The Nature of "Islamic" Terrorism

[Saladin]

There exists a common misconception that "Islamic terrorism" exists solely to punish the U.S. for its secularism and liberal democratic "values," but it seems more accurate to note that a more likely motive is anger regarding specific perceived encroachments by U.S. political regimes in terms of support for the Israeli government. Evidence of this is found in Osama bin Laden's first fatwa, Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. Issued in 1996, it identified the Al-Aqsa Mosque as an Islamic holy site that was allegedly being defiled by Israeli sovereignty over the area. Moreover, the reality of his intent was covered in Marc Perelman's Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel:

In an interim staff report released last week, the presidential commission investigating the September 11, 2001, attacks shed new light on the role of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Al Qaeda’s worldview.

The disclosures seem to weaken Israeli claims that the issue was only a secondary priority for Osama bin Laden, and they could rekindle the debate about whether U.S. support for Israel is hindering national security.

In a 20-page report titled “Outline of the 9-11 Plot,” the commission, which is to issue a final report at the end of July, describes bin Laden’s willingness to time the attacks against America with two visits by Prime Minister Sharon, one in Jerusalem and one in Washington.

The report claims that Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, or KSM, the alleged mastermind of the attacks who was arrested in March 2003 in Pakistan, told his U.S. captors that bin Laden “wanted to punish the United States for supporting Israel.”

This is why, according to KSM, bin Laden asked him to conduct the attacks “as early as mid-2000” in response to the outcry prompted by the visit of then-opposition leader Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the report states. Even though the Al Qaeda hijackers had barely arrived in the United States to take flight lessons, the Saudi renegade allegedly argued that it would be enough if they smashed planes to the ground without hitting specific targets. The report claims that KSM talked him out of the plan.

Bin Laden, however, reportedly asked him again a year later to hasten the preparations of the plot when he learned that Sharon, now prime minister, would visit the White House in June or July 2001, according to the report.

Once again KSM convinced him to wait, and the group eventually settled on September 11 after further debates about targets and timing, debunking the assumption that the details of the operation were planned long in advance.

In addition to bin Laden’s reported interest in linking the attacks to Israel, the report also sheds light on the worldview of Al Qaeda operatives and its sympathizers.

It noted that Mohammed Atta, the Egyptian ringleader of the plot, chose the second week of September to ensure that Congress, “the perceived source of U.S. policy in support of Israel” would be in session. Atta, who lived in Germany with several other hijackers, “denounced what he described as a global Jewish movement centered in New York City which, he claimed, controlled the financial world and the media.”

In a chilling detail, the report also mentions that KSM indicated that Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader in Afghanistan, “opposed [Al Qaeda’s plan to attack] the United States for ideological reasons but permitted attacks against Jewish targets.”

“Bin Laden, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli-occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia,” according to the report.

Moreover, he wished to accelerate the attacks twice, both in response to what he considered "provocative" actions by the man known as the "Butcher of Beirut," Ariel Sharon. I wouldn't claim that he didn't oppose Western "decadence," but his opposition would not have been characterized by such a violent backlash had he not regarded the existence of financial and military support as an imposition of that decadence. As has been previously noted, he did not choose to attack the significantly more "decadent" Sweden or the Netherlands, for instance.

This reality is certainly confirmed by opinion polling of the Arab populace on the matter. Zogby International's Impressions of America 2004: A Six-Nation Survey summarizes this well, noting that "[w]hen asked whether their overall attitude toward the US was shaped by their feelings about American values or US policies, in all six countries, an overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated that policy played a more important role." This assessment is validated by analyses such as this one:

To my surprise, the ex-jihadis said their rage about Western foreign policy – which was real, and burning – emerged only after their identity crises, and as a result of it. They identified with the story of oppressed Muslims abroad because it seemed to mirror the oppressive disorientation they felt in their own minds. Usman Raja, a bluff, buff boxer who begged to become a suicide bomber in the mid-1990s, tells me: "Your inner life is chaotic and you feel under threat the whole time. And then you're told by Islamists that life for Muslims everywhere is chaotic and under threat. It becomes bigger than you. It's about the world – and that's an amazing relief. The answer isn't inside your confused self. It's out there in the world."

But once they had made that leap to identify with the Umma – the global Muslim community – they got angrier the more abusive our foreign policy came. Every one of them said the Bush administration's response to 9/11 – from Guantanamo to Iraq – made jihadism seem more like an accurate description of the world. Hadiya Masieh, a tiny female former HT organiser, tells me: "You'd see Bush on the television building torture camps and bombing Muslims and you think – anything is justified to stop this. What are we meant to do, just stand still and let him cut our throats?"

But the converse was – they stressed – also true. When they saw ordinary Westerners trying to uphold human rights, their jihadism began to stutter. Almost all of them said that they doubted their Islamism when they saw a million non-Muslims march in London to oppose the Iraq War: "How could we demonise people who obviously opposed aggression against Muslims?" asks Hadiya.

What comes of this is revelation of the fact that there are deeper political motivations for "Islamist" assaults against U.S. targets that can be altered by their realization of the differences between the U.S. political class and the U.S. general population and the consequent immorality of attacking the latter as if it was the former, since they become aware of the divergence between the two when it comes to foreign policy formation. If the basis for their hostility was purely theological in nature, as some assert, this wouldn't make a difference to them one way or the other.

It is problematic, then, that it is incorrectly assumed that "Islamic" radicals are primarily motivated by theological doctrines and hatred of secularism and civil freedoms, when that is contradicted by such substantial evidence. That also means that an impediment to rational analysis and the formation of sound foreign policy by U.S. political regimes will continue to exist so long as this myth is sustained.

 

[Saladin]

GHook93 has now "replied" to this thread by negrepping me. He has not, however, issued any substantive or coherent response, indicating that he has no interest in actual discussion. This is another of the problems that we encounter, sadly.

 

[Saladin]

GHook93 has now "replied" to this thread by negrepping me. He has not, however, issued any substantive or coherent response, indicating that he has no interest in actual discussion. This is another of the problems that we encounter, sadly.

After I posted this comment, GHook93 sent me several belligerent messages characterized by tantrum throwing and racial invectives.

PMs deleted

It's unfortunate that some react to attempts at civil discourse in such a manner.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

there are clearly 2 kinds of terrorism in the modern world:

1 - the primarily Sunni acts of interpretation of the Quran in the context of modern colonial attitudes by one group

2 - the mainly shia love for "death cult" that makes them love martyrdom. This form has ended because it was pretty much an Iranian military tactic that is definitely 100% political and in no way related to the Quran.

I would say that without the colonial attitudes of the West, the problem would not be as intense. In fact, the problem wouldn't really exist. When the arab countries manage to control their borders and the aggression from the West, the sunni version will pretty much become the shia version... in that it will be a synonim for patriotism.

 

[The_Halfmoon]

and the racist comments are funny, because the future of Israel is looking fairly bad once the US pulls out of Iraq and creates a giant Shia bloc at its doorstep

Israel LOST the 2006 war, because it had to eradicate Hezbollah. It did not. It used its FULL military potential against Lebanon. The ground forces had already lost the ground war by 2000, and had to pull out. The only way they can go back in is by eliminating Hezbollah from the air. They can't.

 

[Kalam]

Arguments that contradict foolish preconceptions about Muslims tend to incense posters such as Ghook. Careful, Saladin -- you're well on your way to being labeled an "Islamo-fascist."

 

[Saladin]

Arguments that contradict foolish preconceptions about Muslims tend to incense posters such as Ghook. Careful, Saladin -- you're well on your way to being labeled an "Islamo-fascist."

Actually, the original negrep comment that I received from our esteemed comrade was "You worthless Islamofacist! Why does Europe get hit with far more terrorist acts than the US?" No desire for actual participation in discussion, evidently.

 

[Missourian]

I don't see your point Saladin...

I have a short attention span and therefore rarely read more than a paragraph per post so lets keep it concise.

Islamic terrorist exist NOT solely to punish the Wests liberal democracy and secular society, but also because the US supports Israel?

And that makes it OK?

 

[mystic]

I don't see your point Saladin...

I have a short attention span and therefore rarely read more than a paragraph per post so lets keep it concise.

Islamic terrorist exist NOT solely to punish the Wests liberal democracy and secular society, but also because the US supports Israel?

And that makes it OK?

You refuse to read the whole post and then want someone to explain it to you?

Lazy.

 

[mystic]

GHook93 has now "replied" to this thread by negrepping me. He has not, however, issued any substantive or coherent response, indicating that he has no interest in actual discussion. This is another of the problems that we encounter, sadly.

That's his style; don't take it personal. He has a napoleon complex.

 

[Charles Stucker]

“Bin Laden, on the other hand, reportedly argued that attacks against the United States needed to be carried out immediately to support the insurgency in the Israeli-occupied territories and to protest the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia,” according to the report.

This is the central reason why the war on terror is Clinton's responsibility. Had Clinton paid any attention at all US troops would have been out of Saudi Arabia in '93. Obama bin Laden would have lost a lot of support and the WTC would still be standing.

 

[manu1959]

if i recal the us did not create israel......

if i recall those that created israel also created palestine......

if i recall the arabs attacked israel and lost palestine.....and every war since

of course the us should be blamed for those mistakes....it couldn't be thier fault...

 

[Charles Stucker]

if i recal the us did not create israel......

if i recall those that created israel also created palestine......

if i recall the arabs attacked israel and lost palestine.....and every war since

of course the us should be blamed for those mistakes....it couldn't be thier fault...

But the US recognized Israel.
We sold the Israeli's weapons, without which they would have been reduced to throwing rocks at the Arab troops and even Italian troops could beat civilians armed with rocks.
Thus we must be at fault because "God" is on the side of the Palestinians, just ask them.

 

[Ringel05]

All of you need to read 'The Fighting Never Stopped' by Patrick Brogan, particularly in relation to the Middle East. (Just one of two dozen resources readily available).
But please, continue with the propaganda, I find it entertaining.
CS, your 20/20 hind sight isn't, it's actually quite myopic. Broaden your knowledge base and try again.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There exists a common misconception that "Islamic terrorism" exists solely to punish the U.S. for its secularism and liberal democratic "values,.

No.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Islam has turned to terrorism because their religion is outdated. Once the dominant power in the world, since the 15th century it has been sliding into obscurity. To try and make up for their own inadequacies they attack others.
Simple as that.

 

[Sunni Man]

Islam has turned to terrorism because their religion is outdated. Once the dominant power in the world, since the 15th century it has been sliding into obscurity. To try and make up for their own inadequacies they attack others.
Simple as that.

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world.

At 1.2 billion adherents, it is hardly sliding into obscurity.

 

[slackjawed]

Islam has turned to terrorism because their religion is outdated. Once the dominant power in the world, since the 15th century it has been sliding into obscurity. To try and make up for their own inadequacies they attack others.
Simple as that.

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world.

At 1.2 billion adherents, it is hardly sliding into obscurity.

A search of the internet turns up something interesting. Depending on how you measure it, islam may or may not be the fastest growing religion. Using %'s, might be true, using number of new converts- no it isn't.
Interesting to note that in 2004 if one uses the percentage method, wiccan was the fastest growing religion in North America.
Interwesting to note that Jehova's Witnesses have claimed to be the fastest growing church in the world for over a hundred years.
Interesting to note that every religion seems to claim they are the fastest growing at one time or another.
Seems quite silly to me. Why does it matter if your religion is the fastest growing or not. If you beleive it to be the truth it should not matter one little bit.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Islam is the fastest growing major religion in the world.

At 1.2 billion adherents, it is hardly sliding into obscurity.

Right, because popping out so many babies they all have to live in poverty is a real world conquering scheme.
Islam reject modern science, so it will always be behind technologically; hence they will have little impact on the rest of the world save through terrorism
That is why they are terrorists; it validates their pathetic lives.

 

[rdean]

there are clearly 2 kinds of terrorism in the modern world:

1 - the primarily Sunni acts of interpretation of the Quran in the context of modern colonial attitudes by one group

2 - the mainly shia love for "death cult" that makes them love martyrdom. This form has ended because it was pretty much an Iranian military tactic that is definitely 100% political and in no way related to the Quran.

I would say that without the colonial attitudes of the West, the problem would not be as intense. In fact, the problem wouldn't really exist. When the arab countries manage to control their borders and the aggression from the West, the sunni version will pretty much become the shia version... in that it will be a synonim for patriotism.

Which kind was Timothy McVeigh?