As well as for other atrocities he has cited, such as liberating East Timor, the Crusades and allowing Spain to remain non-Muslim. I think I’d be very careful about taking anything ObL says at face value, especially in the last couple of years.
Or that guy who suggested that we should deport anyone related to someone who commits a terrorist act, regardless of wether they were involved in or knew about their relatives plans. Or that guy who suggested that we nuke one of the largest cities in the mid East if so much as one lone Muslim manages to plant a bomb somewhere in the world and detonate it. Or that guy who compared the rape and murder of unconvicted civilians by US troops to a “frat party.” There are a lot of stupid people out there saying and doing stupid things. Decent, moral folks don’t condemn everyone remotely connected to them for their transgressions. That includes not judging Democrats on the example of Michael Moore, Republicans on the example of Judge Roy Moore, or Muslims on the example of Osama bin Laden.
I feel that “any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked” - which, after all, is a direct rebuttal to some of Bush’s comments - is in a different tone from “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies–civilians and military–is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” “Allies” is a lot broader than ‘any nation that attacks us.’
I do want to stress that we’re not in any kind of major disagreement here. I think if we discussed why Al Qaeda has hit particular places or countries, we’d agree. But I do think Al Qaeda has called for this kind of thing in the past.
When did Egypt attack Al Qaeda? For that matter, civilians from nations that did not attack Al Qaeda have been killed when they target tourist destinations. At least one French person died in the Egypt bombing.
Your larger point is an excellent one. But I think there’s a big difference between my examples and yours. Mine were all intended for public consumption: they were seen by millions and judged by: 1) the acts themselves and 2) the degree of condemnation the acts received from the right, and more importanly, didn’t receive from the left. (Because the acts were further to the left than the right.) Similarly, I think that abortion clinic bombers should be condemned by those on the right, so they are not allowed to define republicans as supporting murder. I think discussions on a message board are different. It’s a discussion. Now if I turned something in to a sign and started marching around, or started a website over one of the issues, I think you would be correct. True, Judge Moore does fall inot the “public” category, and the left is free to judge the right both on his actions and on the republics acceptance or condemnation of those actions.
What?
France did attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
I don’t think that “us” refers to Al Qaeda in the statement, but rather to muslim countries in general. And also to muslim activists. And Egypt is very proactive when it comes to keep fundamentalists at bay.
Besides, I don’t believe that the groups that commit terrorist attacks take their orders from Bin Laden or from some very structured organization. They’re most likely in this case local extremists who are pissed off by having a government opposed to their views, and strikes a target most likely to attract attention (due to the presence of foreigners), hit Egypt in the wallet, and symbolize the western influence in Egypt.
My comment was only about the consistency of these two particular statements from BL. I don’t know whether Bin Laden contradicted himself in other instances, and in any case, I don’t think we can expect a consistency between BL statements and the actions of various muslim extremist groups all over the world.
They might claim they’re “Al Qaeda” but what link do they actually have with this organization? Is there even an “organization”? What is “Al Qaeda”, exactly?
Google Egypt + Zawahiri
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=egypt+zawahiri&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=egypt+Zawahri&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=egypt+Zawihiri&btnG=Google+Search
They have a history from before there was an al Qaeda.
And, I’m sure there’re some more recent grievances.
What was France’s involvement? I know NATO invoked Article 5, but I thought bombing was carried out by the US and UK.
I know where Zawahiri is from. His time in jail does not, by my figuring, qualify as an attack on Al Qaeda or make Egypt an ally of the US.
Perhaps they have another reason to attack Egypt besides those two possibilities.
However, Egypt does get a chunk of change from he US. Some might have a different take on the status of the relationship between the Egyptian govt and the US.
Israel, or Egypt’s secular-ness, I expect. Or else they’re saying ‘Egypt has cracked down on Islamic militants before, so they’re an ally of the infidel US.’
I offered this suggestion myself and that may be their thinking. If so, it’s deeply tortured logic.
That sounds about right. Deeply tortured logic from deeply twisted individuals. I mean I’m sure that they have what call “very good reasons” fro doing what they do; but if those means seem acceptable to you, you are ipso facto warped.
hat sounds about right. Deeply tortured logic from deeply twisted individuals. I mean, I’m sure that they have what I like to call “very good reasons” for doing what they do; but, if those means seem acceptable to them, they are ipso facto warped.
No argument that their reasoning isn’t tortured. Still, I’m not convinced that they’re attacking Egypt because it’s attacked them. Egypt was not part of the coalition in Iraq, and I didn’t find a source saying they were part of the coalition in Afghanistan. The US military lists their contribution to the fight against terrorism as follows:
The overflight permission has not been used as far as I know, and if you were looking to break up the coalition - which, like I said, is AQ’s immediate goal in my opinion - you wouldn’t think “Spain, Britain, Egypt.”
At the beginning of the war, french troops were mostly sent to protect and repair stuff like airfields, or strategic places captured by the northern alliance. The french airforce was directly involved in the fights, though, by conducting airstrikes on Taliban’s positions. I believe french ground troops were involved in only one large-scale operation I can’t remember the name of, if I understood correctly because the US lacked mountain troops a this moment. Special forces has been involved too, in a more or less permanent basis.
Since the end of the main fights, the french troops remaining there have been training the Afghan army, for the most part. I believe here are currently around 1 000 french troops in Afghanistan, mostly on protection/training duties, but including also around 200 special forces.
The frenh involvment in Afghanistan has probably been significantly downplayed in the US in part because it didn’t fit well with the anti-french rhetoric used by the US government after the beginning of the Irak issue. But probably also, I suspect simply because the Us medias weren’t very interested (since it mostly happened at the beginning of the war, hence before the Irak issue) . Several other countries also sent troops to Afghanistan, actualy. I believe that in the mountain operation I was refering to above, Norwegian troops were also involved, for instance. And of course, you probably know that there were Canadian troops, since some of them were killed in a largely publicized friendly-fire incident.
Egypt get important subsidies from the USA, and is generally considered as an US ally, currently. She also adopted a soft stance regarding Israel. And the Egyptian government isn’t kind with muslim fundamentalists.
Oh! And Egypt fought in the first Gulf War.
Thanks for the info about France, clairobscur. I shouldn’t have mentioned it in the first place, since between its history, international prominence and headscarf laws it’s a target anyway.
So Bin Laden’s warning that “any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked” was retroactive to thirteen years earlier?
given the frequent crusade references, I think it’s more like one thousland thirteet…
But surely he would not so grieveously shoot his own foot as to actually countenance an operation against a repentant-no-longer-willing-to-coalitionize population.
I CAN imagine, tho, an “agency” whowould find it deliciously ironic to blow up El Escurial and post a claim for credit naming a new branch, Al Q in Andaluz, The Scourge of the Cid.
Because I have had some tense moments, claritywise, what I mean is this:
If a country explicitely pulls out of the coalition, and their head of state goes on tv saying he wants to send a message of conciliation to 'sama
(just like 'sama does when he wants to tell us the errors of our ways–(man he should only SEE the skirts they are wearing with no panties these days—)
and subsequently despite the olive branch a terrorisgt incident occurs, it will not be true Al Q, but a black flag op. It would undercut his entire strategy of isolating the US bit by bit and would destroy his credibility.
That’s why mossad will grit its teeth and build the bombs.
Yeah, terrific, except which country are you talking about? Spain hadn’t pulled out of coalition at the time of the Madrid bombing.