1
   

Fresh Look at AlQaeda and binLaden

 
 
Skye cv
 
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 10:00 am
The Reasons Why Al-Qaeda Wages War On Us (Flopping Aces)

The Reasons Why Al-Qaeda Wages War On Us
by Curt on June 8, 2007


Here is another of my forays into Lawrence Wrights excellent book on the history of radical Islam, The Looming Tower.

First, for those, specifically on the left, who continually state bin Ladens beef with the United States was due to our country having had our troops on "sacred" land, ie Saudi Arabia, Lawrence writes about the Peter Arnett interview in March of 1997 in which we get from the horses mouth what his beef really is.

What is even more interesting for those on the left who state we should stop supporting Israel, we should leave Iraq, just give them what they want and they will be happy, bin Laden's words should wake your ass up:

Bin Laden cited American support for Israel as the first cause of his declaration of war, followed by the presence of American troops in Arabia. He added that American civilians must also leave the Islamic holy land because he could not guarantee their safety.

In the most revealing exchange, Arnett asked whether, if the United States complied with bin Laden's demands to leave Arabia, he would call of his jihad. "The reaction came as a result of the aggressive U.S. policy toward the entire Muslim world, not just the Arabian Peninsula," bin Laden said. Therefore, the United States has to withdraw from any kind of intervention against Muslims, "in the whole world." Bin Laden was already speaking as the representative of the Islamic nation, a caliph-in-waiting. "The U.S. today has set a double standard, calling whoever goes against its injustice a terrorist," he complained. "It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose on us agents to rule us...and wants us to agree to all these. If we refuse to do, it will say, 'You are terrorists.'"

If we look at the beginning of al-Qaeda in 1988 there are two meetings, which Lawrence writes about, that began al-Qaeda. On August 11th, 1988, Sheikh Abdullah Azzam chaired a meeting with bin Laden, Abu Hafs, Abu Ubaydah, Abu Hajer, Dr. Fadl and Wa'el Julaidan. Notes were taken and Lawrence writes:

Although the notes don't reflect it, a vote was taken to form a new organization aimed at keeping jihad alive after the Soviets were gone. It is difficult to imagine these men agreeing on anything, but only Abu Hajer voted against the new group. Abu Rida summarized the meeting by saying that a plan must be established within the suitable time frame and qualified people must be found to put the plan into effect. "Initial estimate, within 6 months of al-Qaeda, 314 brothers will be trained and ready." For most of the men in the meeting, this was the first time that the name al-Qaeda had arisen. The members of the new group would be drawn from the most promising recruits among the Arab Afghans, but it was still unclear what the organization would do or where it would go after the jihad. Perhaps bin Laden himself didn't know.

Few people in the room realized that al-Qaeda had already been secretly created some months before by a small group of bin Laden insiders. Bin Laden's friend from Jeddah, Medani al-Tayeb, who had married his niece, had joined the group on May 17, the day after Ramadan, so the organizational meeting on August 11 only brought to the surface what was already covertly under way.

On Saturday morning, August 20, the same men met again to establish what they called al-Qaeda al-Askariya (the military base). "The mentioned al-Qaeda is basically and organized Islamic faction, its goal is to lift the word of God, to make HIs religion victorious," the secretary recorded in his minutes of the meeting.

Later Lawrence writes:

The leaders of al-Qaeda developed a constitution and by-laws, which described the utopian goals of the organization in clear terms: "To establish the truth, get rid of evil, and establish an Islamic nation." This would be accomplished through education and military training, as well as coordinating and supporting jihad movements around the world.

Lawrence writes about a speech bin Laden gave in the bin Laden family mosque in Jeddah in which he railed against the plight of the Arab world, and blamed it all on the US:

At first, it was difficult to grasp the basis of bin Laden's complaint. The United States had never been a colonial power, nor for that matter had Saudi Arabia ever been colonized. Of course, he was speaking for Muslims in general, for whom American support of Israel was a cause of anguish, but the United States had been a decisive ally in the Afghan jihad. The sense of humiliation he expressed had more to do with the stance of Muslims in the modern world. Their lives were sold at a discount, bin Laden was tellnig his hometown audience, which confirmed their sense that other lives - Western, American lives - were fuller and more worthwhile.

Bin Laden gave them a history lession. "America went to Vietnam, thousands of miles away, and began bombing them in planes. The Americans did not get out of Vietnam until after they suffered great losses. Over sixty thousand American soldiers were killed until there were demonstrations by the American people. The Americans won't stop their support of Jews in Palestine until we give them a lot of blows. They won't stop until we do jihad against them."
Ok, so we understand what the goals of al-Qaeda was and is. The formation of an Islamic state. To stop the support of Israel by the West. Not because we are in Iraq, not because we were in Saudi Arabia. If none of these things had happened they would still wage jihad against us. They hate what we stand for, they hate we are "unbelievers", and they hate that we support Israel.

But lets look at the central argument in the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection. The left will constantly state that bin Laden would never support secular Saddam, or Shiites. But wait a minute, when he moved to Sudan he formed a relationship with Hasan al-Turabi, who also envisioned a international Muslim community with Sudan as it's headquarters:

Although bin Laden distrusted Turabi - hated him, even - he experimented with one of Turabi's most progressive and controversial ideas: to make common cause with Shiites. He had Abu Hajer advise the members of al-Qaeda that there was only one enemy now, the West, and the two main sects of Islam needed to come together to destroy it. Bin Laden invited Shiite representatives to speak to al-Qaeda, and he sent some of his top people to Lebanon to train with Iranian-backed group Hezbollah. Imad Mugniyah, the head of Hezbollah's security service, came to meet bin Laden and agreed to train members of al-Qaeda in exchange for weapons. Mugniyah had planned the 1983 suicide car bombings of the US Embassy and the U.S. Marine Corps and French paratrooper barracks in Beirut, which killed more then three hundred Americans and fifty-eight French soldiers and had led to the prompt withdrawal of American peacekeeping forces from Lebanon. That precedent had made a profound impression on bin Laden, who saw that suicide bombers could be devastatingly effective and that, for all its might, America had no appetite for conflict.

He didn't like working with them, but he would indeed work with those he despises to succeed in destroying the west, and the best way to do that was to inflict mass casualities on America. Do it enough and he hoped we would capitulate.

So far from being unwilling to work with Shiites, far from being only out to get us out of Saudi Arabia or Iraq, their goal is the destruction of the West and the promise of a new, powerful, Muslim nation to spread the word and get rid of the unbelievers.

Such a brave man - hiding behind his people in fear spouting words of war and hate
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,660 • Replies: 48
No top replies

 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 11:46 am
@Skye cv,
Bin Laden and his followers must die.
0 Replies
 
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 01:49 pm
@Skye cv,
Great reading - question is how do we crush this enemy without being destroyed ourselves? I mean, we cannot very well nuke the entire middle east but what do we do from here?
Skye cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 02:53 pm
@Skye cv,
I think the ultimate answer (not successful one by any means) would be to divid Iraq into its three majority philosophical units and let them work as the U.S. does "autonomous States within a larger Nation - which conducts the affairs on a consensus basis with the international community."

I cannot see a united Iraq working in peace.

It should not ever be up to the U.S. to make the final decisions for them.

It will take a while but if people see a good life ahead I think the majority will rise up to defend themselves with the training and assistance of the U.S. and hopefully other nations who are interested in uplifting not war.

Off topic: It is time for the U.S. to rescue itself. We are in dire need of some self-care.
0 Replies
 
sam2007
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 03:15 pm
@Skye cv,
The Looming Towers sounds like one of those books that grab your attention as soon as you walk into a library or bookstore, with "we" as their most prominent phrase. I wish to take you back to the Afghan-Soviet war when the University of Nebraska at Omaha Center for Afghanistan Studies was publishing jihadi literature in it's printing press in Peshawar, pakistan.

Politics of War: From Refugee to Jihadi

The Islamic nature of the Afghan resistance highlighted the close relationship between religion and politics and encouraged the establishment of approximately 1,000 Islamic madressas (religious schools), with aid from Middle Eastern countries with the US and UK insistence to provide an ideological base for the Afghan jihad. According to investigative reports for the Washington Post, over the past 20 years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks which were then distributed in Afghanistan. These books were developed in the early 1980’s under a US AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its centre for Afghan studies. “The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines. They have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code.” According to the Washington Post, these violent Islamist schoolbooks produced unintended consequences. The books included much unnecessary material and were not written with the purpose of education in mind. They were rather designed for ideological propaganda. At the primary level the material in the mathematics books featured problems such as:

If out of 10 atheists, 5 were killed by 1 Muslim, 5 would be left.
5 guns + 5 guns = 10 guns
15 bullets -10 bullets = 5 bullets, etc.

Generally all these books were written with the purpose of keeping children away from normal development. The Dari and Pushto textbooks mention guns, bullets, atheism, martyrdom and jihadi. Even organic chemistry and zoology books leaned towards Islamic studies rather than science. Textbooks provided by NGOs were also much more suitable for madressas rather than normal schools.

Skye - is that an actual photo?
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 03:45 pm
@Skye cv,
Dividing Iraq is a practical solution, but one fraught with geo-political disaster. The world would condemn the U.S. as a reckless, imperial power, a rogue nation arrogant and brazen enough to actually redraw the global map.
0 Replies
 
Red cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 06:23 pm
@socalgolfguy,
socalgolfguy;20120 wrote:
Great reading - question is how do we crush this enemy without being destroyed ourselves? I mean, we cannot very well nuke the entire middle east but what do we do from here?


Good question Socal, the media has controled how this war is being fought to date. If we could use traditional warfare (yes innocents will die but the Islamist don't seem to care when they kill their human shields we have to adapt that attitude) and slaughter the Enemy with a brutality that we used in WW11. Harsh perhaps but the enemy doesn't care about anything or anyone but virgins and grapes and that Allah fella, we can't afford to place a human face or they'll crush us and that's what they are counting on. Our humanity, they have none and never will. A majority of the Freedom Fighters or scum bags aren't even from Iraq but Saudia Arabia, Sudan, Iran, and other backwater hell holes. To win we must fight as they do, and they are counting on us being weak and humane. They have no honour, humanity or ethos they are the moral equivalant of "Animals".
0 Replies
 
rhopper3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 06:25 pm
@Skye cv,
There is no good solution in Iraq right now.....because even if the situation stabilizes and it will eventually their are to many players there hostile to us...the invasion was stupid on so many levels but in many practical ways as well...the argument that Sadam had more than a strained relationship with Al Queda based on momentary necessity has been consistently disproven...
No one on the left as you put it has ever said to simply give them want they wanted ....that is Fox News propaganda ...at least no one left who doesn't wear a tin foil hat wanst to do that
The idea is to fight them in a way that makes some sense and doesn't involve half assed ideologically motivated Friday night at the rodeo mentality....
It is probably to late to simply stop supporting Israel and would likely mean little at this point and sense many liberal orgs have a Jewish connections somewhere in their midst and since traditional conservatism calls for a minimum of foreign involvements to call this idea liberal notion is also silly....
To put this in simple terms..Afghanistan made some sense in a very direct way what we have done since then is bizarre and illogical
By all means kill this power hungry Bin Laden idiot but don't start WW III doing it
I do not believe we are responsible for the problems in the Middle East that concept is equally silly...It is a region with modern power and infulence and Medieval sensibilities but I cannot help but think that through our at least occassionally short sighted uninformed choices that it is we, as Yamamoto said after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, who have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve
0 Replies
 
STNGfan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 07:11 pm
@Skye cv,
Sure we will pull out of the middle east if Al Qaeda pulls out of Somalia, Indonesia, Europe, Bosnia, India, and Algera.

I see Al Qaeda with their hands in many more countries than the U.S.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 08:20 pm
@Skye cv,
Agreed. We have to fight Al Qaeda wherever we find it, until the last terrorist is dead. This war could last forever. We need to accept that possibility, anchoring ourselves in the remembrance that they drew first blood.
lancesorbenson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 08:55 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;20193 wrote:
Agreed. We have to fight Al Qaeda wherever we find it, until the last terrorist is dead. This war could last forever. We need to accept that possibility, anchoring ourselves in the remembrance that they drew first blood.


Who is Al-Quaeda? I understand there are some extremist Muslims who hate us, but what kind of world are we talking about creating here? A shadowy unseeable enemy hell-bent on our total destruction that we must fear from now to that end of time and on whom we need wage a never-ending war? This approach is doomed to fail and the whole thing is awfully contrived by my reckoning. But then, I have read 1984 and have some understanding of the mechanisms of totalitarianism.

I for one don't worry about Muslim extremists in the least, maybe because I have basic math skills. I'm not prepared to support the complete alteration our approach to defense and foreign policy for something that poses almost no statistical threat to me. Just remember, you're about 400 times more likely to die driving your car than being killed in a terrorist attack.
0 Replies
 
Skye cv
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 08:57 pm
@Skye cv,
Sam2007

Early in the Iraq war I saw a television talk by Arnaud de Borchgrave - describing the system of Madrassas where the young boys in the middle east were sent to be indoctrinated learning the jihadist approach, how to read and write in Arabic and of course - Islamic studies.

They also learned to hate the west - all countries included. We are now witnessing the success of this type of schooling of the young. Education which can change and even wipe out cultures around the world.

I thought at the time de Borchgrave was a bit over the top - but his words now haunt me - as he was so right on the mark.

No the avatar is a computer generated bit of artwork I believe.... not a photo.
0 Replies
 
Skye cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 07:08 am
@Skye cv,
Red

Agree with your statements. The western nations went into the situation with their hands tied behind their backs.

You cannot fight a war which is 'not a war' with weaponry 'which is not to be used'.....

Either you commit to kill BEFORE the military is sent to a battle, or you back off and hope for negotiation or mitigation by some other means.

War should be surgical these days.... instead we are using WWII on ground fighting - and losing the battle.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 07:46 am
@STNGfan,
STNGfan;20178 wrote:
Sure we will pull out of the middle east if Al Qaeda pulls out of Somalia, Indonesia, Europe, Bosnia, India, and Algera.

I see Al Qaeda with their hands in many more countries than the U.S.

I like your kind of thinking.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 08:58 am
@Skye cv,
"Who is Al-Quaeda?"

Anyone inspired by OBL.

"I understand there are some extremist Muslims who hate us...."

You say you know basic math. Well, do some to be more precise. If Islam is a billion-strong, and if only ten percent hate and want to kill us, how many Muslims is that?

"....but what kind of world are we talking about creating here?"

A safe world -- safe for our children and grandchildren. Our world.

"A shadowy unseeable enemy hell-bent on our total destruction that we must fear from now to that end of time and on whom we need wage a never-ending war?"

You got it. See....you actually know more than basic math. Good job.

"This approach is doomed to fail....."

Then we are doomed. It's a matter of survival. But, your liberalism indicates to me that you wouldn't mind if we were destroyed. The thing that's so mind-boggling about liberalism is that it's self-hating and self-destructive. I WANT TO LIVE IN THE WORLD MY ANCESTORS BUILT. I LOVE IT.

"....and the whole thing is awfully contrived by my reckoning."

Please don't speak too loudly. Yes, GW and Cheney and I meet daily to conspire against you. You're right. It's a thick, thick fascist plot. We're out to get you.

"But then, I have read 1984 and have some understanding of the mechanisms of totalitarianism."

Yes, and I am O'Brien. How many fingers do you see? How many? ZZZZZAAAAAAAPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!

"I for one don't worry about Muslim extremists...."

Good for you. I admire your bravery. But.....I don't want to get blown up, and I damned sure don't want Islam to become a dominant force in my country's politics and culture. In fact, I would DIE preventing that.

"....maybe because I have basic math skills."

Yeah.....I'm sure you do think that's the reason. No argument here.

"I'm not prepared to support the complete alteration our approach to defense and foreign policy for something that poses almost no statistical threat to me."

Statistics my narrow arse. They're meaningless. Anybody can scrounge up supportive 'statistics'.

"Just remember, you're about 400 times more likely to die driving your car than being killed in a terrorist attack."

And, according to my statistics, you are 500 times more likely to corrupt the culture of my country and greater European society than a Christian nationalist.
Skye cv
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 09:03 am
@Skye cv,
Statistics are whores - dressed up to be what their author wishes them to be
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 10:15 am
@Skye cv,
Pinoc, take off you tinfoil hat.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 01:00 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;20257 wrote:
Pinoc, take off you tinfoil hat.


How many fingers do you see? How many?

ZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SIZE="4"]I AM O'BRIEN. And yes.......you are in ROOM 101.[/SIZE]Laughing
0 Replies
 
lancesorbenson
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 02:24 pm
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;20245 wrote:
Anyone inspired by OBL.


That narrows it down.

Quote:
You say you know basic math. Well, do some to be more precise. If Islam is a billion-strong, and if only ten percent hate and want to kill us, how many Muslims is that?


By your reckoning there should be Muslims with AK-47s at every corner here in the U.S. I personally haven't seen, but it wouldn't be too hard for any of the 100 million Islamo-warriors to get here. Bush, in his quest to create a safe world for you and your children--you know, the world your ancestors built--has left our southern border completely open. It's almost enough to make you think the WOT is a farce.

Quote:
Then we are doomed. It's a matter of survival. But, your liberalism indicates to me that you wouldn't mind if we were destroyed. The thing that's so mind-boggling about liberalism is that it's self-hating and self-destructive. I WANT TO LIVE IN THE WORLD MY ANCESTORS BUILT. I LOVE IT.


Muslims didn't leave our border open. Muslims haven't killed 45 million unborn babies in this country. Muslims don't make Americans get fat, lazy, and TV-addicted. Muslims don't throw millions of people in prison for pot. Muslims haven't enacted law after law restricting gun ownership. Muslims haven't created a monetary system and fiscal situation in this country that is completely untenable. You Liberals need to get your priorities straight.

Quote:
Please don't speak too loudly. Yes, GW and Cheney and I meet daily to conspire against you. You're right. It's a thick, thick fascist plot. We're out to get you.


You honestly think governments operate on behalf of the people and not elite interests? And here I thought you were cynical.

Quote:
Statistics my narrow arse. They're meaningless. Anybody can scrounge up supportive 'statistics'.


Let's just make it real simple. How many Americans died from terrah attacks in this country? I can't think of any. And no you can't count our soldiers in an occupied country. Traffic fatalities in the U.S. last year? Just over 43,000. We've lost over a quarter million people to these evil cars since 9-11. Something must be done!!
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2007 05:18 pm
@Skye cv,
Okay, Lance. Believe what you want. Just don't let me catch you complaining when and if some of your relatives or friends get killed or injured in an Islamic terrorist attack. I'll expect you to respond by reaffirming how slim the statistical chances of that happening were.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fresh Look at AlQaeda and binLaden
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 03:24:34