Who is al-Qaeda's enemy?

Remove all ads!

Just saw this , and thought it was an interesting read. It was revealing to see the method and the rationale (or lack thereof) employed by the terrorists in selecting their targets. One would think that nations such as France, who cautioned restraint, would have been rewarded for their temperance...it now appears that our world is too small to live with such ethno-centric hate. There is no such thing as isolationism in this global era.

Another point in the article...this is about the first time that I've seen a respected source, that was not pro-USA, ascribe the violence in Iraq to the organized acts of terrorists groups and not a disgruntled populace.

Iraq is a mess, and it is a mess that we've made (America), but it's a mess that we have to clean up. If we stop, or fail, the world will just become more dangerous for everyone, unless you join with the hate groups and exercise the same tolerance in selecting your enemies.

 

Enemies of Al-Qaeda would appear to be:

• US
• UK
• Germany
• France
• Australia
• Norway
• Jews
• Christians
• People who aren't Christians but live in nominally Christian countries
• Actually, all non-muslims
• All Muslims who aren't Sunni Muslims (they're heretics)
• All Sunni Muslims who do not subscribe to the Wasabi sect (they're backsliders).

I think that just about covers it. Have I missed anyone out?

EDIT: for "Wasabi" read "Wahabi". As Death Rabbit points out later, wasabi is the horseradish-like stuff you eat with sushi. Daft slip.

[ November 17, 2003, 19:50: Message edited by: Chris Williams ]

 

I stated this before. I think those people are very rational in their strategical and tactical thinking. And this would mean it would be very nice to look into their paperwork, to know about the rationale applied.

I think this would be true, if alliances with the US would be the only reason of hostile terroristic activity. But as the world does not turn around the US alone and other countries have their own history and problems, France is way longer target of terroristc attacks then the US. The main reason for this might be Algeria. So why would this suddenly change ?

I think the meaning of Al-Queda is "the base". Which I think may mean, organization of common interest groups active in violent furtheriing of their goals. A common ground for different organizations from differen places who work together to get some synergy-effects in furthering goals which are deemed as common. Including Pakistanis, Egyptians, Saudi-Arabians, Indonesians....

Ayman al-Zawahiri once was in a egyptian jail for involvement in the assination of Anwar Al-Sadat. So, Egyptian presidents also belong on the list.

And never forget Luxor

B Raman is Additional Secretary (ret), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and presently director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai; former member of the National Security Advisory Board of the Government of India

1/3 of the article is about Pakistan, wonder why. Indeed, I think the author is mainly worried about his northern neighbour. And whatever there goes on concerning terrorism. Which would be a lot, I think.

As for Norway. I still think they meant Danemark. And I still do not have a clue, what the names of Scandinavian-countries in Arabic are. But I bet is something like: Cold country, colder country, coldest country. Or maybe north-allemania ? Or northmanland ?

 

Maybe it's worth to hear the voice of an expert here: Iraqi Insurgents Take a Page From the Afghan 'Freedom Fighters'. Written by Milt Bearden, a 30-year veteran in the C.I.A.'s Directorate of Operations, served as senior manager for clandestine operations, and was the US chief coordinator of the afghan resistance untill the Russians eventually withdrew from there.

Bearden refers to Sun Tzu, and comes to a few classical and clear formulas that explain the situation in Iraq very clearly. Highly recommended, both, the article and Sun Tzu.

As for Iraq it hasn't much to do with Al Quada IMO. Instead the resistance seems almost genuinely iraq and homegrown, with a little help from outside. And for attacking nations other than the US the iraqi resistance has sound reasons: They attack the US allies to destroy the coalition of the willing. And the coalition crumbles.
The bloodtoll they took from US allies till now has led numerous countries to step back from deploying troops, or to reduce their troop levels. The attacks on non-US troops are Iraq's "Keep Out" sign on the door.

 

Off-topic, but...Ragusa, I am in total agreement with you vis-a-vis the strategy of targeting coalition partners and Iraqi collaborators.

I am reminded of the onset of the Rwanda genocide, when the Canadian general was pleading for more UN troops. One of the first things the genocidaires did was herd some fifty Belgian peacekeepers into a building, after promising them safety, and then massacre them in a particularly bloody and sadistic way. The immediate response from Belgium was a full withdrawal of the rest of their forces and materiel. The genocidaires didn't target the non-European peacekeepers - not that they hated them less than the Belgians, but because the Belgians were softer.

I am genuinely perplexed that there is so much call to "internationalize" the occupation when the would-be multilateral leaders (the UN, charitable NGOs, etc.) are the quickest to leave when bloodied.

[Edit: Ragusa PMed me - thanks for the quick correction! - to point out that in fact only ten Belgians were murdered, and the victims were guards of the Prime Minister, so their deaths (if not their gruesome manner) were primarily intended to spark the genocide, not scare off the Belgians. This was only a happy coincidence - immediately afterwards, the UN Security Council downgraded the UN force's mandate and reduced its complement to just 270 men. This number was raised only six weeks after the genocide had been proceeding, when the French steamrolled an intervention plan through the Security Council to rescue the genocidaires. Thanks again, Ragusa!]

[ November 15, 2003, 00:53: Message edited by: Grey Magistrate ]

 

I think there are five points.

1. It is obvious, that a meaningful European military force is dependent on close collobaration of European countries. Without the establishment of a multi-country army, European forces are overseas completly irrelevant. Not even the UK or France posses the capability to project a meaningful force overseas. Except of course it's about defending some obscure Ilands in the south atlantic. Further I do not think that the Americans would look at such a development with much enjoyment, because it would automatcly mean to redraw resources from other military commitments. But then again, this is not at all likely in the mid-term future, because build up a military to fight against whom ? And I think you mean that killing persons from a certain other country would immedialty been answered with Bombenhagel.

2. I do not know much about Rwuanda (Sp ?), but I think in the end, no one deployed troops to stop the genocide.

3. As for the point with charitable NGOs and other targets. I think they hit where it hurts the Americans the most. The redrawl of charitable NGO's is a huge hit to any reconstruction effort. Charitable organizations are capable to invest large sums and have very skilled personel which is highly motivated at their proposal. Those skills would be dearly needed to rebuild the infrastructure of a country and are able to provide a population with what it needs the most. But there are gone now.

4. Well, yes, I think any country that sends troops to Iraq must be willing to suffer losses. The question would than be if such a vague project would be worth the cost. As for Italy, one of the countries who's population was strongly against the war. I think if there's a new goverment (and the current goverment propably won't last another 300 days, given the statistics), it's likely that they would start to search a way out anyway, because the majority did not want to be there in the first place. And the same is for Spain, I think.

5. If someone goes and makes a mess, for whatever reason, this one should be ready to clean up the mess. There I agree with you GM. I see no need for anyone to go to Iraq. I think the Americans can manage it alone.

 

I think Chris Williams sums it up. hate for everyone/thing who isn't you.

 

Yes, I agree with CW too - but there is one discrepancy I feel compelled to point out.

I think you mean "Wahabi." Wasabi is the hot green stuff they serve with Sushi.

But then again, maybe they should rename the sect "Wasabi." It would explain why they're all so damn cranky.

 

Death Rabbit - what exactly is the wahhabi section?

 

@ eran

A very hardline, extremely conservative sect of Islam, very prominant in Saudi Arabia - home of Osama and most of the 911 terrorists. It is also their practicing sect.

Wahabbism in a nutshell: if you're not Wahabi, you're wrong, God hates you, and we'll kill you.

That's my understanding anyway.

from here

 

I have to say that in all honesty, a group that sets itself against all allies and is violent about it is pretty well it's own worst enemy -- that could apply to Wahhabism or Al Quaeda equally well. Talk about your suicidal tendencies.

 

This is also from B. Raman. About Wahabism in Pakistan. Here