Al Qaeda's True Target

I disagree, for two reasons.

One, I think they are making propaganda talk. I know I was above talking about not underestimating your enemy, but frankly, much of what they are doing is grandstanding. America does the same thing (“We will hunt down all terrorists”). Nazi Germany said that they would do the same thing, long after they knew they damn well couldn’t. The Soviets… OK, THEY really thought they could. But I don’t see colonization of the Americas on AQ’s mid-long term todo list. At the very least, they have a helluva lot of steps in between, and a helluva lot of people to kill before us. I mean, maybe they eventually would like to, but they aren’t setting out to.

Two, they wouldn’t get enough support. Most of the support they do get is recruited on the real threat that America presents to them and the above grandstanding.

If America were to make itself not as much of a threat, Al Qaeda’s power would be reduced. More or less than it would be bythe invasion of Afghanistan? I think more. Unfortuantely, we only have a window of opportunity - where they look like demons and we like angels - very very rarely (9/11 being the primary example).

But this is not true on the face of it. The recruitment does not rely on rational objectively provable harm that America has done to some group or nation. It is based on a hatred of Isreal and little else. Re read the link lambchops posted. It is filled with more “The jews control your economy” than I though it would be.

Well, I would argue that the civilians killed in Iraq by the insurgents are not endearing them to some of the locals. The broadcasting of the brutal beheading of civilians does not endear them to reasonable people.

But most of all, remember, that for us to remove ourselves from the middle east entirely would not reduce ourselves as a threat to their* way of life.

I agree entirely with your first point. Most of their rhetoric is propaganda. But it is propaganda with the purpose of aquiring power. Just as ours is propaganda with the purpose of aquiring support for our actions. But in this, I think they are more of a danger not less. The propaganda they use is designed to apeal to a certian demographic. They take such propaganda to its farthest result, that is they demonstrate more faith to it, when they attack American interests. They would have to have been clinically insane to think that crashing passenger planes into the world trade center would have damged the American economy to the point that we could not attack them, or to the point that we would have reduced our presence in the middle east. They did, however, have a big example of how they (AQ) were able to hurt the great Satan. That is, the act was far more for local consumption than for any military or political purpose.

Remember, they feel that the Saudi restrictions on their own actions constitute an American attack on them. If we were to no longer trade or have anything whatsoever to do with Saudi Arabia, they would still feel this way. Their interpretation of who is attacking them is not limited by reality.

I’m not sure I have much to add to this, but I did want to make the point that “they hate our freedom” is a massive simplification of a grain of truth. AQ and the fundamentalist Muslim groups resent the Western world for being both morally corrupt and successful. If it was one or the other it wouldn’t be as bad, but the fact that we all live decandant lifestyles from their point of view and yet at the same time control so much of the world’s wealth and power makes us a target for resentment and rage. The perception that the US interfers in the ME only aggrevates the situation.

Having said all that, I’m still sick to death of people parroting that line.

If there is one thing the Bush Admin (AKA, Karl Rove) is good at, it is promoting those mindless one-liners.

(I agree with you pretty much, pervert.

I don’t think so. I think they wouldn’t mind too much if America was, in their minds, some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah-type place on the other side of the world. What they do mind is having Western ‘immorality’ thrust upon them.

Therefore, the references to moral degeneracy you just posted are classic scare tactics, designed to get people on their side, and are subsidiary to their main argument.

These particular scare tactics might have a greater effect amongst their target audience than we realise. Someone a lot smarter than me once pointed out the significance of references to America as ash-shaytan al-akbar, the Great Satan. In Islamic theology, Satan is nowhere near as powerful as God. His power lies in his ability to tempt people, to offer them temporal profit in place of eternal holiness. So MTV and Coca Cola are easily juxtaposed with the works of Satan the tempter.

I think we should leave aside questions of who is sane and insane. If striving for near-impossible goals is insane, then every revolutionary in history was insane. If believing that killing the enemy, even if it includes your own ‘martyrdom’, can be a good thing is insane, then a whole lot of our myths, even Hollywood movies, betray our insanity. The scary thing is that this appears to be all too human.

This theory would help explain why terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia have only recently grown.

Still I am not sure how much AQ really have big plans about replacing those in power in Saudi Arabia… toppling a regime is much easier than being in place to take over.

Still the hate for the current SA elite was always clear... but attacks only started recently.

Cite?

oh yeah.
never mind

Iraq ?

Right, which is why the theory I am putting forward is not that they simply topple the Saudi family - it is that they topple the current monarch and replace him with a Saud family member. The government stays, but they take control via a puppet.

They aren’t doing a governmental rebellion like bringing socialism. Frankly, a monarchy suits them best, so they would do well to leave it in place. All they need is a Saud family member sympathetic (and who wouldn’t want to rule Saudi Arabia and maybe the ME, eh?)

They’re initiating one hell of a governmental rebellion. You need to replace all secular law with God’s law. The courts would have to change. Many rights which are (nominally) held by citizens would have to be revoked. The banking system would be destroyed, so would the stock market. Oil trading with Western regimes would be curtailed, so there goes the economy. The armed forces and security forces would have to be purged to remove potential secular strongmen. Foreign relations would be drastically changed. The educational system would have to be stripped of secular rubbish (such as exists in Saudi Arabia at the moment) and converted into religious ed, as offered in other hellholes like a Deobandi madrassa in Afghanistan, an Indonesian pesantren, or Bob Jones University.

Not saying it’s not possible, just that it isn’t quite as easy as you think.

Quite so. And this is true whether or not America actually interferes in Middle Eastern politics.

Well, I was trying to thread a tricky needle. I agree that needlessly demonizing an enemy can lead to underestimating him. However, refusing to use disparaging words can also lead to over estimating him. It was the demonization of Nazi Germany (partly at least) that lead to underestimations of his forces on D-Day. However, it was also the refusal to demonize Hitler that lead Chamberlain to conclude that he could trust Hitler’s agreements.

Calling some people, thier goals or tactics “evil” can lead to oversimplifications. It can, however, also lead a people to the acceptance of the fact that some threats must be fought. It can help them to accept the costs of such fights.

Well, the abuses against them by the various ME governments is something they have often railed against. It is possible that they consider the Saudi government to be a puppet of the Americans.

But MOHO is that the recent attacks on Saudi soil are more due to the reduction in the build up mentality within AQ. I think they spent many years building up the capability to wage war against various governments. The more radical elements within their movement were kept in check (so to speak) by the central authority (such as it was). I think the war in Afghanistan provoked much of the recent violence more by reducing the international control that used to exist over the various AQ cells. Left on their own, they are lashing out against the targets at hand. Of course, they are lashing out at targets in keeping with the central philosophies of their group.

I’m not saying this is the only reason, just one of them.

Could be “loss of central control”… but that would have been soon after Afghanistan was invaded… not 2004 no ?

Has the why AQ is only becoming active in Saudi Arabia been discussed in the Straight Dope ?

Umm…in the exact same thread you’re posting in?

It’s not only now becoming active in SA. There was a car bombing in 1995, and the Khobar Towers attack in 1996.

No, not necessarily. It would take some time for local leaders to assert control over their cells. There would have been a wait and see period during which they waited for the central control* to be re asserted. Also, the attacks in Saudi Arabia proper could have simply been in response to some actions taken by the Saudi government. Not necessarily new actions, but recent actions which these local cells disliked, and to which they reacted because no one told them not to.

I don’t know.
*NOTE: I am not saying that AQ had a strong central control aperatus. I know it was more amorphous than that. But the central authority within AQ did exert influence on the actions of local cells. With this influence gone, changes in the behavior of those local cells was bound to happen.

Perhaps instead of “they hate our freedoms”, we should say, “They hate our values/morals.” They think we are perverts and infidels.

That sounds better than simply saying, “They hate our freedom.” They don’t think of it as freedom, they think of it as loose morals.

Knowing the religious fundie line, they probably believe that they are more free than us, as we are slaves to our vices and soforth.

But what Mr. Bush says isn’t “our freedoms” - he rather specifically says “freedeom.” As in, all freedom. Perhaps he’s right, Al Qaeda’s ideal state probably wouldn’t be so much of the “freedom” line of thinking… but his using it as their reason to attack us is stupid.

Well, when speakers are talking to an audience which agrees with this basic idea, I think they do put it that way. If you were to tell an American audience that AQ hates our perversions, I think they would get the wrong idea. Most of us agree that there are problems with our society. But the freedom to listen to music is not something we usually think as one of them.

Can you guys explain to me why this is? I understand that the line is a soundbite and rhetoric. As such it is certainly not sophisticated or deep. However, it does have enough truth in it to encompass the situation Bush talks about whenever he uses it.

A “Perception Modification” for a Stagnating "National Policy”?

**The greatest danger ** for Americans confronting the Fundamentalist Islamic threat is to believe—at the urging of U.S. leaders—that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. Blustering political rhetoric “informs” the public that the Islamic Public is offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties, inter-mingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamic leader has fomented jihad to destroy participatory democracy. It is also a basic & important perception that many Americans need to grasp an understanding of, that Middle Eastern “Terrorists” for the most part, utilize “Fundamentalist Muslim” furor and belief principals to recruit & provide motivation to those that are THEN used as the proverbial “Tools” of terrorist action. The religion of Islam is NOT fundamentally and formally aligned or allied with the numerous extremist &/or terrorist based leadership.

The “Factual Terrorists” are not in most cases the persons that transport, deliver, & detonate the suicide bomb, but rather the person that functions as the planner, recruiter, supporter and motivator BEHIND the action. The “Terrorist” is almost NEVER going to allow themselves to be the “Martyr” for the cause that he claims to support. The terrorist on the other hand, ALWAYS has an escape plan. The “Leadership” must continue and survive, in order to “Continue” the fight (…and “Receive” the notoriety, benefits, and power that is sought from the “Victory” of terrorism). They (The organizational leadership) must survive in order to “Lead” that perfect “Islamic Theocracy” that they are claiming to be fighting for. These individuals KNOW that they can not institute their bids for power and leadership under the philosophy of peaceful democratic change or threw a popular voting selection WITHOUT orchestrating that desired change threw the use of intimidation & threat. In effect, there is little that would actually differentiate the underlying goals of most terrorist organizational leaders, from the home grown “Jim Jones” or the “David Koresh” of our own recent national memory. BOTH operate(d) on the premise of utilizing the strong religious convictions of others as a tool to ascend to a form of absolute power & authority over the masses.

Knowing Thy Enemy: A growing segment of the Islamic world strenuously disapproves of specific U.S. policies and their attendant military, political, and economic implications. Capitalizing on growing anti-U.S. animosity, Osama bin Laden’s anti-western methodologies and agendas lie not simply in calling for jihad, but in articulating a consistent and convincing case that Islam is under attack by America. Al Qaeda’s public statements condemn America’s protection of what the fundamentalists feel to be corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances and in fact, recent abuses of power against helpless prisoners. Bin Laden’s supporters thus identify their problem and believe their solution lies in war. They will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities, and their religion. Unless U.S. leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will be tempted to join the bin Laden camp. We as “Westerners” are LOOSING the war of “Middle Eastern Public Relation” & will thereby continue to loose ground in the so-called “War Against Terrorism”. It will not be until United States International Foreign Policy undergoes a series of fundamental philosophical changes, that we will begin to prevail against Middle Eastern based terrorist agendas.

UNTIL “US Policy” & “Western” or “National Perceptions” CHANGE, we will be it for the “Long-Haul”. Our leaders must start actually by UNDERSTANDING our enemies for THAT is the only road to UNDER-MINDING the success of their message of fear & their efforts to endanger INNOCENT civilians. IF we are in fact going to PROCLAIM an active “War-Against-Terrorism” as a nation, we must focus on the DEFEAT of the “Terrorist Threat” and the elimination (Neutralization) of those individuals, organizations and nations that utilize terrorist actions as a physiological, theological, &/or political weapon.

**There is currently a extremely dangerous and blatantly misguided but popular national trend ** of belief that wants to confuse the issues of what terrorism actually is, with the view that “All movements and persons that are combatant against western based interests are Terrorists”. Although this provides the American Public with an easy and palatable explanation for our current military activities in Iraq, it is singularly an inaccurate & politically perpetrated deception (AKA: What a growing number of “Thinking Americans” are finding to be a “Half-Truth” or “Truth of the moment”). It would seem that we might have returned in many ways to what was known in the ‘60’s within the CIA as the “Banana Republic” solution (Attempting to replace one evil dictatorship with a new hand-selected & American friendly government). Much more recently, this was dusted off and renamed as the “Regime Replacement” equation by our leadership in the oval office. One important historical fact that they would have seemed to have forgotten is that although it may have seemed to work for a short while, even then the policy didn’t work out over the long term. In this Author’s opinion, Iraq situation will eventually deteriorate into another “Iranian Style Theocracy” unless there would occur some highly significant and currently unforeseeable pro-western events. To declare and support a “War-Against-Terrorism" is not the same thing as backing the philosophy of a “War-Against-Anti-American-Totalitarianism”.

**Change & thereby victory ** will NOT be accomplished by focusing on our current “Action Plans” (…of which are in MANY ways, not that much different from “Our genitalia are longer & larger then THEIRS is.”)… The only way to DEFEAT such a foe is to DESTROY the organization’s CREDIBILITY and ABILITY to solicit sympathy and localized support &/or recruitment FROM WITHIN the organizations themselves. WE are currently doing the EXACT OPPOSITE… and THAT’S why we are LOOSING valuable credibility in the Middle East, and WILL continue to loose ground in the war-against-terrorism.