If Al Queida is so into protecting the Moslems from Western ‘aggression’, why are they planting bombs in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Morocco etc. ? Along with killing a few Westerners, they are killing many more Moslems as well. These countries are often considered as ‘moderate’ muslim countries, with divided sympathies between the Arab world and the West. By trying to ‘punish’ these countries for tilting toward the West, don’t they know the effect of these bombings may very well be to turn them off toward more radical elements of Islam and more toward the West?
My opinion: Al Queida is composed of very backward and narrow thinking individuals who have no global concept of the World. They see everything literaly as ‘Us against the World’. While they have proven they are proficient at killing unarmed civilians, they are not good at much else. Their crude tactics will be ultimately harmful to themselves by turning Moslems off to extremism and by convincing more Moslem countries to join the US in the war against terrorism.
What other supporting or contradicting opinions do you have?
They may be Muslim, but to Al Qaeda, they’re not “really” Muslims. Al Qaeda’s theology says that Muslims who differ from them on certain matters of belief are more enemies to Islam than non-Muslims are.
There primary objectives are to get the West out of the Muslim world and to change the Muslim world into their vision of what it should be, mainly a return to the Golden Age when Islam was the most powerful force on Earth. Killing Muslims that are deemed unfaithful is part of that strategy.
So they do have a strategy. Doesn’t make them any less twisted or psychotic.
Wow, way to find a way to condemn the President instead of Al Qaeda. That’s some neat acrobatics.
It’s also a very lame attempt to make moral equivalence.
Al Qaeda’s “With us or against us” is religion, something that reasonable people should be able to disagree on. Such a belief is enshrined in our 1st amendment.
Bush’s “With us or against us” is terrorism, something that reasonable people do not disagree on. ONly psychotics believe terrorism is OK.
On terrorism? I don’t know. Terrorism is considered wrong by everyone. It just happens that those who don’t think so are already against us. Bush was merely stating a truism, not making a threat.
Have to disagree with you here Adaher , when Bush came out with “Your either with us or against us” was the moment I lost all respect for the US administration and was the start of his pissing away much of the sympathy engendered rightly by 9/11.
It is not a truism, I would prefer to be against both but if Bush insists on my picking sides so crudely I personally have to be against him. This is based on my view that Bush’s policy actions (as opposed to the idea of being against something in principle) will only make things worse and make the ultimate victory of the terrorists more likely.
And of course one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and so the definition of terrorism is always going to be a point. You will recall on other threads that we have contributed to what the US government and FBI definitions of terrorism are and how they apply to a wide swathe of US and UK government actions since WWII…
**And of course one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter and so the definition of terrorism is always going to be a point. You will recall on other threads that we have contributed to what the US government and FBI definitions of terrorism are and how they apply to a wide swathe of US and UK government actions since WWII…
**
I will concede that the US and Britain have done what many would call terrorism. However, I object to the worn out cliche that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. This is only accurate if the terrorist is fighting for freedom. Al Qaeda is not fighting for freedom, only the right to rule. Freedom is not part of their goals.
It is one of ours in this war. So perhaps you could say we are terrorists and freedom fighters, while Al Qaeda are only terrorists?
I disagree. I think “terrorist” and “Freedom Fighter” are not mutually exlusive. I think “freedom fighters” ofen use terrorist methods. I think that these cases are to be condemned even if one agrees with the goals (i.e., agrees that they are “freedom fighters” in a specific cause)
I don’t see the two goals as exclusive. My feeling is that Al Qaeda thinks it is part of a war between the Islamic world and the forces of evil. Thus, it is both polarizing people and using religion.
adaher, what notquitekarpov says applies to many other countries as well. Were Israeli guerrillas 50 years ago terrorists or freedom fighters? Both might be applicable.
That’s actually the first good objection I’ve seen to that comment. However, freedom vs. right to rule isn’t so clear-cut either. Al Qaeda terrorists apparently believe they are fighting to free the world from the West. And this does skirt the old issue of the ends justifying the means- are means that are acceptable in pursuit of freedom terrorist actions if they don’t have the proper aims?
That depends very much on your view of this conflict. I’m not saying America is trying to rule the world, but I think this fight is more about self-preservation than anything else. The USA is trying to protect itself AND its interests. There have been millions of debates as to how interested the government here really is (or is not) in freedom, both inside the US and in the world at large.
To change the subject entirely: I sat in on my girlfriend’s Russian Lit. class a few weeks ago, and the Prof made a comment that - even though I’m not sure it’s 100% true - might apply to Al Qaeda’s bombing of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. What he said was that religious fanatics can be harder on those of their own faith who ‘believe the wrong things’ than they are on those who do not have that faith at all. Bin Laden himself, and Al Qaeda in general, have deep-seated grudges against the government of Saudi Arabia, which has long been friendly to the West- obviously too friendly for his taste. That probably applies to most Islamic governments as well.
My last comment would certainly apply to Iraq as well, since Bin Laden called Hussein an “apostate” so many times and was an enemy of the Ba’ath government.
**That depends very much on your view of this conflict. I’m not saying America is trying to rule the world, but I think this fight is more about self-preservation than anything else. The USA is trying to protect itself AND its interests. There have been millions of debates as to how interested the government here really is (or is not) in freedom, both inside the US and in the world at large.
**
The way I see it, freedom is in our interests. Every time we’ve ever supported a dictator it’s been because a) there was a greater evil that dictator was fighting and he needed our help. Stalin and Saddam Hussein come to mind, and b) there was no alternative, or there was such a vital US interest at stake that we could not afford to have poor relations with that nation. Saudi Arabia is the best example of that. One thing that we always do with all our allies is pressure them towards liberalization. This has worked in many nations over the years. A lot of dictators we supported in the 70s and 80s stepped down to be replaced by democratic governments because of our influence.
In cases where the dictator has no worse enemies, and we can afford to have them not like us, we have almost universally opposed them.
This is debateable. The problem of course is how you define evil and I’m afraid that during the Cold War in particular the U.S. did so on an ideological basis, rather than a behavioral one.
Thus on the one hand I can understand the U.S. support for UNITA over the MPLA in Angola - I think it proved a mistake in the long run, but I can understand it. Savimbi had a lot of people in the region snowed. However in contrast backing RENAMO in Mozambique is a lot harder to swallow. Their opposite numbers in FRELIMO weren’t exactly princes and were certainly half-assed Marxists, but RENAMO defined vile.
Or for that matter take backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyr over Ahmed Shah Massoud in Afghanistan - there were reasons, but even at the time analysts winced.
No, I think it is a bit too facile to say the U.S. has always supported the greater evil, except in matters of the utmost strategic importance ( Mozambique hardly falls into that category ). And I say that without any intention whatsoever to demonize the U.S… But bad, even ugly choices were occasionally made.
Looking at the history of Russian internal terrorism (pre-USSR) may prove instructive. The terrorists had a policy of targeting reformers and anyone who might make the current situation more tolerable. The idea was that they needed to make things so utterly miserable that a revolution could not be stopped by any means.