# What Al Qaeda Wants **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2005, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145 "2005-09-11T21:30:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2005, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/21 "2005-09-12T23:56:37Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > Yes. It’s not about making the world a big fundamentalist Muslim paradise. You can tell it is anger against dictatorial regimes propped up by the West based on the open, liberal, and democratic society created by Al Qaeda’s influence in Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. From that, it’s clear they are not about repression and strict religious protocols, but all about avoiding political repression. Oh, if only the U.S. hadn’t been so involved in Afghanistan before 9/11, the Taliban and Al Qaeda could have really made it into the free and open secular society they’ve always wanted. Sigh. I never said that Islamic fundamentalists aren’t repressive. Look at what happened in Iran in the late 1970’s. A repressive secular dictator was replaced with a repressive theocracy. This tendency to define everything in good guy/bad guy terms is part of the problem. The fact that Al Qaeda is the enemy of a particular repressive government does not turn either side into “good guys”. Hell, Saddam Hussein was a “good guy” all through the 80’s when we saw him as a valuable counterweight to Iran. The point is that Islamic terrorism is NOT the product of a clash of ideologies between Islam and the West. (“They hate our freedoms.”) Instead it’s an outgrowth of a broken political culture in the Middle East where rage against the status quo can only find outlet in terrorism and religous extremism. It spills over into rage against the West because of our support for the repressive regimes. Now the solution isn’t to let the terrorists win. As we’ve seen in Iran, and are beginning to see in Iraq, when Islamic fundamentalists replace secular dictators the results are just as bad. But in refusing to squarely face the political and economic causes at the root of Islamic terrorism and instead focusing on its ideological and religious ornamentation we’re dangerously deluding ourselves as to the real nature of our enemy. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/22 "2005-09-13T00:19:32Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Yes, actually it’s a fine idea. I almost gave props in my last post to the Bush administration for at least being right about what our goal should be. It’s a step up from “we don’t care what the Saudis do as long as the oil keeps flowing.” > > Unfortunately the Iraq invasion isn’t spreading democracy. It’s destabilizing the region and paving the way for civil war, more terrorism, and chaos. The chief beneficiaries of our Iraq adventure will probably wind up being the mullahs of Iran … surely not what Bush intended. Good intentions are nice, but ultimately irrelevant if the overall plan is garbage. Well, that has to do with the _means_ of accomplishing said strategic goal, and I’m not going to defend that here. For now, it’s enough merely to point out that there are many who are _not_ on board with the idea that that should be the goal. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/23 "2005-09-13T00:26:22Z")
They really really really wanna zigazig ha. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/24 "2005-09-13T00:37:15Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Well, that has to do with the _means_ of accomplishing said strategic goal, and I’m not going to defend that here. > > For now, it’s enough merely to point out that there are many who are _not_ on board with the idea that that should be the goal. I believe we should only set goals for ourselves that are achievable. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves. In the long term the problem of Islamic terrorism won’t be solved until the political problems of the middle east are solved. But speaking practically I don’t think that the United States has the military tools to forge that solution right now. I think the best we can do for the foreseeable future is containment. You and I could have had this same discussion in 1947. We might both have agreed that in the long term the goal should be the death of communism in the Soviet Union. But bringing about that end by invading Russia was beyond the military capabilities of the United States (although some, like Patton, argued in favor of it.) Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and forty years later the United States won the Cold War. Sometimes holding the line and letting the fire burn itself out is the only successful strategy. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/25 "2005-09-13T00:45:08Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > Sigh. I was a bit harsh on you. I just thought that what you said didn’t make much sense, and I thought you were playing the, “They’re good guys, what they really want is liberty and freedom,” card. I see from your post below that you are more reasoned, even if I still disagree with you. > [@Pochacco](#): > > The point is that Islamic terrorism is NOT the product of a clash of ideologies between Islam and the West. (“They hate our freedoms.”) Instead it’s an outgrowth of a broken political culture in the Middle East where rage against the status quo can only find outlet in terrorism and religous extremism. It spills over into rage against the West because of our support for the repressive regimes. See, here is where we disagree. I believe it is a clash of ideologies between Islam and the West. You do a disservice by presuming that such a clash can only be, “They hate our freedoms,” in the standard secular sense. I believe they hate our freedom with respect to religion, and not living life in accordance with the religious dictates of fundamentalist Islam. Put another way, our drinking, whoring, and immodesty disgust them. Our very culture is revolting to them, and they want to destroy it. At the very least, in the Middle East; preferably everywhere. That is a battle of ideologies, and in an odd way, it is a battle of freedoms. But not of the idiotic and simplistic, “Uh, democracy or oppression,” kind, but of cultural freedoms and norms. I will give you credit and say that our support for certain Middle Eastern regimes does not help matters, but it is a far less important issue than that of Al Qaeda’s “model society and culture” versus ours. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/26 "2005-09-13T03:20:05Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > “Throw[ing] him out” and “establishing bases in Saudi Arabia” are two entirely separate things. Well, you need to establish a base or bases from which to throw him out. And the post war strategy of containment and no-fly zones also required bases from which to operate. And I have a hard time believing that the Saudis wouldn’t have been nervous without a U.S. con-job, even if we could have pulled it off. (The Saudi’s have their own intelligence service.) In any event the Saudis invited us to build bases there, and allowed us to stay for more than a decade. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/27 "2005-09-13T05:19:07Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > The point is that Islamic terrorism is NOT the product of a clash of ideologies between Islam and the West. (“They hate our freedoms.”) Instead it’s an outgrowth of a broken political culture in the Middle East where rage against the status quo can only find outlet in terrorism and religous extremism. It spills over into rage against the West because of our support for the repressive regimes. I’m am not an expert on these topics, but I have been reading books and articles in an attempt to learn more about the Islamic fundamentalists position, history, etc. Based on what I have read, it seems the religious extremism is what is really going on. I have read about example after example of terrorist attacks in countries that are already muslim, but are not muslim enough (most of the ME countries), this stuff is not just happening in the west. While I don’t disagree that humans are capable of using terrorism and religious extremism as an outlet for rage against political culture, at the same time I’m not aware of any evidence or convincing arguments that show this is the case. What arguments or evidence do you have to support your position? ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/28 "2005-09-13T18:42:01Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Based on what I have read, it seems the religious extremism is what is really going on… > > While I don’t disagree that humans are capable of using terrorism and religious extremism as an outlet for rage against political culture, at the same time I’m not aware of any evidence or convincing arguments that show this is the case. > > What arguments or evidence do you have to support your position? Religious extremism doesn’t arise spontaneously. There is a complicit relationship between the politics and religion of the region - each affects the other. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/29 "2005-09-13T19:11:24Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > Religious extremism doesn’t arise spontaneously. There is a complicit relationship between the politics and religion of the region - each affects the other. I understand the claim. However, I am interested in arguments that can back up that claim, not merely stating the claim again. For example, Wahhabism goes back to the 18th century, and is influenced by writings from the 1200’s, so I am wondering in what way do politics relate to this movement? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/30 "2005-09-13T19:30:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Today’s New York Times magazine has the best explanation I’ve ever read of the motivations and objectives of Al Qaeda. We’ve all heard a lot of noise over the last four years along the lines of “the hate our freedoms”, but this article digs deep into the movement’s historical origins, what it attempts to accomplish, and why it’s using the particular tactics it does to attack us. The truth is far more complicated and far more insidious. Well, ‘they hate our freedoms’ was always an oversimplification of the sitution. Myself, I think a more accurate reading would be ‘they feel threatened by our culture, society and policitcal system’…because its radically different than their own, and because ‘Western’ ideals, political systems, culture, society, etc, tends to errode hard core fundamentalism. When I say ‘our’ I mean Western…not just American. Europe is equally threatening to the more radical elements in the ME. What does Al Qaeda want? They want to smash the current political structure throughout the ME and create a fundamentalist Islamic superstate along the same lines as the Taliban…but on a much larger scale. They want to basically wash their hands of the ‘West’ completely, all the way to cutting off contact and trade with the west…and of course cutting off the flow of ideas and different ways of looking at the world. What set Al Qaeda off with reguards to the ‘West’? Easy. ObL got a bug up his ass when he approached the Saudi government about his big plan to stop Saddam. Said plan entailed the house of Saud importing in, en masse, the mujahideen/Taliban fighters from Afghanistan, funding them, equiping them, and turning them loose on Saddam and his merry men. The Saudi prince who was describing this on one of shows I was watching on Discovery or TLC basically rolled his eyes and called the plan ‘ludicrace’ and said that it was pretty much instantly rejected. Despite what rjung thinks or says, the Saudi’s at least were convinced they were next on the hit parade, and THEY called US in to help them out of a tight squeeze. At anyrate, ObL was pretty pissed off at that point, even equating the house of Saud with the corrupt government in Afghanistan when the Soviets rolled in…in fact, at least according to that same Saudi Prince I mentioned above, he directly equated the two things (i.e. corrupt Afghan goverment bringing in the Soviets, Saudi government bringing in the Americans). Bottom line is, this is a clash of cultures and ideas (and religion of course, though religion is so all pervasive there that it encompasses everything else), a battle for what shape the ME should take in future…at least from AQ’s perspective. Obviously they want their own vision of how the ME should look and act…and their vision most definitely does not include anything ‘Western’. If the West was willing to completely pull out of the ME, to drop any and all relationships with the current powers there, to curtail all trade and exchange, then I think AQ would be satisfied and leave us be. THATS what they want…IMHO and to boil it down completely. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/31 "2005-09-13T20:24:13Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > For example, Wahhabism goes back to the 18th century, and is influenced by writings from the 1200’s, so I am wondering in what way do politics relate to this movement? The house of Saud has spent vast sums of money promoting Wahhabism by establishing madrassas to teach their interpretation of Islam. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/32 "2005-09-14T00:49:18Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > The house of Saud has spent vast sums of money promoting Wahhabism by establishing madrassas to teach their interpretation of Islam. But the point made earlier is that religious fundamentalism is really an expression of rage against “the status quo of a broken political culture.” Not that it is a state-sponsored activity. Either way, Wahhabism pre-dates Saudi Arabia, so I am still left wondering what evidence there is to support the stated position. I personally think that religious fundamentalism is just that, religious fundamentalism (whether muslim, christian or anything else). If it is really a result of the broken political culture, I am open to that idea, but I would like to see some evidence or at least some logical arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/33 "2005-09-14T01:49:40Z")
**RaftPeople** , in answer to your question re Wahhabism, it’s an inherently political theology / philosophy. Essentially, Wahhabism always held that the government of a Muslim state must be an extremely pious and god-fearing government, and apply Islamic law to its citizens. The converse of this is that if the government is not a good Islamic government, if they stray from the path of God, the people have the right to overthrow them and put in a more amenable government. This is the situation that Wahhabism was created to deal with, in fact - a large part of what is today Saudi Arabia broke away from the Ottoman Empire, saying that the Sultan and his government were not good Muslims and not governing in the way of God. This was a couple of centuries ago, but in more modern times, there has been an unholy alliance between the Saudi government and Wahhabist religious scholars. The government pays the clerics a great deal of money (not just bribes, but the building of seminaries, mosques etc) and institute a great deal of Islamic law, and the clerics provide the government with religious legitimacy. You can see the problems that might arise from this - destabilisation, if the system breaks down, or corrupt autocracy plus religious repression, which is what they have now. On preview, yes, Wahhabism predates the modern state of Saudi Arabia, but it was contemporary to the split by the Sauds and other tribes from the Ottoman empire in the 1700s, which was where this theocracy-autocracy thing really got going. ---
**Author:** ![Aagramn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Aagramn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aagramn)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/34 "2005-09-14T18:15:53Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > But the point made earlier is that religious fundamentalism is really an expression of rage against “the status quo of a broken political culture.” Not that it is a state-sponsored activity. > > Either way, Wahhabism pre-dates Saudi Arabia, so I am still left wondering what evidence there is to support the stated position. I think it’s inevitable that any repressive regime will be opposed to some degree by the population, an example would be the French resistance. For this opposition to be effective it must be organised. Islam is a powerful force in the Middle East, and provides a rallying point. I’m fairly happy with the reasoning, although I tend to distrust nice pat explanations. At best it’s a simplification. You might be interested in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Nasser’s Egypt. The brotherhood opposed Nasser’s attempts to secularise the country, first peacefully and later with violence, and were brutally suppressed. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > I personally think that religious fundamentalism is just that, religious fundamentalism (whether muslim, christian or anything else). If it is really a result of the broken political culture, I am open to that idea, but I would like to see some evidence or at least some logical arguments. For me the question is “under what conditions does fundamentalism become attractive to large numbers of people?” It is much more common in some societies than others. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/47e85d/32.png) [@Captain\_Lance\_Murdoch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Lance_Murdoch)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/35 "2005-09-14T21:02:11Z")
Side note: Today AQ declared all-out war on all Shiites everywhere. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/36 "2005-09-15T00:35:05Z")
> [@Aagramn](#): > > I think it’s inevitable that any repressive regime will be opposed to some degree by the population, an example would be the French resistance. For this opposition to be effective it must be organised. Islam is a powerful force in the Middle East, and provides a rallying point. I’m fairly happy with the reasoning, although I tend to distrust nice pat explanations. At best it’s a simplification. I agree, any repressive regime will be opposed to some degree by the population. But again, Wahhabism was established prior to Saudi Arabia, and it was not established due to a repressive regime, it was in response to a perception that society was too “un-islamic”, not a repressive regime (see post by **Atticus Finch** ). In addition, the countries being hit the hardest are those that are secular, or not Islamic enough. > [@](#): > > You might be interested in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Nasser’s Egypt. The brotherhood opposed Nasser’s attempts to secularise the country, first peacefully and later with violence, and were brutally suppressed. This is exactly what I am saying, the religious fundamentalism (as you just stated in this example) is NOT due to repressive regimes. Yes they were suppressed, but not before taking violent action themselves. Egypt is a perfect example of a country being hit by terrorists due to not being Islamic enough. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/37 "2005-09-15T02:44:13Z")
> [@Captain Lance Murdoch](#): > > Side note: Today AQ declared all-out war on all Shiites everywhere. I saw that too. My first reaction was WTF? But I shouldn’t have been surprised. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/38 "2005-09-15T05:08:14Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I saw that too. My first reaction was WTF? But I shouldn’t have been surprised. From what I have been reading, AQ considers Shiaism (that is the word, right?) to not be a form of the Islamic religion at all, and AQ is opposed to anyone that does not follow their strict interpretation of Islamic law. This is not a new conflict between these groups. For example, after the Soviets and CIA withdrew from Afghanistan, Iran stepped in to supply guns to the warlords opposed to the Taliban. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/39 "2005-09-15T15:39:02Z")
How bright is it though for them to ‘declare war’ on the Shiites and so viciously attack civilians right in their own neighborhoods? Isn’t this a strategy likely to backfire on them? They are alienating a rather large Muslim population throughout the world if they keep focusing on killing fellow Muslims…and fellow CIVILIAN Muslims at that…instead of the good press they might generate by killing Americans (which I thought would be the focus…silly me). I was reading an article talking about the casualties from just this week in Iraq and any glancing at the figures would come to the conclusion that the real war in Iraq is against the Iraqi people…and that the American dead are almost incidental. My back of the envelope estimate is something like 100 Iraqi civilians (I’m not even counting police and rescue workers killed) to 1 American soldier…killed BY the insurgents mind you, deliberately. The wounded are even worse. -XT ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145/40 "2005-09-15T18:09:42Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > How bright is it though for them to ‘declare war’ on the Shiites and so viciously attack civilians right in their own neighborhoods? Isn’t this a strategy likely to backfire on them? They are alienating a rather large Muslim population throughout the world if they keep focusing on killing fellow Muslims…and fellow CIVILIAN Muslims at that…instead of the good press they might generate by killing Americans (which I thought would be the focus…silly me). > -XT It doesn’t seem like they care too much about what people think of them, even other Muslims. I think most people would be surprised if they saw a list of all of the violence by fundamentalist Muslims against other Muslims in the last 30 years (or even hundreds of years). The reason I think they would be surprised is not because I think Muslims are more violent than anyone else in the world. It’s because I think there is an incorrect perception that the Muslims are one homogenous group, and that they are generally allied against the West due to recent (100 years) conflicts with the US and Britain. I think some of that last sentence is true, but the situation is far more complex than most realize, and w.r.t. AQ, the evidence seems to indicate their real motivation is to establish an Islamic state according to their interpretation of Islamic law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-al-qaeda-wants/321145.md?page=3)