Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What Is the Goal of al Queda?

What Is the Goal of al Queda?
Thread Tools
RIRedinPA
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 07:46 AM
 
In 2001 I would have said the goal of al Queda was to force the removal of Western (US) military members from Saudi Arabia, overthrow the monarchy and attempt to set up a new caliphate.

But, in light of the recent attacks in London and Madrid I would have to say al Queda no longer has the same goals. The Saudi's put a damper on al Queda to some extent by negotiating on their own the withdrawal of most US forces. We've done our fair share through our overt and covert military efforts, the squeezing of al Queda fianances, and to a limited extent some diplomatic efforts to decentralize al Queda and make it into a coalition of loosely connected cells instead of a cohesive unit. Iraq has changed the focus as well and I think al Queda and other jihadist see this as a repeat of the Afghan-Soviet mujahedin war of the 80s. (IMHO it is not and they are making a mistake).

To me, the goal of al Queda now is to simply kill as many people as possible. Not that that wasn't part of their previous goals but before it seemed there was also a subcontext of a political agenda.

I'm interested to see what others think.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 07:58 AM
 
Their goal is pretty irrelevant because they will NEVER achieve it - just like Bush and his comrads will NEVER be able to get rid of EVERY terrorist!
***
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by badidea
Their goal is pretty irrelevant because they will NEVER achieve it - just like Bush and his comrads will NEVER be able to get rid of EVERY terrorist!
No offense but that's a stupid response. Of course their goals are relevant for knowing their goals helps form our strategy in deterring them. Whether their goal is attainable or not does not matter.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Planet_EN
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
In 2001 I would have said the goal of al Queda was to force the removal of Western (US) military members from Saudi Arabia, overthrow the monarchy and attempt to set up a new caliphate.

I'd like to point out here that there was no Al-Qaeda before 2000/01. Some FBI officials after 9/11, out of nowhere, came up with Al-Qaeda, who was accused to be a Worldwide terrorist mastermind organisation.
"A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. "
"A pessimist is a man who looks both ways when he crosses the street. "
"Expert: a man who makes three correct guesses consecutively. "
--- Laurence J. Peter
     
Planet_EN
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
To me, the goal of al Queda now is to simply kill as many people as possible.
Well, no offence dude, but its quite impractical to think like that. They are not vampires or daemons
"A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. "
"A pessimist is a man who looks both ways when he crosses the street. "
"Expert: a man who makes three correct guesses consecutively. "
--- Laurence J. Peter
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
I'd like to point out here that there was no Al-Qaeda before 2000/01. Some FBI officials after 9/11, out of nowhere, came up with Al-Qaeda, who was accused to be a Worldwide terrorist mastermind organisation.
Let me check on that because I thought that al queda was the title bin Laden gave to the organization (it means 'the base') and he developed it in the late eighties/early ninties after Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it. al Queda is suppose to serve as 'a base' for other like minded organizations to receive training and funding for their jihadist fights. I think the misunderstanding is that al Queda is itself a large organization (members wise) and had a almost military organizational hierarchy.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
Well, no offence dude, but its quite impractical to think like that. They are not vampires or daemons
Exactly the point of this thread. What are the current (even if unattainable) goals of al Queda, other than to kill a lot of people.

They might not be vampires but let's not be so quick to rule out the demons just yet.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Planet_EN
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Let me check on that because I thought that al queda was the title bin Laden gave to the organization (it means 'the base') and he developed it in the late eighties/early ninties after Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it. al Queda is suppose to serve as 'a base' for other like minded organizations to receive training and funding for their jihadist fights. I think the misunderstanding is that al Queda is itself a large organization (members wise) and had a almost military organizational hierarchy.
Read this article
"A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. "
"A pessimist is a man who looks both ways when he crosses the street. "
"Expert: a man who makes three correct guesses consecutively. "
--- Laurence J. Peter
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
I'd like to point out here that there was no Al-Qaeda before 2000/01. Some FBI officials after 9/11, out of nowhere, came up with Al-Qaeda, who was accused to be a Worldwide terrorist mastermind organisation.
Incorrect. This conversation has recently happened on another forum. References were found as far back as 1998.
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
In 2001 I would have said the goal of al Queda was to force the removal of Western (US) military members from Saudi Arabia, overthrow the monarchy and attempt to set up a new caliphate.

But, in light of the recent attacks in London and Madrid I would have to say al Queda no longer has the same goals. The Saudi's put a damper on al Queda to some extent by negotiating on their own the withdrawal of most US forces. We've done our fair share through our overt and covert military efforts, the squeezing of al Queda fianances, and to a limited extent some diplomatic efforts to decentralize al Queda and make it into a coalition of loosely connected cells instead of a cohesive unit. Iraq has changed the focus as well and I think al Queda and other jihadist see this as a repeat of the Afghan-Soviet mujahedin war of the 80s. (IMHO it is not and they are making a mistake).

To me, the goal of al Queda now is to simply kill as many people as possible. Not that that wasn't part of their previous goals but before it seemed there was also a subcontext of a political agenda.

I'm interested to see what others think.
It is hypothesized the following:

The "State of Jihad" summary above was drawn from Mr. Jenkins's work. Among his points: Al Qaeda's objectives are broad - to Western eyes, so broad as to seem almost fantastical: The group wants to drive infidels from the Middle East, topple what they see as apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations, and foster an Islamic religious revival. The goal is to build a following, not to take ground. The group is vague on when its goals might be reached. It has no road map for victory.

"We regard war as a finite process, with a beginning, middle, and end. For our jihadist foes, it is a perpetual condition," said Jenkins at a recent RAND terrorism conference in Washington.

The code of jihadism emphasizes process, not progress. Their objective is action - the more spectacular the better. A continuing terror campaign boosts their self-image as jihad's cutting edge, notes Jenkins. And action purifies jihadists, focusing them on a spiritual purpose and shielding them from the temptations of materialism. To Al Qaeda, the individual heroism can be more important than an operation's outcome.
But:
“The Three Foundations”
In a January 30, 2005 audiotape, Ayman Al Zawahiri identified the “three foundations” of Al Qaeda’s political ideology and applied them to recent events. Zawahiri, who is regarded as Al Qaeda’s chief ideologue, described Al Qaeda’s core principles in sharp contrast to secular and religious reform ideologies voiced by other Muslims as well as recent U.S. support for democracy. This may signal an attempt by Al Qaeda’s leadership to renew and clearly define its goals as a basis for attracting new recruits and inspiring new affiliates. The “three foundations,” as outlined by Al Zawahiri are as follows:
[edit]
“The Quran-Based Authority to Govern”
According to Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda supports the creation of an Islamic state governed solely by sharia law. Secular government or “man-made” law is considered unacceptable and deemed contrary to Islamic faith.
[edit]
“The Liberation of the Homelands”
Zawahiri argued that reforms and free elections will not be possible for Muslims without first establishing “the freedom of the Muslim lands and their liberation from every aggressor.” He also emphasized the importance of establishing control over the Middle East’s energy resources and described the Muslim world as “impotent and exposed to the Israeli nuclear arsenal.”
[edit]
“The Liberation of the Human Being”
Zawahiri articulated a vision of a contractual social relationship between Muslims and their rulers that would permit people to choose and criticize their leaders but also demand that Muslims resist and overthrow rulers who violate Islamic laws and principles. He criticized hereditary government and identified a need “to specify the power of the sharia based judiciary, and insure that no one can dispose of the people’s rights, except in accordance with this judiciary.”
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
Like I said, I'll have to check on that but can't till I get home - I have a book on bin Laden and another one called Charlie Wilson's War which is about the US funding of the mujahedin in Afghanistan and I am pretty sure one of them speaks of bin Laden coming up with the idea of a loose coalition of terrorist organizations funded and trained by one central core group, which would be al Queda and he also came up with the name.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 09:20 AM
 
It should be noted that the group that attacked London wasn't actually al Qaeda, but rather a group using the al Qaeda brand, similar to factions of the IRA that didn't necessarily represent the interests of the IRA
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 09:26 AM
 
Franchised and disenfranchised all at the same time.
That makes my head hurt.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Sherwin
Franchised and disenfranchised all at the same time.
That makes my head hurt.
The point is that different groups using the al Qaeda brand may have different goals and simply use the name al Qaeda as an excuse (similar to how some individuals use environmentalist protests to turn them into riots, and others use those riots to get a new TV)
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 10:23 AM
 
I think their motivation is to target people/countries that they believe are wrongly meddling in their countries and lands.
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 11:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
It should be noted that the group that attacked London wasn't actually al Qaeda, but rather a group using the al Qaeda brand, similar to factions of the IRA that didn't necessarily represent the interests of the IRA
I agree, The Secret al Queda Organization of Europe is not the al Queda of bin Laden fame. The difference with your IRA analogy is that this is exactly what, if my understanding of the organization of al Queda is correct, was intended. I'll use a simplified analogy that al Queda is a bank and these rather disparete fundamentalist Islamic organizations are its customers - the customers come with a loan request - a plan - and the 'bank' provides a variety of services - financing, training, logistics, contacts, etc. etc. al Queda members are not necessarily going to do the attack but you can see in the similarities of the attack the hallmark of al Queda training (timed explosions, high civillian casualties, symbolic value, timing (elections, G8 etc.), disruption of civil processes (economy, transportation, etc.)

Certainly the group responsible for London and the group responsible for Bali had two seperate core goals, the question would be how do these two incidents fit into al Queda's overall goals?
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Certainly the group responsible for London and the group responsible for Bali had two seperate core goals, the question would be how do these two incidents fit into al Queda's overall goals?
To support the goals of regional terrorist groups and create international discord while baiting western nations to commit acts which are contradictory with their constitutions?

I wonder if these regional groups need to submit project proposals in order to get funding?
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 01:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
I'd like to point out here that there was no Al-Qaeda before 2000/01. Some FBI officials after 9/11, out of nowhere, came up with Al-Qaeda, who was accused to be a Worldwide terrorist mastermind organisation.
This is absolutely incorrect, and I don't care what links you use to support the assertion. Or was I simple psychic in being familiar with the name before 9/11, as were most people?

At all relevance times from in or about 1989 until the date of the filing of this indictment, an international terrorist group existed which was dedicated to opposing non-Islamic governments with force and violence. This organization grew out of the 'mehktah al khidemat' (the 'Services Office') organization which had maintained offices in various parts of the world, including Afghanistan, Pakistan (particularly Peshawar) and the United States, particularly at the Al Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, New York. The group was founded by Osama Bin Laden…From 1989 until the present, the group called itself "Al Qaeda" ("the Base)…

"Al Qaeda opposed the United States for several reasons. First the United States was regarded as an "infidel" because it was not governed in a manner consistent with the group's extremist interpretation of Islam. Second, the United States was viewed as providing essential support for other "infidel" governments and institutions, particularly the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the nation of Israel and the United Nations organization, which were regarded as enemies of the group."

From the indictment issued by the Office of U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York, October 1998.
Edited to add the indictment quote.
( Last edited by ThinkInsane; Jul 12, 2005 at 01:33 PM. )
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
To support the goals of regional terrorist groups and create international discord while baiting western nations to commit acts which are contradictory with their constitutions?

I wonder if these regional groups need to submit project proposals in order to get funding?
Kidding aside I actually think they do, they send an envoy to bin Laden or one of his surrogates and if the plan seems feasible or within al Queda "goals" I think they then take on support of it.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
I'd like to point out here that there was no Al-Qaeda before 2000/01. Some FBI officials after 9/11, out of nowhere, came up with Al-Qaeda, who was accused to be a Worldwide terrorist mastermind organisation.
Nonsense.

Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen fought alongside the Afghans against the Russians in the 80's.

Check your history.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
I agree, The Secret al Queda Organization of Europe is not the al Queda of bin Laden fame. \
Absolute bull.

All manner of Al Qaeda terrorism is linked in function and purpose.

Their purpose is to annihilate the West and make the world for Islam.
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
Planet_EN
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by saab95
Nonsense.

Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen fought alongside the Afghans against the Russians in the 80's.

Check your history.
*ahem* read my post again, I was talking about Al-Qaeda not Osama bin laden.
America and Pakistan joined hands to support Osama and his militants at that time of Afghan War.
"A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. "
"A pessimist is a man who looks both ways when he crosses the street. "
"Expert: a man who makes three correct guesses consecutively. "
--- Laurence J. Peter
     
Planet_EN
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 04:02 PM
 

Can anyone answer me that why Osama's video in which, acording to the news he took the charge of attacks to his head, were mistranslalted ...
"A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. "
"A pessimist is a man who looks both ways when he crosses the street. "
"Expert: a man who makes three correct guesses consecutively. "
--- Laurence J. Peter
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by saab95
Nonsense.

Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen fought alongside the Afghans against the Russians in the 80's.

Check your history.
Yeah, but they weren't al Qaeda then, either in name or function. I think al Qaeda cropped up after the US 1991 war with Iraq and cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and then possibly in Somalia and the original WTC attack in 1993. I don't think they refer to themselves with that name, and I think there's debate about where the term originated.
     
moki
Ambrosia - el Presidente
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
To me, the goal of al Queda now is to simply kill as many people as possible. Not that that wasn't part of their previous goals but before it seemed there was also a subcontext of a political agenda.
No, they are not just trying to randomly kill as many people as possible. If you want to know what their goals are, just listen to what bin Laden has said. They want to drive the "infidels" from their land, they want to impose Islamic rule in a pan-continent state, anyone who opposes this idea is not being true to Islam.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Yeah, but they weren't al Qaeda then, either in name or function. I think al Qaeda cropped up after the US 1991 war with Iraq and cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and then possibly in Somalia and the original WTC attack in 1993. I don't think they refer to themselves with that name, and I think there's debate about where the term originated.
Bin Laden worked in the "Afghan Bureau", officially known as Maktab al-Khidamat "the Office of Services", which was financing the mujahideen fighting the Soviets. After the Soviet withdrawal, he turned that network into what became al Qaeda, and that name has been in use since the early 90's. I don't know why people seem to think it's some sort of artificial construct. It's well documented, if you have the time to sort through the ******** a google search churns up.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
mr. natural
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: god's stray animal farm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2005, 11:27 PM
 
Posted by BRussell:I think their motivation is to target people/countries that they believe are wrongly meddling in their countries and lands.
As usual, BRussell's answer to the question of this thread is succinct and on the mark.

To RIRedinPA's query, I do believe that strategically speaking, nothing has really changed since 2001.

As for tactical shifts here's a link to a NYTimes op-ed piece of July, 9th, by Robert A. Pape, a pol/sci professor and author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," in which he writes:

Most important, the [suicide attack] figures show that Al Qaeda is today less a product of Islamic fundamentalism than of a simple strategic goal: to compel the United States and its Western allies to withdraw combat forces from the Arabian Peninsula and other Muslim countries.
(This and other good understandings contained in the article, including some quotes from "a lengthy [tactical] Qaeda planning document on a radical Islamic Web site" revealed by the Norwegian intelligence service and which has proven accurate, is worth reading. I think one can use "macnn" as a log-in and password if need be.)

The goal of Al Qaeda with these terrorist attacks is simply to get foreign military forces along with the destructive power and corrupt policies behind it out of their lands.

This has been their goal from day one. And the simple conclusion to be made from this is that were we in a better position to do this, these terrorist attacks on us would stop.

Alas, that's not in the cards as they are mis-played, and so the bloody logic of this game goes on and on...

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 01:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
In 2001 I would have said the goal of al Queda was to force the removal of Western (US) military members from Saudi Arabia, overthrow the monarchy and attempt to set up a new caliphate.
From The American Conservative magazine, this is an interesting interview with Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism

The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

TAC: If we were to back up a little bit before the invasion of Iraq to what happened before 9/11, what was the nature of the agitprop that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were putting out to attract people?

RP: Osama bin Laden’s speeches and sermons run 40 and 50 pages long. They begin by calling tremendous attention to the presence of tens of thousands of American combat forces on the Arabian Peninsula.

In 1996, he went on to say that there was a grand plan by the United States—that the Americans were going to use combat forces to conquer Iraq, break it into three pieces, give a piece of it to Israel so that Israel could enlarge its country, and then do the same thing to Saudi Arabia. As you can see, we are fulfilling his prediction, which is of tremendous help in his mobilization appeals.
RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.
( Last edited by Spliff; Jul 13, 2005 at 01:39 AM. )
     
Planet_EN
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 03:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by moki
No, they are not just trying to randomly kill as many people as possible. If you want to know what their goals are, just listen to what bin Laden has said. They want to drive the "infidels" from their land, they want to impose Islamic rule in a pan-continent state, anyone who opposes this idea is not being true to Islam.
This is what FBI's official report has unveiled, things like Al-Qaeda is blah blah, they want to kill every infidel on earth, but again I'm saying you to be practical, when a person like Osama who's a millionare and a mastermind, why would he want to impose Islam on infidels, if islam is already the second biggest religion on face of earth.

Its funny how no one answered this:
Can anyone answer me that why Osama's video in which, acording to the news he took the charge of attacks to his head, were mistranslalted ...
If america is right about his motive and they were having the real war on terrorism then why his video tape was mistranslated, whats the point in doing that?
"A man doesn't know what he knows until he knows what he doesn't know. "
"A pessimist is a man who looks both ways when he crosses the street. "
"Expert: a man who makes three correct guesses consecutively. "
--- Laurence J. Peter
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 05:11 AM
 
The primary goal of Al-Qaeeda is to overthrow the governments in the islamic countries and to replace them with, in their eyes truly islamic governments, which should eventually unite to one big islamic empire with a caliph at its top.

Al-Qaeeda has though figured that it's difficult to overthrow these islamic dictatorships as long as the US and the west in general is supporting them militarily and economically/financially/diplomatically...

So the solution to that problem is according to Al-Qaeeda to scare off the western mights espescially the US from the middleeast, and Osama Bin Ladin saw the opportunity to set off a chainreaction after the US set up US-troops and US-military-bases in the Gulf-countries and espescially in Saudi-Arabia.

The attacks against the US-embassies in Africa, the attacks against an US military ship and eventually the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, should not only create a legend, the arabic hero Osama Bin Ladin who manages to achieve successful attacks against a previously as invulnerable seen supermight, that many in the arabic world see as the mainsupporter and installer of the regimes that oppress them, but should also provoke the US to react to these sting-attacks with force and by this turn more and more parts of the islamic societies, that were at best neutral, into the cycle of violence and retaliation, so that according to Al-Qaeeda hopefully a war of civilisations starts that would according to Al-Qaeeda end with the withdrawal of western influence and power in the islamic world, which is a requirement before they can overthrow the current islamic dictatorships.

In a nutshell that's imho their goal.

Taliesin
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliff
From The American Conservative magazine, this is an interesting interview with Robert Pape, author of Dying to Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism
Woaw!

Thanks for the info!

And with the debacle of conservatism in Iran, I figure that the best thing to do is to let these countries on their own, until they get fed up with the totalitarianims of their religion and move on the democracy on their own.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
I think their motivation is to target people/countries that they believe are wrongly meddling in their countries and lands.
You make them sound like secular nationalists. I think you need to take more into consideration the religious aspect. They see themselves as fighting a holy war. It's not primarily territorial.

Notice also that the killer of Van Gogh, who has explicitly said he killed for his religion, was Dutch. He didn't shoot and practically behead Theo Van Gogh because of anything to do with the Middle East. Likewise, it appears the four suicide bombers in London were born and raised in England. Their families were from Pakistan. Similarly, Richard Reid, the confessed al-Queda agent who attempted to blow up an aircraft over the Atlantic by lighting a bomb built into his shoe was English and a convert to Islam. Zacharias Massaoui , who pled guilty to being part of the 9/11 plot, was French. It's the same reason why (as Christopher Hitchens has been pointing out) that the first three British casualties in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban. Their motivation was religion, not nationalism.
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by saab95
Absolute bull.

All manner of Al Qaeda terrorism is linked in function and purpose.

Their purpose is to annihilate the West and make the world for Islam.
Relax there big guy. Just because an organization is a terrorist one and uses the word al Queda in their name doesn't mean they are THE al Queda. I believe you suggested that someone read their history in a previous post, perhaps you might want to follow that advice in regards to what al Queda is.

al Queda, the one led by bin Laden is a decentralized organization which functions on several levels, they organize and execute terrorists attacks themselves but they also will act as a proxy and offer training, financing, logistics etc. for other, like minded terrorists organizations. This second function would seem to be the case in Madrid and London, al Queda probably provided training, financing, logistics and the explosives but the actual participants were members of another organization.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 09:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Yeah, but they weren't al Qaeda then, either in name or function. I think al Qaeda cropped up after the US 1991 war with Iraq and cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and then possibly in Somalia and the original WTC attack in 1993. I don't think they refer to themselves with that name, and I think there's debate about where the term originated.
I agree with you but I think the idea of al Queda was formed during bin Laden's expirence in Afghanistan in the 80s. The Gulf War was probably the impetus to move forward with the idea.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Planet_EN
This is what FBI's official report has unveiled, things like Al-Qaeda is blah blah, they want to kill every infidel on earth, but again I'm saying you to be practical, when a person like Osama who's a millionare and a mastermind, why would he want to impose Islam on infidels, if islam is already the second biggest religion on face of earth.

Its funny how no one answered this:


If america is right about his motive and they were having the real war on terrorism then why his video tape was mistranslated, whats the point in doing that?
Shouldn't you direct that question to the Pakistan editors of The Dawn?

I'd try to answer but I am really not sure what you are alluding to. Could you elaborate a bit?
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin
The primary goal of Al-Qaeeda is to overthrow the governments in the islamic countries and to replace them with, in their eyes truly islamic governments, which should eventually unite to one big islamic empire with a caliph at its top.

Al-Qaeeda has though figured that it's difficult to overthrow these islamic dictatorships as long as the US and the west in general is supporting them militarily and economically/financially/diplomatically...

So the solution to that problem is according to Al-Qaeeda to scare off the western mights espescially the US from the middleeast, and Osama Bin Ladin saw the opportunity to set off a chainreaction after the US set up US-troops and US-military-bases in the Gulf-countries and espescially in Saudi-Arabia.

The attacks against the US-embassies in Africa, the attacks against an US military ship and eventually the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, should not only create a legend, the arabic hero Osama Bin Ladin who manages to achieve successful attacks against a previously as invulnerable seen supermight, that many in the arabic world see as the mainsupporter and installer of the regimes that oppress them, but should also provoke the US to react to these sting-attacks with force and by this turn more and more parts of the islamic societies, that were at best neutral, into the cycle of violence and retaliation, so that according to Al-Qaeeda hopefully a war of civilisations starts that would according to Al-Qaeeda end with the withdrawal of western influence and power in the islamic world, which is a requirement before they can overthrow the current islamic dictatorships.

In a nutshell that's imho their goal.

Taliesin
Considering the ridiculous imbalance in military and technology that the West has over the Arabic/Muslim world a war of civilizations between the two could only end disastrously for the Arab/Muslim world.
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
saab95
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On my Mac, defending capitalists
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by RIRedinPA
Relax there big guy. Just because an organization is a terrorist one and uses the word al Queda in their name doesn't mean they are THE al Queda. I believe you suggested that someone read their history in a previous post, perhaps you might want to follow that advice in regards to what al Queda is.

al Queda, the one led by bin Laden is a decentralized organization which functions on several levels, they organize and execute terrorists attacks themselves but they also will act as a proxy and offer training, financing, logistics etc. for other, like minded terrorists organizations. This second function would seem to be the case in Madrid and London, al Queda probably provided training, financing, logistics and the explosives but the actual participants were members of another organization.
Well, I just think that in your post you proved your original point was wrong, but what the heck?

AFAIC, Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda, and that includes its affiliates
Hello from the State of Independence

By the way, I defend capitalists, not gangsters ;)
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by saab95
AFAIC, Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda, and that includes its affiliates
So, if a group calling themselves the Secret United States of America Organization of Europe were to commit terrorist acts ...?
     
RIRedinPA  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
So, if a group calling themselves the Secret United States of America Organization of Europe were to commit terrorist acts ...?
Not to make too much light of a serious situation but when exactly does a secret organization no longer be considered secret.

It reminds me of a Python skit:

Terrrorist: "Hello, were The Secret Organization of Al Queda in Europe."

Intelligence Analyst: "Right, but your not a secret organization anymore because you just told me about yourself."

Terrorist: "Ah, bloody hell."
Take It Outside!

Mid Atlantic Outdoors
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 01:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
You make them sound like secular nationalists. I think you need to take more into consideration the religious aspect. They see themselves as fighting a holy war. It's not primarily territorial.

Notice also that the killer of Van Gogh, who has explicitly said he killed for his religion, was Dutch. He didn't shoot and practically behead Theo Van Gogh because of anything to do with the Middle East. Likewise, it appears the four suicide bombers in London were born and raised in England. Their families were from Pakistan. Similarly, Richard Reid, the confessed al-Queda agent who attempted to blow up an aircraft over the Atlantic by lighting a bomb built into his shoe was English and a convert to Islam. Zacharias Massaoui , who pled guilty to being part of the 9/11 plot, was French. It's the same reason why (as Christopher Hitchens has been pointing out) that the first three British casualties in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban. Their motivation was religion, not nationalism.
It's definitely a Holy War, but I don't think you can separate the Holy War aspect from the territorial aspect; they see those territories as Holy Land. Here's a link to one of Laden's early fatwas. It's definitely religious in language, but its content focuses on the "problem" of the infidels in the holy land. In addition, I think most agree that al Qaeda really started up, at least in their anti-American actions, with the US involvement in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait during the first Gulf War. And they grew out of the mujahedeen whose purpose was getting other infidels (Soviets) out of Muslim land.

With your examples, the best counter-example to the territoriality theory is the killer of van Gogh. You're right, he doesn't seem at all to be motivated by getting Americans out of the Holy Lands. However, I'm not aware of him being al Qaeda. His actions seemed to be motivated by an Islamist/"Islamofascism" outlook that has more in common with the fatwa against Rushdie in the 1980s than al Qaeda.

It's true that some al Qaeda terrorists are from other parts of the world, but that doesn't mean that their primary motivation isn't to get Americans/infidels out of the Holy Land. Bin Laden was in Sudan, not a Muslim Holy Land, when he started complaining about the US being in Saudi Arabia.

In context, I think it's clear that al Qaeda has a religious veneer, in the same way that the KKK had a religious veneer, but that their primary complaint is infidels in Muslim Holy Land, and their primary goal is to get them out.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell

It's true that some al Qaeda terrorists are from other parts of the world, but that doesn't mean that their primary motivation isn't to get Americans/infidels out of the Holy Land. Bin Laden was in Sudan, not a Muslim Holy Land, when he started complaining about the US being in Saudi Arabia.

In context, I think it's clear that al Qaeda has a religious veneer, in the same way that the KKK had a religious veneer, but that their primary complaint is infidels in Muslim Holy Land, and their primary goal is to get them out.
And what precisely is Muslim Holy Land, that it cannot tolerate non-Muslims unless the non-Muslims agree to the institutional oppression of dhimmi status?

Isn't it the aim of the Muslim Brotherhood to expand the Muslim lands, join them under a caliphate, and under Islamic law? Isn't that reflected in the signature that Logic / Von Wrangell uses?

According to the Muslim Brotherhood, Muslims have a duty to help form Islamic governments worldwide and should be prepared to take up arms to do so. One passage states that "until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful." Another one says that Western secularism and materialism are evil and that Muslims should "pursue this evil force to its own lands" and "invade its Western heartland."

If you've paid any attention to the activities of the Waqf in Israel, you'd notice that anything Muslims believe they once may have had a tenuous claim on ownership is an inheritence, belonging to Muslims for all time. So, if there are Muslims in the Sudan, their land is now Muslim land for all time, at least according to the Brotherhood and those like Al-Qaeda who are in line with their goals. Abduallah Azzam, Bin Ladin's mentor, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Is it any surprise that his goals align with the Brotherhood's in domination?

EDIT: Fixed links. BRussell, have a look at them- when they say on their OWN page that Western secularism is evil, it's not the same as westerners saying 'they hate us for our freedom.'
( Last edited by vmarks; Jul 13, 2005 at 03:14 PM. Reason: fixed links)
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 02:42 PM
 
vmarks, I'm not saying it's a nice motivation. It's inherently racist and supremacist and flawed, at least in the extreme form that bin Laden et al. endorse. But it is what it is.

It might also involve expansion, but you've got to at least gain control of your own lands before you begin installing the Taliban in the US.

It seems to me that the best alternative explanation to Pape's "out of the Holy Land" theory is your quote that "Western secularism and materialism are evil" and should therefore be attacked. That seems to be a variant of the "they hate us for our freedoms" line. But I just don't buy it. That seems to me to be more of a post-hoc justification of terrorism ("they're bad people anyway so they deserved it") than a real motivation.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
It's definitely a Holy War, but I don't think you can separate the Holy War aspect from the territorial aspect; they see those territories as Holy Land. Here's a link to one of Laden's early fatwas. It's definitely religious in language, but its content focuses on the "problem" of the infidels in the holy land. In addition, I think most agree that al Qaeda really started up, at least in their anti-American actions, with the US involvement in Saudi Arabia/Kuwait during the first Gulf War. And they grew out of the mujahedeen whose purpose was getting other infidels (Soviets) out of Muslim land.
One of the interesting things about Bin Laden is what a successful propagandist he is. What he claims are his reasons varies over time. For example, that fatwa you mention as being "early" isn't all that early. He wrote it after Al-Queda bombed the embassies in Africa. He rants about Clinton's defense secretary Perry, as if Perry's words were what motivated Bin Laden. There also is all kinds of stuiff in there about western influences in general, the Saudi royal family (who of course had put a bounty on Bin Laden's head by 1995), how he had been chased out of Sudan by the Islamic government of Sudan, the the memory of Communism in South Yemen, the Chechen War with Russia, Pakistan's wars with India over Kashmire, the Gulf War war with Iraq and even the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina (which oddly he seems to blame on the Americans, even though it was the US that stopped the killings of Muslims in Bosnia), and the UN mission in Somalia, where "Zionist Crusaders" tried to feed starving Muslims. Basically, the guy hates everything, and blames it all on the "Zionist Crusaders." He's a nutcase.

But he is also a clever nutcase who is adept at claiming every perceived wrong and slight that any Muslim anywhere in the world might resent and claiming it as a call for Muslims everywhere to unite behind his banner. There is no negotiating and appeasing with that kind of a looney, or with those who would be attracted by his kind of religious war. Even if you gave them everything they want, pull every western soldier out of Saudi Arabia, let him establish a more fundamentalist Islamic state there, give them back Spain (which Bin Laden has demanded), give them back the Balkans, and Austria, forbid Australian tourists from partying in Bali, none of that would make any difference. Because what you are trying so hard to rationalize and understand is at bottom totally irrational. He'll just come up with more justifications and rationalizations, whatever he thinks will fly, which is why he attracts religious extremists from so many backgrounds. Got a resentment, he'll validate it.

VMarks is right. You'd do better to go back to the source and read books like Sayyid Qutb's Milestones to see the religious well this perverse man draws from. This religious war has been brewing for far longer than 1991. It's basically a war against the modern world.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
One of the interesting things about Bin Laden is what a successful propagandist he is.
Very true, and most amazing of all, among people that should actually know better.

I honestly believe bin Laden and his ilk are themselves secretly amazed, delighted, and bemused that the irrational crap they spew (that even they at some level know full well is just that) actually PLAYS in the west among some of the very people they despise. It has to be like a bizarre, almost unexpected bonus.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
For example, that fatwa you mention as being "early" isn't all that early. He wrote it after Al-Queda bombed the embassies in Africa.
Nope.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
Nope.
My mistake. I was thinking of this line:

The latest of these speeches was the one given by William Perry, the Defence Secretary, after the explosion in Al-Khobar saying that: the presence of the American solders there is to protect the interest of the USA.
That would be the Khobar Towers. What I said is still accurate. Bin Laden rants about Perry's comments following an al-Queda attack as if Perry provoked Bin Laden into the attack. The guy is nuts, but clever. His speeches don't tell us much about what makes him tick, but rather illustrate his talent for claiming anything that furthers his propaganda message aimed at radical Islamists.
     
Spliff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Canaduh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 04:37 PM
 
FYI, the BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares," about the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism has been released on the internet for free viewing. Download it or stream it here:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliff
FYI, the BBC documentary, "The Power of Nightmares," about the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism has been released on the internet for free viewing. Download it or stream it here:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
You mean that hokey 'documentary' that tells us the terrorist threat is a myth, made up by "Neoconservatives" , there are no sleeper cells, there is no al-Qaeda.

Why should it be given any credence?
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
Bin Laden rants about Perry's comments following an al-Queda attack as if Perry provoked Bin Laden into the attack. The guy is nuts, but clever. His speeches don't tell us much about what makes him tick, but rather illustrate his talent for claiming anything that furthers his propaganda message aimed at radical Islamists.
No question. Another example is his hopping on the Palestinian bandwagon after ignoring it. But I think if you try to strip all that away, what really gets them is what Pape says - the US in their lands.

I think there are other layers of explanations, perhaps bin Laden's personal ambition. One that I've always liked is that the Middle East has in the past had one of the greatest civilizations in the world, probably the first advanced civilization, but that promise hasn't been realized in the modern world. Those broken expectations are a prominent theory of aggression on an individual level, and I think a kind of "cultural inferiority" might explain the appeal of bin Laden to some radicals who are ticked off about their status.

What I don't like is the idea that "they're insane psychos" or "they hate us for our freedoms." It's a serious mistake to stereotype or underestimate your enemy's rationality. There's no reason to believe that bin Laden or any of the terrorists are insane, or that they have no coherent reason for their actions.

I also don't buy the theologically-based explanations that you sometimes hear from devout Christians, that Islam is inherently violent. Religion is too malleable to be pinned down like that, and there's a long tradition of Islam that doesn't jibe with that analysis.

So there you go, have at it.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2005, 08:42 PM
 
People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.
Yes, damnit! I've been saying this all along!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,