Al Qaeda is just another pathetic violent hate group

America's opponents shouldn't ascribe nobility to its enemies

from JoeUser Forums

There's been an interesting discussion regarding the War on Terror. Simply put, the discussion revolves around what the causes of 9/11 were, did the US "deserve" to be attacked and does the US really need to understand the "root causes" in order to win.

Opinions vary on this, of course. But I will submit that historically speaking, WHY rarely, if ever matters. Nation states don't ask why something happened to them. They react instead to what actually happened. We may not like this. We may wish that populations were more introspective. But you can either deal with the world as it is or sit around being frustrated that the world isn't the way you wish it was.

People who are effective in life, in my experience, are the ones who deal with the world as it is. Those who fail are usually impotently trying to change the world to behave as they would like it to be.

What makes matters worse, those who wish the world was something it's not tend to fall under self-delusion. For instance, I have found that those who wish the world was different tend to be quite hostile to the United States.  I won't get into whether that hostility is justified or not because that part doesn't matter. But the other half of the self-delusion is more serious -- they tend to ascribe motives and traits to those who oppose the United States that simply aren't true.

For example: Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda isn't some noble organization fighting with any means necessary to preserve their native culture. They're just yet another hateful bigoted group of violent thugs that history has seen thousands of times who differentiate themselves only in the scale of their violence.  The difference between Al Qaeda and say the KKK is only a matter of scope, not personality.

Al Qaeda and their ilk are violent racist organizations that despise our culture for what it stands for and wishes to eradicate it from the face of the earth through violence -- first in the middle east and later throughout the world. It has very little to do with the imagined wrongs the US has committed during some arbitrary time frame.

The US doesn't need to "understand" Al Qaeda any more than the US needed to understand Japan's motivations for attacking Pearl Harbor. It is up to the one who is liable to suffer the most to learn from history. 

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) are the end points that trace their beginnings to Pearl Harbor. One can argue that the deaths of over a million Japanese civilians (when you add in conventional bombing) was an overreaction to the loss of 2,500 people (mostly sailors) in a military base attack.  But ultimately, that's not something Americans have to worry about. Maybe they should in some ideal world give these matters the weighty concern they deserve. But they don't.

In reality, it is the one doing the attacking that should be reading up on history.  The reaction to 9/11 is significant and far-reaching and should be an object lesson to those would would perpetuate terrorism against the United States. For after all, there have been zero terrorist attacks against the US since 9/11 while on the other hand Al Qaeda's leaders are living in caves in the mountains of Pakistan, Saddam is gone, and the Taliban is now without a country to rule. 

From the US's point of view, therefore, there is little evidence to show why the US needs to "understand" the question "why do they hate you". Again: Yes, maybe Americans SHOULD care. Maybe they SHOULD come together and take a "hard look" at the foreign policies that help give rise to the Bin Laden's of the world. But it's not going to happen. It's not because Americans are uniquely oblique to this, it's just human nature.  And even if they wanted to, the chattering classes who are so ready to educate America as to "why they hate you" can't even agree what the justification is.  I don't think the Average New Yorker is going to see the connection between alleged US interference in say Chile or the Bay of Pigs or whatever and airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center.

I know I don't care why. I might care academically but I would rather see those who would perpetuate such violence and hatred removed first so that I have the luxury of pondering those issues in relative peace and security.

In short, knowing why might be interesting in an academic sense but on a practical level, it doesn't matter. It never matters. Anyone who knows anything of history, will recognize that the why someone attacks you never matters. It only matters that they did. Nation states aren't individuals. They are collectives. They react as collectives. They cannot do otherwise and never do. And idealists are far from the first to express their frustration and exasperation over the way "the masses" react.

It is far more effective for the middle east to clean up its culture of death and violence than try to convince Americans that it somehow "had it coming" because the US supported Israel or because it had a US base in Saudi Arabia or some other lame ass argument for justifying the mass murder of innocent people.

Let us remember, after all, that 9/11 was PLANNED during the Clinton administration who was about as benevolent to the Muslim world as can be realistically expected. If Clinton's foreign policy wasn't "sensitive" enough to the middle east, then I can't envision any US policy that would satisfy the violent hate mongers and their death cults. Clinton was their best case scenario.

But all that aside, I can find far more justification as to why Japan attacked Pearl Harbor than to muddle through the bullshit arguments as for why 9/11 occurred. Pearl Harbor was attacked in response to specific US actions with specific goals in mind.  By contrast, 9/11 happened for very nebulous reasons with very nebulous (and unrealistic) goals. When you read through a history book on World War II, there's no debate as to what was the impetus for Pearl Harbor. But even 3 years later, we still debate the WHY of 9/11.  I saw on one forum someone claiming the US policy on the Kyoto treaty was a "contributing" factor. Simply put, the reasons for 9/11 are at best, nebulous.

And at the end of the day, Al Qaeda is no government in waiting. It's just another pathetic violent hate group more akin to a KKK out of control than any sort of legitimate organization.

politics
19,819 views 51 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting post.

I have always thought that leaders seeking long-term solutions do try to understand "WHY". Otherwise, the risk of a rise of a perpetual class of similars arises.

I think your post negates the rsponse of the United States following it's involvement in WWII. The Marshall Plan right, and the effective take-over of Japan until it was stable with a democratic government. Thus helping to eliminate the conditions that gave rise to these dictators in the first place.

But perhaps I'm wrong, and maybe those thoughtful policies, derived from carefully considering the "WHY" are wrong too.

After reading your posting however, I am reminded of a Malcolm Forbes comment I read the other day, "I find that knowing something about the problem interferes with my ability to suggest solutions".

Frankly, I don't know anything, really, about Al Qaeda, hell - I can't really even spell it without referencing someone who does. But I do know something about people - and without knowing "WHY" so many people in the Arab world are so unhappy with the western world in general and the USA in particular, I'm going to make the radical suggestion that eliminating Al Qaeda won't get rid of the problem.

And please don't misunderstand me to say that I support AQ in any way.



Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

There are very definite, valid reasons why the Islamic world hates Western culture. Their ire, however, is mainly directed at the United States not because of specific actions but because it is the most overt example of why they hate western culture.

If Europe vs. USA = Fairness vs. Freedom.

Then the Islamic world vs. USA = Virtue vs. Freedom.

The world struggles between these 3 things: Virtue vs. Freedom vs. Fairness.  Americans arrogantly think freedom is a universal goal of all mankind. It is this arrogance combined with its unrelenting desire to spread "freedom" across the world that gains it so much animosity.  Freedom, as many in the world know, ain't all its cracked up to be. There is something to be said of the value of virtue and the value of fairness.

Americans seem to take great pride that not only is life not fair, but that it shouldn't be. At the same time, our culture seems to spread the belief that virtue doesn't truly exist in a society but is defined from individual to individual which is maddening to the Islamic world that believes that virtue is specific and universal.

What irritates me about so many who demand Americans "ask why they hate you" is that those making the demand are totally clueless themselves as to "why they hate you". I wonder how many of them have even bothered to put in even the slightest effort to educate themselves. Because even a cursory look into it shows that the resaons Al Qaeda hates the west is different from the reasons many in the Islamic world hate the west and is VASTLY different from the reason the typical anti-american zealot on the Internet hates America.

Al Qaeda's goals are NOT secret. They are: 1) Remove ALL western influence from the Islamic world. 2) topple all regimes in the middle east that are friendly to the west 3) Set up a united Islamic nations by force to be ruled by the rules of the Caliph 4) Expand outward to united the entire world in this way.  This isn't speculation, this is Al Qaeda's "mission statement".

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Provocative post" would have been closer to what I think.

Insightful? No, not really.

I guess I did find it interesting in a certain way, a way in which the interior of a person is more revealed than whatever they are talking about.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
9/11 was PLANNED during the Clinton administration who was about as benevolent to the Muslim world as can be realistically expected

this is exactly the kind of statement that results from the approach youre advocating. if clinton donated his personal estate to the people of the middle east--including all of his clothing and other wordly possessions--al quaida would still exist. if benevolence was the key, the 38 billion dollars bush budgeted for homeland security could have been much more effectively used to coopt the organization by paying each of the formal cadre 500,000$ and putting the rest in an annual account, using the interest to pay to provide them with an annuity.

engineering is based on a method is it not? defining the problem as precisely as possible is the first step in resolving it?

there's very little mention in these discussions about al-quaida's mission statement (their goal is exactly the same as the european crusaders of the middle ages, only in reverse). the us is the enemy not because they hate freedom or they enjoy butchery but because of our support for israel.

i am not to any degree sympathetic to bin laden or al-quaida or any other radical muslim group. (in fact, id say im one hell of lot less sympathetic to the bin laden family as a whole than certain presidents i could name). id love to see them--as well as any other violent religious organizations including the so-called 'pro-life' fanatics-confined someplace where they are unable to do any damage (including infecting others with their hatred). over the course of 30 years, ive gradually realized that israel--far from being a beacon of middle east enlightenment--is as bloodthirsty and vindictive as its neighbors. our refusal to insist they comply with un sanctions regarding manufacture and possession of wmds may yet result in the first use of nuclear weapons since august 1945.

the Taliban is now without a country to rule

im sure thats cold comfort to the 4 servicemen who were killed over the weekend in afghanistan. who cares if theyre ruling as long as theyre able to regularly knock off a couple of the mere 20000 troops currently in action there. fulminate all you want about how pathetic these terrorists are. our campaign to wipe them out is nearly as pathetic in its prosecution.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "--1998 fatwah co-signed by osama bin laden.

" They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire. If you permit them to continue thus for awhile with impurity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them. On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that . . . race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it. All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the [Muslims}, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. . . . " --1095 call to crusade delivered by pope urban ii

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.-- George Santayana
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The question "why" can really be put into perspective by using a legal analogy. To commit a crime, someone needs means, motive, and opportunity. The logical extension then is to say to prevent a crime you need to remove one or more of the components. Motive is an extremely complicated thing as Draginol describes. To fight motive in the case of Al-Qaeda, you use education, but it will take years, possibly generations to reverse the damage done by raising children to hate and want to destroy their enemies at any cost. Look at racism in the United States. It took an awful long time to get from slavery to where we are now. No, motive cannot be removed in a timely fashion sufficient to prevent further attacks. That leaves means and opportunity. These are the fronts on which we are fighting terrorism now. We reduce their means by cracking down on businesses and banks that funnel money to international terrorist groups. We reduce their means by cracking down on governments that support international terrorism. And we reduce their opportunity by improving security at home and perhaps not so coincidentally by have a foriegn field (like Afghanistan or Iraq) to attrack the terrorists. They can't fight here if they're fighting over there (or at least the opportunities are reduced).

So what we've done is focused on goals that are attainable in a shorter term (it may still be years, but eliminating motive is going to take generations). One we have suficiently reduced means and opportunity, THEN will be an appropriate time to analyze motive and help put a stop to the brainwashing and hate that groups like Al Qaeda are perpetuating.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm pretty much the same way. If there's some psychopath killing my loved ones, I'm not going to walk up to him and reason with him. I'm going to want him dead. Sure, like cockroaches, there'll be somebody else to replace him, but that doesn't mean we aren't taking the best approach by killing cockroaches.


It's funny about Pearl Harbor. When you consider the fact that we were supporting the Allies, who, let's be honest, were quite bad, especially the Soviet Union, one can argue that Japan was justified in their attacks on Pearl Harbor, and that rather than wage war with them, we should have simply tried to compromise with them.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Virtue vs. Freedom vs. Fairness

I agree that there is value in virtue and in fairness, but to me it's a little less clear about the arrogance and relentlessness of Americans. We don't want to force Freedom on others at the sacrifice of Virtue and Fairness. Quite the contrary. We want everyone (I do believe it is an inalienable right) to have the freedom to choose the degree of virtue and fairness they want. Having virtue or fairness forced on you is no more (or less) noble than forcing freedom. But only one (freedom) allows the amount or degree of the others (fairness/virtue) to be chosen.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
"So what we've done is focused on goals that are attainable in a shorter term (it may still be years, but eliminating motive is going to take generations). One we have suficiently reduced means and opportunity, THEN will be an appropriate time to analyze motive and help put a stop to the brainwashing and hate that groups like Al Qaeda are perpetuating."

While there's nothing wrong with being pragmatic, waiting generations to figure out "WHY" people are doing something is not all that great either, in my opinion. Ask the Irish.

Opening dialogue with people is a low-cost venture, BUT, unfortunately, some people refuse to do that. They simply don't want to abandon their world view, and true dialogue sometimes requires that. They'd rather ascribe dark motives to everyone in their "FLAT WORLD". Rather like the propaganda machine of WWII - "dirty Japs", subhuman, et.al.

And while AQ's motives might be, as Brad states, alot different than other Muslim's, there's no denying that the western world in general, and the Americans in particular, aren't all that popular in that part of the world. Witness the rise of the Al Jazeer media empire. They are quite obviously giving voice to something a great many people are feeling.

I know the "Crush 'em like a bug" routine plays well in certain parts, but I'm going to suggest that, rather like the Irish problem, the overwhelming military force of one side isn't going to make this broader problem go away (whether or not AQ is crushed).

I think it's going to take something much deeper and more fundamental than that: being listened to.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"While there's nothing wrong with being pragmatic, waiting generations to figure out "WHY" people are doing something is not all that great either, in my opinion. Ask the Irish." I agree, waiting generation to address motive is not an option. But that isn't what I said either. I said it would take generations to eliminate that motive. We've already started working on it by helping Iraqis get back in control of their own country.

Opening dialog is indeed a low-cost venture. But that overlooks the fact that remaining inactive is a high-cost venture.

What do you think is that "why" that we need to listen to? For radical muslims, the "why" is that we aren't radical muslims. After means and motive are eliminated (or greatly reduced) we can begin to work on eliminating the hatred they preach.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you need to have a proper investigation and a trial before you go spewing verdicts all over the air waves. You should start paying more attention to what is and isn't going on.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
the us is the enemy not because they hate freedom or they enjoy butchery but because of our support for israel... israel--far from being a beacon of middle east enlightenment--is as bloodthirsty and vindictive as its neighbors. our refusal to insist they comply with un sanctions regarding manufacture and possession of wmds may yet result in the first use of nuclear weapons since august 1945.


Al Qaeda's position is not that Israel should be more benevolent. Al Qaeda's position is the destruction of the state of Israel.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
KingBee: I had previously in this discussion listed Al Qaeda's stated principle goals.  The elimination of Israel is part of Al Qaeda's overall plan to eliminate all western influence in the Islamic world.  They're a hatefuil bigoted group bent on murdering all those who don't look and believe as they do.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW, there are no UN sanctions against Israel.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think some of the site's terror apologists have been burned a bit Brad or perhaps their scores fell too far:)

It is a hard thing to deal with the motives behind violence but I think Brad's explanation of the reactions of nation-states to it is commendable. While the morality of atcs such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden are certainly debateable, they were virtually guaranteed reactions at the time. A failure of the silent majority to keep their rowdy roomate in check. (look! I created a meme!)

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
There have always been extremists who attempt to disrupt progress and the will of decency, we the British have most certainly experienced it, once controlling the largest empire the world has ever seen. They will act regardless of whether a nation state endorses them because they are motivated by that most vile of human characteristics, that is, hatred.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad:

As always, very interesting.

You've used the term "nation state" a couple of times in recent weeks. Would you mind clarifying how you are defining it? It's one of those terms that has multiple slightly different meanings and I'd like to read your article/comments in the context that you intended.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
It wasn't Iraq that was involved with Al Qaeda, it was Afghanistan. However, what do you expect, Osama was there during the Soviet occupation of their country, and he helped finance their reconstruction with millions of his own money. Osama is a fundamentalist Muslim, so was the Taliban, and its relic wearing invincible leader. The Taliban basically agreed with his philosophy, and Osama gave them money and support.

The attacks were planned on the US during the Clinton administration for two reasons, Al Qaeda had already established itself before that as a group waging a holy war, and Clinton gave Al Qaeda notoriety by calling them some of the world's deadliest terrorists on TV and then trying to blast one of their training camps with missles. Despite what you think, there are reasons to dislike the US besides having an annoying president.

Your article is very well written. It has some strong points which to consider, but its pretty much morally repugnant. A foreign policy that is, "we hit back, and can hit as hard as we want because you hit us first" is just reactionary, it isn't any different from a typical oppresive banana republic. It works so long as you're the ultimate power and you can dictate terms to everyone, but it ultimately boils down to "might makes right". I don't know if you're one for maxims, but I do like, "an eye for an eye leaves the world blind." Its particularly fitting in this case, seeing as how Al Qaeda believes it is taking revenge on the US Government.

For what? The missle attacks for one. The invasion of the middle east to create Israel is another. Working with the corrupt Saudi royals, occupying Saudi Arrabia, and taking their oil for so cheap its almost a crime is yet another. Supporting the unislamic Saddam Hussein and his regime is... well you get the picture.

Osama Bin Laden is an idealist, but also an extremist. Your ideas about delusional and frustrated idealists fits him pretty well. Osama Bin Laden should be brought to justice and tried in an American court, however that goes hand in hand with correcting the USG's foreign policy. I apologize for those who died in 9/11, because they must be rolling in their graves from all the vengence thats being done, if not in their name, than in the name of security.

Al Qaeda is more like a corporation of holy war than a hate group. They're all about raising money and building support for their cause. They don't really hate Americans as people, besides some natural dislike and willingness to kill Americans as if they were stupid sheep, but they're fighting a religious war against us. Hardline orthodox Islam has a Jihad clause, which basically comes down to, "we defend muslims and muslim ancestral lands from outsiders." Osama is a religious idealist, who is all about fighting off all enemies of muslims and trying to build a united middle east that is ruled through fundamentalism. This basically amounts to everything bad and oppressive you've heard about being ruled by a fundamentalist Christian government.

Osama needs to be removed, and Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, for the US to succede in its anti terror war. Not because he is wrong, but because he is your enemy, and if you know why he is, you'll be much better at fighting him. The same tactics you'd use against the KKK don't work here. The same tactics as Vietnam won't work. The US needs to build up international police connections and cooperate with the world to find them. Just laying about with a machine gun won't hurt them, but you may just find out you shot your self in the foot.

I'm not saying anything provocative here, I would think. Its just interesting how so many people have opinions, but they wouldn't listen to a well written opinion on the same subject. I pretty much agree completely with the leading authority on this subject, Peter Bergen. He wrote, Holy War Inc, he met Osama when he was young, he was one of the journalists who got to interview Osama before 9/11, and he is CNN's terrorism analyst.

"It is up to the one who is liable to suffer the most to learn from history. " When I read that, it sent chills up my spine, its like deja vu, thats probably what Osama Bin Laden would say in arabic about the deaths of those US citizens in 9/11 and in the bombings of US embassies and the USS Cole. You have the right sentiments, and I think its wicked fun to read your stuff, don't stop posting these articles. If we agree to disagree, fine, I'd be happy knowing some people here have read Holy War Inc and have given it consideration.

Yeah its pretty common for people to attribute all sorts of noble freedom fighter ideals to Osama, its natural for some people to project their personal issues against the US onto him. Its hard to avoid having one Osama supporter on a big site, after all millions of people in the middle east see him as a hero, the odds work out that you're probably going to have one rabid Osama supporter in addition to people who pin worthy causes onto him (as if he was some kind of socialist freedom fighter and revolutionary).
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
KB - Nicely written but more people would actually read all the way through it if you put it up on your own blog rather than in a comments section. This is Brad's blog so whatever he likes for comments is his business and all.. but just from my standpoint it is hard to avoid skipping over one *really* long comment like that in the middle of many other short and concise comments. (even though I mainly agree with your points)
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
At the risk of being redundant - AQ is rather like the pimple on the head of a problem - sqeeze the pimple, sure, but if you don't remove the irritant, another pimple will surely arise.

While I certainly understand Israel's position, I don't think their hands are all that clean either. Perhaps they feel they are - and perhaps actually they are - doing the best they can under trying circumstances. Still, I feel that this continued annexation is a provocation that will cause a lot more long-term harm, than whatever the short-term gains are of "Lebensraum" that the Israeli's enjoy from this policy.

I guess I'd get back to the dialogue bit - an acquintance of mine who works to help companies communicate more honestly - (and one of the 25,000 Canadian Vietnam vets -but that's an aside for a different day), says that the whole 9/11 conversation remains at a very superficial level. And as long as no one really cares much about the "WHY", then I'll suggest it (middle-east sponsored terror) will continue to be problematic for the US in particular.

I know the "Crush 'em like a bug" routine plays well with some, but if that's the limit of the policy to stop terrorism, then it's going to fail miserably. Just ask the Irish.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
KB here, I just got my account setup. Thanks for the tip greywar. I'll consider blogging a version of this. Yeah, I hope people read my comments even if they're long. Thanks for your compliment.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #22 By: RedLobster - 6/1/2004 11:33:57 PM
KB here, I just got my account setup. Thanks for the tip greywar. I'll consider blogging a version of this. Yeah, I hope people read my comments even if they're long. Thanks for your compliment.


I propose that RedLobster be banned simply because lobsters are not red unless they are cooked, and the state of Maine does a great injustice to its residents when it puts red lobsters on its lisense plates without showing the lobsters on a plate or in a big pot. This increases global idiocy, and global idiocy can only be destroyed through Stalinist government and the control of people's thoughts. Therefore, fire up the crematoriums, and lets eat lobster before throwing each other in.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW, there are no UN sanctions against Israel.

jeez ive either got to cut out the time travelling or quit revealing the future.

youre right of course. since israel wont sign the non-proliferation treaty or admit they have nuclear weapons, they arent subject to sanction.

i didnt mean to suggest there were specific sanctions against israel (even though thats pretty much what i said) but that as a beneficiary of us taxpayer dollars and a member of iaea, we should insist israel acknowledge its nuclear weapons development program and sign the treaty. its difficult to understand why the us not only tolerates--but actively funds and supports--israels continued defiant and dangerous refusal to act as anything but an outlaw state in this regard..
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Al Qaeda's position is not that Israel should be more benevolent.

i never said it was nor have i ever thought of israel as benevolent in any measure.