Well, Egypt’s torturing of Zawahiri is probably a big factor in turning him from a doctor into a bloodthirsty religious zealot. But oh well, who could have predicted that torturing someone would upset him?
When shooting, torturing, and imprisoning people becomes a “passive” event, it is time to turn in the English language for an overhaul.
The Egyptian government has been actively trying to suppress al Qaida for a dozen years, or so. Al Qaida and their friends are in direct opposition to Mubarak and are responsible for many/most of the attacks on tourists in recent years that frightens the Egyptian authorities that they will lose massive infusions of tourist income.
Egypt is also reputed to be one of the favored destinations of the CIA secret rendering operations.
Musharraf’s Pakistani government is also working to eliminate al Qaida and Taliban agents from that country. “Pakistan” is not harboring al Qaida, certain regions of the country have sufficient like-minded citizens that it is difficult for the government to eliminate al Qaida without resorting to brutal repression of their own people–the sort that would catch innocents along with collaborators, encouraging more recruitment for the terrorists.
Now, in each case, there are members of the governments and military brass who are sympathetic to either al Qaida or to its broader goals who have undertaken to stymie the directives of their governments. In addition, local politics has been employed to ensure that the governments do not simply purge those officials. (I mentioned in passing the issues in Pakistan in my previous post.)
However, regardless of individual actions of military or government officials, the official policies of those governments–policies that are observed more than they are thwarted–are to oppose al Qaida.
As we saw recently, the United Kingdom has been “harboring” Muslim terrorists. I wonder if Tancredo is planning on bombing Canterbury?
Dunnow, Nemo, but I’ve had several interesting conversations with people saying “we should bomb any country that has terrorists there!” For some reason they never expect a person from “a country that has terrorists” to be in the same room and reply “what, we don’t have enough with the Good Old Boys and you want to send in the Marines?”
It’s just a WAG, but have a strong suspicion many Muslims opinions about Al-Qaida aren’t so different from mine about ETA. They aren’t all fundamentalist crazies, any more than all Christians or all Catholics are the same.
PS: in Spanish, tancredo means idiot.
This makes it sound even worse than it is.
So, if I object to a religious mutual destruction pact by my country, that is a kneejerk reaction. If the honorable Mr. Tancredo had said, 'Of course we would never do such a thing." his idiocy would have been self evident. As it stands, only his blatant jingoism is revealed, with a hint at malevolence of even more disgusting levels. We are left to merely pray that he is an idiot.
Does anyone have any cite that the Mr. Tancredo does not actually look forward with gleeful anticipation to bombing the infidels, no doubt as God intended?
I note that DrDeth himself has remained neutral with respect to actually retaliating against fanatics by bombing holy sites. He does seem to be quite comfortable with idle threats to do the same, in the name of . . . I suppose international religious relations.
Tris
It is?
Which one?
The guest influx these days isn’t as good as it once was, not by a long shot
Given his views on immigration, I’m hardly surprised.
Brilliantly quotable. However, if you read what I wrote, I said “A few, actively.” Clearly if Egypt tortures and imprisons al Qaida members (or people it suspects are members, and I’m not arguing right/wrong here bnut active/passive) it would fall under the part of my post that says “A few, actively.” The passive ones are the nameless individuals among the populations who don’t like al Qaida but haven’t spoken up.
Sailboat