recent data (2005-2007)found the average US household size to be 2.6. Geographical variation across the US. Data from other nation-states: The average household size is Switzerland is 2.3 (i.e., Average 1.0h/person to 3.2h/person in the US assuming that multiple never watch TV at the same time, which is an artificial constraint). Others OECD nation-states with household size comparable to the US include: Denmark ~4h/day TV viewing for average household of 2.2 Japan ~3.5h/day TV viewing for average household of 2.8 Norway ~2.5h/day TV viewing for average household of 2.2 Greece ~4h/day TV viewing for average household of 2.6 The ones where household size does play a bigger factor in the constrained per person calculation include Poland (maybe) ~4h/day TV viewing for average household of 3.1 (~1.3h/person) Turkey ~3.5h/day TV viewing for average household of 4.6 (~0.8h/person) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The OECD's “Communications Outlook 2009” gives a breakdown of average household television viewing time (graph on p. 193 of the full document[/url]). The reported times are similar to what is shown in the attached graph from the OECD’s 2007 report. On average, American’s watch 8.2 hours of TV, by household, per day. The next highest OECD state, Greece, watches an average of 4.2h/day. The lowest is Switzerland with an average of 2.4h/day. What do folks think about that? Good? Bad? Evidence we have better TV programming? Indifferent? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

When does "now" begin in your timeline? My candidate for most official interaction with dictators as an official representative of the USG is former Sec of State Kissinger. One might suggest other candidates. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How do you measure that? I'm not sure that I want to live in a place that implements the type of things that would make someplace completely safe ... but I may be willing to accept more risk than others. Where I live, the most dangerous thing is hitting a deer or runing into a mountain lion or grizzly on a trail. There is virtually no crime, and some people leave doors unlocked. However, I realize this is a special place, and I'm afraid I did not include domestic crime (healthcare another issue) if that is what you are fishing for? (Not trying to dodge the issue, but I gotta go). I'm not fishing for anything. Really. I'm curious as to the basis/process by which you made a pretty strong statement. How do you measure safest? If you determine it anecdotally, that is a way. Some might disagree or dispute it, but it is an honest answer. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying