Jihad terrorism

Hobbes

The US killing or capturing Bin Laden should not add any fuel to the fire of muslim hatred for the US.

You mean fanatical muslims prehaps. AFAIR Bin laden was more or less on his way out in AQ prior to 9/11. Also having actually been trained by the CIA to begin with it would probably be seen as just cleaning up of a problem the US helped create to begin with (with the less radical muslims.. imho).

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

You mean fanatical muslims prehaps. AFAIR Bin laden was more or less on his way out in AQ prior to 9/11. Also having actually been trained by the CIA to begin with it would probably be seen as just cleaning up of a problem the US helped create to begin with (with the less radical muslims.. imho).

No, I did mean "muslims" rather than "fanatical muslims". The former are the ones whose opinions matter very much here. It is a given that the fanatics already hate the US/the West - nothing can change that - so doing things that may annoy the fanatics even more (killing OBL or other Al Qaeda figureheads for example) doesn't matter so long as they will not also anger muslims generally at the same time.

Hence (IMO only, Wicknight disagrees) capturing or even killing Al Qaeda leaders should not generate any more sympathy for Al Qaeda itself among muslims. This all assumes that while many muslims might agree with some of Al Qaeda's statements and causes etc, an overwhelming majority disagree with its methods.

I wonder, did the Brits putting convicted IRA terrorists (who had actually done the crimes they were accused of:)) in prison during the troubles generate any more support for the IRA?

As for OBL's standing in this "movement", I wouldn't know anything about that!

<offtopic>
I can't believe it is 9.00pm on New Year's Eve and I'm trying to write a paper in between posting crap about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda on boards.ie! What a sad little life I lead!
</offtopic>

Sand

Firstly, it is possible to secure them all. It is not possible to secure them all to the same level of the white house, but then that is not necessary.

100% security is not possible.

Exactly why the turtle strategy cannot be relied upon. I read a Time article where the security team on a nuclear power plant ran a routine wargame exercise simulating a terrorist attack being repelled by the security team as a PR exercise. The security team lost.

Whilst passive security measures shouldnt be ignored, they do not replace the role of aggressive military action to disrupt and destroy terrorist networks identified by intelligence in non-cooperative countries, like Afghanistan. And youre right, that wont provide 100% security either, but it will provide more.

Which is why treat of death, threat of invasion, threat of punishment if they don't fall in line, simply blaming them, is pointless.

Agreed, but the actuality of it tends to be more effective.

Who said it was short term. If America with drew from Iraq and Afganistan tomorrow it would probably take 15 years for the effects, as the children who are now 10 and don't really understand what is happening develop in a world with America not involved in the middle east, so when they reach 25 (prime age for bombers) they are less motivated to target America for "crimes" they didn't experience.

Most of the 9/11 terrorists targeted America for "crimes" they didnt experience. I understand that they were well educated and financially comftable, most (if not all?) living in Europe beforehand. Idealogies such as communism have adherents whose allegiance to it is not based on some personal grudge, dont they? And youre drastically understating the "cultural memory/invention" people are capable of. SFIRA found plenty of willing helpers south of the border who were happy to assist in attacks like Warrington, 70 years or more after the British pullout. And again, there is no evidence whatsoever that any "good works" the West carries out for Muslim countries has any impact on AQ and its idealogical fellow travellers.

Yes, Michael Moore hates America ..

I wouldnt say hates, afterall he hasnt found anywhere nicer to move to. He just makes plenty of money out of half baked, poorly researched, biased, inflamatory garbage. Him and Coulter should marry, their kids would be well balanced.

The thousand or so members of Al Queda are not the big problem. It is the hundred thousand muslims who will sustain Al Queda for the next 20 years that are the problem.

Youre closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The organisation is there. The sympathisers are there. Youre fighting the last war.

WHo says we need to get off oil. There is no reason to believe that if the US backed off from the middle east, Russia or China would invade

They dont need to invade, they only need to offer support and technical assistance like building Iran a nuclear program, without any dodgy media coverage bothering them back home. Do you think that will improve, or disimprove the situation? A meddling superpower with a well developed open political system that is exposed to media scrutiny is not the worst possibility for the middle east. They could get meddling superpowers without the open political system and without the media scrutiny.

That I know, requires accepting the US is not *the* worst country in the world.

Sigh .. yes Sand, blame, that will work .. I can see Al Queda putting down bombs now saying "Jesus we didn't realise it was our fault, we though we were justified because of what the US did, but now we see the light" ... war over

Youre not making much sense with your whole "blame" thing tbh. I dont care whether they justify themselves with some past atrocity. Im not going to pretend that anyone other than the terrorists commited those terrorist attacks though. Blame doesnt come into it. I can understand that Islamic radicals would paint the Kuwait war as some evil american imperialism, ably assisted by Western anti-americans. I can understand that people can have prejudices, and their views can be so twisted as to paint almost all US action in the ME in the most negative fashion possible.

You said stop invading countries as if it would stop terrorism. It wont. And you know it wont, because there is no example of the US invading any ME country where it can be shown that it led to terrorism, other than terrorism carried out by the most twisted viewpoints, which we cannot and should not second guess or attempt to appease in the first place. Youve backed straight away from any other conclusion with the blame stuff above.

And yet you present it as some alternative strategy for the middle east. Either A), your alternative was some throwaway nonsense remark demonstrating that there is no alternative beyond the slogans, or youre saying the US should not support UN mandates if it is incompatible with its own self interest - which is isolationism with regard to the Islamic world. Isolationism, a winning strategy if ever there was one. The last time that was tried it only cost 60 million lives or so.

Are you really saying that you see no alternative but for the US military and intelligence services to keep messing around with in the Middle East for the next 100 years or China will invade and we won't have any oil anymore?

Oh, Im sure another world is possible, but dont pretend it will be painless - Were seeing change, and the cost of change in Iraq for example. Ive just not seen a single concrete policy sketched out in even the broadest terms that would survive outside a bohemian commune.

Pointing out to him that he is in fact at fault is not going to do anything.

Actually, the primary means to reducing terrorism is to reinforce that it is immoral and wrong and never acceptable. The people who attempt to blur the lines between terrorists and freedom fighters with that stupid phrase sustain terrorism far more than anyone who thinks terrorism is immoral. Hence it is important to enlist the assistance of influential muslim thinkers in denouncing terrorism, and to silence those immans who praise and justify terrorism. As you said before, no one randomly wakes up and joins AQ. Theyre gradually convinced that terrorism is moral and correct.

immoral terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest is still a terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest. You cannot remove the threat of terrorism by force and trying to do so will make only make matters worse.

Early Irish governments destroyed the IRA fanatics in the Free State through civil war and brutal repression including internment without trial and tit for tat executions of prisoners in response to IRA attacks. I happen to be living in a modern democracy thanks to those people who destroyed the IRA, leaving only the British section of it in any way intact or active. You are too. Force worked wonders for us in terms of removing the threat of terrorism.

Victor

Sand wrote:

Most of the 9/11 terrorists targeted America for "crimes" they didnt experience.

Bush responded to crimes and "crimes" he didn't experience.

You said stop invading countries as if it would stop terrorism. It wont. And you know it wont, because there is no example of the US invading any ME country where it can be shown that it led to terrorism, other than terrorism carried out by the most twisted viewpoints, which we cannot and should not second guess or attempt to appease in the first place.

The Middle East is messed up, but American policies and "terrorism" / terrorism have been intricately linked. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait / Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan.

Actually, the primary means to reducing terrorism is to reinforce that it is immoral and wrong and never acceptable.

The same can be said of any violence.

Early Irish governments destroyed the IRA fanatics in the Free State through civil war and brutal repression including internment without trial and tit for tat executions of prisoners in response to IRA attacks. I happen to be living in a modern democracy thanks to those people who destroyed the IRA, leaving only the British section of it in any way intact or active. You are too. Force worked wonders for us in terms of removing the threat of terrorism.

Any a country that had been at war for the best part of 9 years wanted to see an end. The Civil War ended not necessarily because of military victory, but the populace wouldn't accept or sustain ongoing rebellion.

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

Exactly why the turtle strategy cannot be relied upon. I read a Time article where the security team on a nuclear power plant ran a routine wargame exercise simulating a terrorist attack being repelled by the security team as a PR exercise. The security team lost.

And an agressive war in Afganistan or Iraq changes that how? The bombers in London walked onto the London underground. How did they do that? Because they were British. The only think that possibly could have stopped them was if the Iraq war didn't incite them to violence.

Now of course something else might of we don't know. But then we know the Iraq war did.

Sand wrote:

Agreed, but the actuality of it tends to be more effective.

Define "effective" ... from where I am sitting it hasn't been effective at anything, quite the opposite Al Queda terrorism has gone up significantly.

Sand wrote:

SFIRA found plenty of willing helpers south of the border who were happy to assist in attacks like Warrington, 70 years or more after the British pullout.

Yes but only after the crack down on civil rights by the British. The IRA was almost non-existant between 1922 and 1960

Sand wrote:

I wouldnt say hates, afterall he hasnt found anywhere nicer to move to. He just makes plenty of money out of half baked, poorly researched, biased, inflamatory garbage. Him and Coulter should marry, their kids would be well balanced.

I just hope the kids get her looks ... shudder ...

Sand wrote:

Youre closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The organisation is there. The sympathisers are there. Youre fighting the last war.

They are now, and there is very little that can be done about that. Instead public foreign policy by the west should focus on stopping more people from wanting to join

Sand wrote:

They dont need to invade, they only need to offer support and technical assistance like building Iran a nuclear program, without any dodgy media coverage bothering them back home. Do you think that will improve, or disimprove the situation? A meddling superpower with a well developed open political system that is exposed to media scrutiny is not the worst possibility for the middle east. They could get meddling superpowers without the open political system and without the media scrutiny.

Again you are saying it is one or the other. I don't accept that, as I have told you.

Sand wrote:

That I know, requires accepting the US is not *the* worst country in the world.

The US is one of the best countries in the world. High education, high(ish) health care, great history and culture. Sure if all they had ever done was the Simpsons it would be still pretty high. I am not following your point ...

Sand wrote:

Youre not making much sense with your whole "blame" thing tbh. I dont care whether they justify themselves with some past atrocity. Im not going to pretend that anyone other than the terrorists commited those terrorist attacks though. Blame doesnt come into it.

Yes it does. You think the placing of blame and responsibility is the important factor here. You think that if the American government isn't to blame it shouldn't have to do anything. They didn't cause 9/11 why should they attempt to appease radical Muslims who want to destroy them. The reason is because it saves lives and stops more bloodshed.

Sand wrote:

You said stop invading countries as if it would stop terrorism. It wont.

It won't, but it will greatly decrease the amount of people joining terrorist organisations.

Sand wrote:

And you know it wont, because there is no example of the US invading any ME country where it can be shown that it led to terrorism, other than terrorism carried out by the most twisted viewpoints, which we cannot and should not second guess or attempt to appease in the first place.

Again with the "blame" ... American's actions have never lead to any Muslim picking up a bomb instead of going to work, because America is not to blame or at fault, so therefore there must be another cause. Its a self completing statement loaded from the start.

That is great if you are writing Bush's state of the union, but in reality the actions of the American military in the ME has a huge impact on the way Muslims around the world view America. The morality or justification for this miltary action is irrelevent. It leads to some of them taking up fundmentalist and terrorist view. THat isn't to say they aren't all to take full responsibility for their actions. But, as I have said, this isn't about blame. Blaming them does nothing. This is about cause and effect.

The effect could be seen in Isreal every day. A bomber blows up a bus in an Israeli market. In response, justifed or not, the Israeli military tears down a house in Palestine. Now even if that response was totally justifed and moral, it doesn't stop that fact that the next day you had 10 Palestinians from the local area who had never been involved in the conflict before, lining up to kill Jewish people, Palestinitans who if teh bulldozers had never come into their village, might (or might not) have ever had anything to do with the terrorist, and certainly would not have had anything to do with them the next day.

Sand wrote:

Isolationism, a winning strategy if ever there was one. The last time that was tried it only cost 60 million lives or so.

ah yes, the old "What would you have done with Hitler!" line .. very Fox News of you

Sand wrote:

Oh, Im sure another world is possible, but dont pretend it will be painless

I never did.

In fact I know the "war" on terrorism can never be won, and the more terrorist actions are inevitiable. That is just a fact of life.

You seem to be under the delusion that if the US military just kills enough people it will some how all stop one day and we can all live in peace and harmony.

Sand wrote:

Actually, the primary means to reducing terrorism is to reinforce that it is immoral and wrong and never acceptable.

"Enforce" how? By war?

Sand wrote:

The people who attempt to blur the lines between terrorists and freedom fighters with that stupid phrase sustain terrorism far more than anyone who thinks terrorism is immoral.

And these "people" would be who exactly? The last person I remember using the term "Freedom Fighter" was Regan, and he was talking about the Muslim fundementalists in Afganastan.

Sand wrote:

As you said before, no one randomly wakes up and joins AQ. Theyre gradually convinced that terrorism is moral and correct.

They are, and they justify this to themselves by saying the America is killing Muslims, their religious brothers, in the holy land. It kinda doesn't help the situation when American actually is killing Muslims in the holy lands and they see it ever day day in day out on the evening news.

Sand wrote:

Early Irish governments destroyed the IRA fanatics in the Free State through civil war and brutal repression including internment without trial and tit for tat executions of prisoners in response to IRA attacks.

I am sure that made the British feel a lot better ....

Sand

And an agressive war in Afganistan or Iraq changes that how? The bombers in London walked onto the London underground. How did they do that? Because they were British. The only think that possibly could have stopped them was if the Iraq war didn't incite them to violence.

And yet the non-existence of an Iraq war didnt stop previous terrorists. If anything, the disruption of the training camps in Afghanistan and the effect it had was revealed in the botched follow up tube bombing which failed utterly. If those lads had the opportunity to travel to be trained firsthand secretly, in all probability there would have been no mistakes. Intelligence and turtle strategies would not (and didnt) provide any defence whatsoever. Military action contributed to stopping the second.

Define "effective" ... from where I am sitting it hasn't been effective at anything, quite the opposite Al Queda terrorism has gone up significantly.

No, only the public perception of terrorism has risen dramatically. Radical islamic terrorism has been around for decades, and ignored or even allied with, and now the situation exists where it cannot be ignored any longer.

They are now, and there is very little that can be done about that. Instead public foreign policy by the west should focus on stopping more people from wanting to join

Radical islams war is two pronged. It holds the west in contempt and views them as infidels that must either convert or be killed. Theyre are hated more for the influence they have on the Islamic world, cultural as well as political. Thats why America is denounced as the "Great Satan", tempting righteous Muslims from the Good Life with ideas like female emancipation and secularism. They view the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere as Pharoh, rulers who have placed themselves above God and who again must be destroyed. Theres two consequences of this.

Firstly, radical islam is not the Arab self defence league. It does not recruit Muslims who line up to deliberately murder horrifically and without remorse other Muslims on the basis of "What have the Americans ever done for us?!?!?". Radical Islam is a reaction to modernity, western cultural challenges to the established order and the desire to return to a golden age when Islam was the height of civillisation, back around the 12th century. This is where they get their recruits from. Their enemy is not *only* the West, but any non radical Islamic regime or group in the Islamic world. There are plenty of Arab nationalist movements, Al Queda is overtly religious with a religious viewpoint, and religious goal. Its strenth comes from the fact that mosques are the counter-establishment institution even the so called "hardmen" have to be wary off.

Secondly, for as long as the West exists and offers alternatives to Muslims, champions human rights and corrupts Muslims with its way of life, which is anthema to radical Islam, then it will always be the enemy. The existence of a Muslim population in Europe offers the possibility that radicals may see French style secularism as a threat to their religous brothers for example, viva la resistance. Hence a isolationist US or Western policy (unrealistic as that is) to the Middle East wont appease them, nor will it hurt their recruiting.

You think that if the American government isn't to blame it shouldn't have to do anything.

Oh, I think the US and the West in general should undermine and depose dictatorships where ever possible. Bolloxed up as the post-war administration of Iraq as been, it was wholly right to remove Saddam, end the UN embargos and work towards building a representitive government there. Of course, theres been problems, but Kosovo is a mess as well if not in the grips of an insurgency. But it was right, right from the point of view of defending human rights, and right from the point of view of removing one of the "Pharohs" who generate recruits for Bin Laden. Afterall, there is understandable bitterness in the Islamic world that the West champions human rights, but deals with the likes of Saddam.

the actions of the American military in the ME has a huge impact on the way Muslims around the world view America.

Hardly, the view of America has always been largely negative - I recall the horror in the British media when a survey of British Muslims found a significant proportion of them (40% or so IIRC) supported the 9/11 attacks - long before Afghanistan or Iraq.

ah yes, the old "What would you have done with Hitler!" line .. very Fox News of you

Sorry, youve been extremely evasive and vague on alternatives so I can only guess youre arguing for isolationism in the face of repellant idealogies. Its not a strategy with a great track record.

Again you are saying it is one or the other. I don't accept that, as I have told you.

I never did.

Youre not claiming its painless, but you feel that if the US retreats from the ME it wont have any effect on its access to oil supplies? That is pretending the alternative is painless.

And these "people" would be who exactly? The last person I remember using the term "Freedom Fighter" was Regan, and he was talking about the Muslim fundementalists in Afganastan.

Every time terrorism comes up someone rushes in with the profound wisdom "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" as if that means anything, and I die a little more inside.

The same can be said of any violence.

Except that would be wrong. There are plenty of times when violence is an acceptable response. Modern Europe is built on the back of vast violence of almost a biblical scale.

Zombrex

ok, think it is only you and me having this discussion and we probably said everything we are going to say, we are just repeating ourself ... we shall agree to disagree .. and if you don't accept that I will set my passive hippy free love arse kicking mojo on you ... so be warned ...:D

Hydrosylator

Yeah right. Show me one example of where a terrorist organisation has claimed "to spread Islam" as a cause. That's what Jihad means.

There is no Jihad. There are people whjo can declare Jihad, less than ten of them. None of them has done so. And I've yet to hear anyone call themselves a jihadist either. Why are you wasting time with this drivel?

Zombrex

Hydrosylator wrote:

Yeah right. Show me one example of where a terrorist organisation has claimed "to spread Islam" as a cause. That's what Jihad means.

Actually "Jihad" means struggle. There are a large number of different meanings in different contexts, from defending Muslims against outside invasion to an internal stuggle to be a good Muslim.

The interpreation in the west that Jihad means "holy war" is just one interpretation of the term, and even that has a wide range of meanings depending on the context.

It is kinda like in Ireland us calling the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland the "Troubles" ... it doesn't mean the word "Trouble" means terrorist campaign based on religion, politics, and land.

meditraitor

Wicknight wrote:

Actually "Jihad" means struggle. There are a large number of different meanings in different contexts, from defending Muslims against outside invasion to an internal stuggle to be a good Muslim.

The interpreation in the west that Jihad means "holy war" is just one interpretation of the term, and even that has a wide range of meanings depending on the context.

It is kinda like in Ireland us calling the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland the "Troubles" ... it doesn't mean the word "Trouble" means terrorist campaign based on religion, politics, and land.

Jihad, in its truest and purest form, the form to which all Muslims aspire, is the determination to do right, to do justice even against your own interests. It is an individual struggle for personal moral behavior. Especially today, it is a struggle that exists on many levels: self-purification and awareness, public service and social justice. On a global scale, it is a struggle involving people of all ages, colors, and creeds, for control of the Big Decisions: not only who controls what piece of land, but more importantly who gets medicine, who can eat.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

It is kinda like in Ireland us calling the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland the "Troubles" ... it doesn't mean the word "Trouble" means terrorist campaign based on religion, politics, and land.

Huh? Eh, not quite. Bit of a stretch don't ya think?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad for a fuller explanation.

Hydrosylator

Wibbs wrote:

Huh? Eh, not quite. Bit of a stretch don't ya think?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad for a fuller explanation.

Hahahahahaha! Thanks for the back up horsey!

And wicknight, I know there's more than one use of the word jihad, but what kind of jihad do you think people infer when they use it in a violent context?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Huh? Eh, not quite. Bit of a stretch don't ya think?

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad for a fuller explanation.

No hes correct, actually the link you supplied appears to back him up too.

thiscityburns

Do people feel that ireland come become a target for terrorism as a result of shannon being used by the US?

If we did, do you think they would target shannon itself or something easy like the Dart or Luas?

Wibbs

Hydrosylator wrote:

And wicknight, I know there's more than one use of the word jihad, but what kind of jihad do you think people infer when they use it in a violent context?

Exactly. When one thinks of jihad, one hardly thinks of a bloke in a cave meditating on his sins. When the mad mullahs call for jihad, what do you think they mean? A lovely coffee morning perhaps or baking cakes for the poor.....

Hobbes wrote:

No hes correct,

No, it's a stretch. There is a smidgen of truth to it, but when you find the word "troubles" in any catholic doctrine, where you find it means struggle for the cause of Catholicism, when it means struggle in war against the unbelievers and idolators, when that word has the same loaded religious meaning, both inside and outside theology, only then it will be less of a stretch. That'll be when hell freezes over and satan skates to work in the morning.

actually the link you supplied appears to back him up too.

Hardly.
Actually try reading this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Historical_Muslim_views_on_Jihad
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Greater_and_lesser_jihad

While there does exist the concept of internal jihad, the external jihad is the one which historically, politically and theologically held the most sway. There are many many verses in the religious texts of Islam that make that quite clear. Lines in that wiki article such as "But going out oneself to fight in jihad is the highest form." by Ibn Baz are not in the minority.

If we did, do you think they would target shannon itself or something easy like the Dart or Luas?

If they did, it would probably be the soft target. That's the way of the terrorist of all hues and creeds. The joke is that would be against Islam. Islamic jihad in the form of war was an in your face, straightforward affair in the past. None of this cowardly skulkin around, killing civilians nonsense.

Sand

The confusion over the term Jihad arises from the different resonances it carries in the Koran - in the early part of the Koran, when Mohammed was in Mecca as the leader of a minority group struggling against a pagan majority it was meant as an internal struggle, moral struggle. In the later part when Mohammed was in Medina as the head of an army and ruler of a kingdom/empire it is many times used in an inescapably militaristic fashion.

Example would be IV,95 "Those of the believers who stay at home, other than the disabled, are not equal to those who strive in the path of God with their goods and their persons. God has placed those who struggle with their goods and their persons on a higher level than those who stay at home. God has promised to reward all who believe, but He distinguishes those who fight, above those who stay at home, with a mighty reward".

This would recognise different interpretations of jihad, but it places the militaristic interpretation as the prime one - or certainly the one most rewarded by God. Of course, all religious texts are variously filtered to support the prevailing view of any time - Christians were the original peaceniks, refusing to fight in Roman armies - then Rome became Christian and the concept of a just Christian war was "discovered". Its the same with Islam, moderates would stress the moral striving over the violent jihad, but its inescapable that for most of Islams history - especially the vast explosive military conquest of an Arab Islamic empire, that eventually sparked a Christian counteroffensive that culminated and ended in the Crusades - the violent interpretation was commonly accepted. If radical islam does not accept modern interpretations of jihad, it betrays their mindset and worldview.

There is no Jihad. There are people whjo can declare Jihad, less than ten of them. None of them has done so.

There is no Islamic pope or clergy (outside Iran anyway). Any muslim can call for jihad, from Bin Laden to a Brooklyn taxi driver. But some muslims are so respected as scholars and jurists that their calls for jihad are treated as more than crazed rants.

Wibbs

Sand wrote:

The confusion over the term Jihad arises from the different resonances it carries in the Koran - in the early part of the Koran, when Mohammed was in Mecca as the leader of a minority group struggling against a pagan majority it was meant as an internal struggle, moral struggle. In the later part when Mohammed was in Medina as the head of an army and ruler of a kingdom/empire it is many times used in an inescapably militaristic fashion.

Good point. In fact most of the peaceful passages are to be found in this early "weak" phase of the movement. Later times brought quite a different mindset.

its inescapable that for most of Islams history - especially the vast explosive military conquest of an Arab Islamic empire, that eventually sparked a Christian counteroffensive that culminated and ended in the Crusades - the violent interpretation was commonly accepted.

True. I would also say that idea of jihad continued through the Ottoman and Mogul empires too.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

When one thinks of jihad, one hardly thinks of a bloke in a cave meditating on his sins.

Well "one" probably doesn't understand the meaning or history of the word outside the context of terrorist holy war, and instead bases "ones" entire meaning of the word on ill-formed opinions based on limited and filtered knowledge of Islam. If "one" does this.

Just as if someone who doesn't speak English would probably infer "troubles" describes terrorism actions if the only exposure to the word was news reports describing terrorism in the north.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

Well "one" probably doesn't understand the meaning or history of the word outside the context of terrorist holy war

One does. Alao it's not a terrorist holy war in this context, it's an armed struggle in cause of Islam.

and instead bases "ones" entire meaning of the word on ill-formed opinions based on limited and filtered knowledge of Islam.

One would suggest that others may have an even more limited knowledge than oneself. There's a U2 song in there.....

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

The confusion over the term Jihad arises from the different resonances it carries in the Koran - in the early part of the Koran, when Mohammed was in Mecca as the leader of a minority group struggling against a pagan majority it was meant as an internal struggle, moral struggle. In the later part when Mohammed was in Medina as the head of an army and ruler of a kingdom/empire it is many times used in an inescapably militaristic fashion.

Huh. Koranic Scholar are we nowadays, hows your German coming along then ????

Mohammed meant this jihadi stuff all along because he was divine and therefore knew he had oil all those years ago and what oil was . He also knew who it was who would rather steal it than pay for it . Divine dudes are like that so they are . Therefore the plane dudes were Saudi , they were carrying out a mission from God .......just like those Americans in Uzbekistan <oops >

I blame whoever invented the gas guzzler without reading the Koran FIRST !

Orizio

Deleted User wrote:

Any of you guys read "Imperial Hubris"? Was written by a former CIA dude who headed their Bin Laden station.

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris

Not really.OBL's reason for instigating 9/11 was a futile attempt to destroy the far enemy to leave the near enemy powerless.Clearly his understanding of American foreign policy and its culture was small-he honestly seemed to believe that a few strikes like those in Tanzania or 9/11 would bring down America,just like the USSR in Afghanistan.The reasoning behind attacking America was really an attempt to unite the ummah and overthrow the near enemy.

zepp

My point about terrosism in the west is well to long to type here so here it is from my blog.

http://dossing.blogspot.com/2006/01/home-grown-islamic-extremism-in-west.html

Zombrex

Orizio wrote:

he honestly seemed to believe that a few strikes like those in Tanzania or 9/11 would bring down America,just like the USSR in Afghanistan.

Not challanging it just curious, where did you read that?

My understanding over 9/11 was that it was supposed to stir America into war, which it did.

Orizio

Wicknight wrote:

Not challanging it just curious, where did you read that?

My understanding over 9/11 was that it was supposed to stir America into war, which it did.

Fawaz Gerges The Far Enemy.

Don't get me wrong,maybe OBL did want his structure destroyed,base occupied and main operatives killed...

Jimboo_Jones

Orizio wrote:

Fawaz Gerges The Far Enemy.

Don't get me wrong,maybe OBL did want his structure destroyed,base occupied and main operatives killed...

or maybe OBL wanted to breath life into his dying organisation, recruit more people into it than it ever had, become a true world wide organisation of terror and become more famous (or should that be infamous) that nearly any other person on the earth?

or maybe he really does believe in whatever it is he thinks hes is doing, I have to say I couldn't really say with any conviction that I would know what goes through a man like OBL head.

or hell, maybe he that that it would stir America into invading Iraq and disposing sadam’s brutal, but secular government in the hope that it would be replaced by a more religious and more Iran friendly
one – now theres a stretch...

Zombrex

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

or maybe OBL wanted to breath life into his dying organisation, recruit more people into it than it ever had, become a true world wide organisation of terror and become more famous (or should that be infamous) that nearly any other person on the earth?

Yeah I would agree more with that assessment TBH. I mean the US response to 9/11 was exactly what AQ needed at the time.

The idea that OBL wanted to destroy the US in one blow, and did not expect any response, is a little far fetched in my view.

Orizio

Yeah I would agree more with that assessment TBH. I mean the US response to 9/11 was exactly what AQ needed at the time.

How?AQ was practically destroyed.

The idea that OBL wanted to destroy the US in one blow, and did not expect any response, is a little far fetched in my view.

Why?The first problem seems to be that many feel that OBL has an adept understanding of current affairs and that he activated one grand strategy with 9/11.But there's very little to suggest that.This is the man who believed the Arab Afghans had defeated and brought down the merciless USSR.The US with its morals,the US that did basically nothing when its embassies were bombed,the US that ran away from the Lebanon and Somalia must have seemed like cowards to him.

More importantly,it makes no sense to suggest that OBL wanted an invasion of Afghanistan.OBL's AQ was soundly hammered if you remember.

Orizio

or maybe OBL wanted to breath life into his dying organisation, recruit more people into it than it ever had, become a true world wide organisation of terror and become more famous (or should that be infamous) that nearly any other person on the earth?

Funny.I don't remember this happening to OBL's organisation.

or maybe he really does believe in whatever it is he thinks hes is doing, I have to say I couldn't really say with any conviction that I would know what goes through a man like OBL head.

As I said,its worth loking at Gerges' book which is based on witness accounts and does point to OBL's simplified understanding of the world and general delusion.

or hell, maybe he that that it would stir America into invading Iraq and disposing sadam’s brutal, but secular government in the hope that it would be replaced by a more religious and more Iran friendly
one – now theres a stretch...

Yes a quite incredible one.I don't have a clue how 9/11 forced America into Iraq.Are you getting your invasions mixed up here?Maybe OBL is a psychic?Why would OBL want a Islamism Shia state in Iraq?Surely thats exactly what he doesn't want?

Jimboo_Jones

Orizio wrote:

Funny.I don't remember this happening to OBL's organisation.

Well it would seem to me that AQ is bigger at the moment than it has ever been.

orizio wrote:

Yes a quite incredible one.I don't have a clue how 9/11 forced America into Iraq.Are you getting your invasions mixed up here?Maybe OBL is a psychic?Why would OBL want a Islamism Shia state in Iraq?Surely thats exactly what he doesn't want?

I think everyone suspected that Iraq would be next after Afgan. I also seem to remember surveys in America after the Iraq invasion which indicated that most American's beleive that Iraq where involved with 9/11.

OBL didn't like Iraq's secular state.

Orizio

Well it would seem to me that AQ is bigger at the moment than it has ever been.

Its a different beast,a franchise as a opposed to the centralized structure once ruled tyrannicaly by OBL.He has lost power of this new Al-Qaeda completely,and it is repeating the same mistakes that OBL and Zawahiri warned against proir to 9/11(living on the edge of society,too much blood letting,too much concentration on muslim regimes over the US).

I think everyone suspected that Iraq would be next after Afgan.

:rolleyes: If you think so.But that's irrelevent because there is no reason for us to believe that OBL would have thought that 9/11 would lead to an Iraqi invasion.

I also seem to remember surveys in America after the Iraq invasion which indicated that most American's beleive that Iraq where involved with 9/11.

A belief that was squashed by Bush.The official reason was WMD's,not Al-Qaeda.

OBL didn't like Iraq's secular state.

Yes.But then what state does he like?And he would rather a Shia Islamist state?