Scheuer on London Attack

[CBL4]

Michael Scheuer has written about Al Queda's intent in Through our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris (which coincidentally is the our book club selection of the month.)

Here is Juan Cole's description of Scheuer's views:

[Scheuer] found the statement issued by a "secret jihad" web site similar in form and content to typical al-Qaeda communiques, including the threats against other countries (Italy and Denmark). He was sure this was an al-Qaeda operation.

He noted that Bin Laden had called off any ceasefire and had several times threatened to hit the United Kingdom.

He said that "chickens were coming home to roost" for US and UK politicians who had obscured the nature of the al-Qaeda struggle by maintaining that the organization attacks the West because "they hate our values."

Scheuer believes that al-Qaeda is an insurgent ideology focused on destroying the United States and its allies, because its members believe that the US is trying to destroy them. Al-Qaeda members see the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinians, backed by the US; US support for military regimes like those of Pakistan and Egypt; and US military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of a US onslaught on Islam and Muslims aimed at reducing them to neo-colonial slavery. That is, specific Western policies are the focus of al-Qaeda response, not a generalized "hatred" of "values."

Scheuer opposes any attempt to configure the struggle against al-Qaeda as simple crime-fighting. He believes that they must be addressed through a thorough-going counter-insurgency effort.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/implications-of-london-bombing-attack.html

One clarification: The phrase "chickens were coming home to roost" is not implying that the US and UK have acted immorally but rather it iis in regards to their incompetence.

CBL

 

[Grammatron]

Michael Scheuer has written about Al Queda's intent in Through our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris (which coincidentally is the our book club selection of the month.)

Here is Juan Cole's description of Scheuer's views:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/implications-of-london-bombing-attack.html

One clarification: The phrase "chickens were coming home to roost" is not implying that the US and UK have acted immorally but rather it iis in regards to their incompetence.

CBL

The reasons always seem to be changing which make them meaningless. First Osama only wanted US out of Saudi Arabai, then middle east, then suddenly he started carring about Palestinians.

Then other terrorist had some other demands, such as the scarf thing in France.

Or when Taliban destroyed those gian Buddha statues in Afghanistan, what does that have to do with western values? It just makes it more appearent they do, on some general level despire any way of life that is not theirs, and see it as a threat that must be delt with.

 

[Manny]

They absolutely hate us for our values. They are correct, though, that we are trying to destroy them. We will destroy them.

And for the benefit of any potential jihadis who might come across this thread and are angry about our friendship with Israel: Get over it. We will always be friends with Israel. Israel will always exist on the land it occupies today, subject to a 1-2% revision if the Palestinians ever get their act together enough to earn nationhood. Five billion years from now the sun will have exhausted its hydrogen and begin to collapse. As the last spaceships take us off this rock and away to the stars, a major concern will be 'where will we put Israel and how will we protect her?' Here are your choices. Live with it. Die with it.

 

[CBL4]

Scheuer makes a cogent argument for his views and he restrict it to the actions of OBL and Al Queda not terrorists in general. He has lots of quotes from OBL's speeches and Al Queda web sites.

OBL always mentions the affect of specific US (and western) actions on Muslims not our actions within our own countries. The US involvement in Saudi Arabia, Palestine/Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc can easily be construed as pieces of a general invasion of the Muslim world. This is how OBL phrases it and why he uses the word "crusader."

OBL takes the Islamic concept of defensive jihad as a method to get downtrodden Muslims angry at the west. But it always in response to actions that affect Muslims not because of our internal values.

The French scarf ban could be also be portrayed as an attack on Islam. (Is Al Queda is involved in these protests?)

The Taliban destruction of the Bhudda statues was deplorable but it was an internal action not part of the attack on the west. The Taliban had many such actions which are not part of their support of terrorism.

CBL

 

[CBL4]

They absolutely hate us for our values. They are correct, though, that we are trying to destroy them. We will destroy them.

If it is for a values, then why did they choose Spain, Australia and the UK instead of France, Germany or Sweden? All these government are firm supporters of the "crusader" (US). They may hate our values but they leave alone westerners who leave them alone.

Your comments about destroying them are instructive. It is inevectives like that help OBL recruit. I am not disagreeing with your hatred or most of the US actions. I support Israel and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (at the time.) I am just saying that they are used as recruiting tools.

Scheuer presents OBL as an effective, rational fanatic not a hate-crazed loon. He takes OBL at his word. Many Muslims agree with his words if not always his actions.

CBL

 

[Manny]

If it is for a values, then why did they choose Spain, Australia and the UK instead of France, Germany or Sweden? All these government are firm supporters of the "crusader" (US). They may hate our values but they leave alone westerners who leave them alone.

Priorities. You can't hit everyone. I will note that al qaeda has carried out attacks against the French in Pakistan, against Saudi Arabia, in Bali, and elsewhere.

Your comments about destroying them are instructive. It is inevectives like that help OBL recruit. I am not disagreeing with your hatred or most of the US actions. I support Israel and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (at the time.) I am just saying that they are used as recruiting tools.

I understand. Surely the allies' insistence on unconditional surrender was helpful in gettiing Japan to recruit kamikazi pilots. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have insisted on it or not said so.

Scheuer presents OBL as an effective, rational fanatic not a hate-crazed loon. He takes OBL at his word.

To be clear, so do I. He wanted us off of Saudi Arabia not because of geopolitical considerations but because the mere presence of decadant westerners on the holy land is a desecration in his eyes, for example. I believe that he believes that even the extreme Wahibbism of Saudi Arabia is illegitimate because it consorts with the west and because it partially suspended Shari'a law in favor of civil law. I believe him when he says that the worst day in history was when Ataturk secularized Turkey.

 

[Grammatron]

If it is for a values, then why did they choose Spain, Australia and the UK instead of France, Germany or Sweden? All these government are firm supporters of the "crusader" (US). They may hate our values but they leave alone westerners who leave them alone.

Your comments about destroying them are instructive. It is inevectives like that help OBL recruit. I am not disagreeing with your hatred or most of the US actions. I support Israel and the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (at the time.) I am just saying that they are used as recruiting tools.

Scheuer presents OBL as an effective, rational fanatic not a hate-crazed loon. He takes OBL at his word. Many Muslims agree with his words if not always his actions.

CBL

Oh sure there's a method to his madness, it's still madness. And if we magically complied with what he wants now, he will inform us that it was only the begining and we should really leave such ancient muslim lands like Spain alone as well.

 

[Ed]

The Taliban destruction of the Bhudda statues was deplorable but it was an internal action not part of the attack on the west. The Taliban had many such actions which are not part of their support of terrorism.

CBL

Disagree. They were attacking the West's values sure as if they had taken a hatchet to the Mona Lisa. You may forget that western museums (including the Met) offered to remove the "offending" statues in toto and remove them to a safe haven. No skin off their ass to have accepted.

It seems that it is only when we deal with islamists that a different set of values apply. Culteral heritage is universal and such an act if perpetrated by a western country (or better yet, the US) would enjoy no such free pass as it being an "internal action" as if that really means anything.

 

[varwoche]

They absolutely hate us for our values.

Scheuer, who is arguably the world's leading expert on the topic, says they don't hate us for our values, and wrote a book explaining his viewpoint. (Which I read. Have you?)

Whereas Manny, an anonymous internet personna, says this is absolutely not the case -- not maybe, not probably, but absolutely -- and we're to take his word.

 

[a_unique_person]

They absolutely hate us for our values. They are correct, though, that we are trying to destroy them. We will destroy them.

And for the benefit of any potential jihadis who might come across this thread and are angry about our friendship with Israel: Get over it. We will always be friends with Israel. Israel will always exist on the land it occupies today, subject to a 1-2% revision if the Palestinians ever get their act together enough to earn nationhood. Five billion years from now the sun will have exhausted its hydrogen and begin to collapse. As the last spaceships take us off this rock and away to the stars, a major concern will be 'where will we put Israel and how will we protect her?' Here are your choices. Live with it. Die with it.

Attitudes like this just fill me with utter despair.

I have said before, we are re-creating WWI. It is attitudes such as this that led us to WWI.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Attitudes like this just fill me with utter despair.

How should that be interpreted except that you think the existence of Israel should be negotiable?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have said before, we are re-creating WWI. It is attitudes such as this that led us to WWI.

In what way?

 

[a_unique_person]

How should that be interpreted except that you think the existence of Israel should be negotiable?

I have said it a million times before, but for you, I will say it again. The occupation must end. All illegal settlments removed. That is not the 'existence' of Israel at issue.

In what way?

Imperialism. Starting wars on the other side of the globe.

 

[joe1347]

I don't believe that there's been a definitive/accurate explanation of OBL's motive(s). I've seen explanations ranging from a fuzzy "culture" war between Islam and the West (Hate focused) - to the more pragmatic thought that OBL "just" wants absolute control of the Middle East (i.e., the oil) as a 21st Century caliphate (Power focused). If someone has a book or link that helps explain OBL's motives - please share.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have said it a million times before, but for you, I will say it again. The occupation must end. All illegal settlments removed. That is not the 'existence' of Israel at issue.

Manny didn't say anything incompatable with "the occupation must end", when he said "the land it occupies today" it was quite clear he meant within the green line. Why should his words fill you with despair?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Imperialism. Starting wars on the other side of the globe.

How do you define "Imperialism"?

What are these paralells you see with WWII?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't believe that there's been a definitive/accurate explanation of OBL's motive(s). I've seen explanations ranging from a fuzzy "culture" war between Islam and the West (Hate focused) - to the more pragmatic thought that OBL "just" wants absolute control of the Middle East (i.e., the oil) as a 21st Century caliphate (Power focused). If someone has a book or link that helps explain OBL's motives - please share.

Join the book club and read "Imperial Hubris" by Michael Scheuer for one man's very well thought out opinion of why OBL does what he does.

 

[Skeptic]

Attitudes like this just fill me with utter despair.

Good.

 

[a_unique_person]

Manny didn't say anything incompatable with "the occupation must end", when he said "the land it occupies today" it was quite clear he meant within the green line. Why should his words fill you with despair?



How do you define "Imperialism"?

What are these paralells you see with WWII?

World War One. Imperialism leading to needless war.

Imperialism, projecting foreign power into sovereign countries.

 

[Bikewer]

Scheuer has some creds as the top analyst assigned to study Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for some ten years with the CIA.

His thoughts in Imperial Hubris seem pretty much on the money to me. I'm not as sure I agree with his reccomendations on how to conduct the war on terror, but it's pretty obvious that the way it's going now is not very effective.

Events such as this always stir up a hue and cry about "destroying Islam" and other such nonsense.

There are over a billion Muslims on the face of the Earth, representing nearly every nationality and ethnic group. The vast majority of these people entirely uninvolved in any sort of violent struggle.
There are as many sects, groups, and subdivisions of Islam as there are any other mainstream faith. Some are more "fundamentalist" than others, just like other religions.

The terrorist phenomena associated with Islam are as much political movements as religious. The motivations of Moro insurgents in the Philipines may be entirely different from those in Indonesia, who may in turn be quite different than the various Arab groups.

 

[Grammatron]

World War One. Imperialism leading to needless war.

Imperialism, projecting foreign power into sovereign countries.

Seems that's kind of what Osama and Al-Queda are doing more than us.

 

[a_unique_person]

Seems that's kind of what Osama and Al-Queda are doing more than us.

As I said, WWI. Both sides are to blame. I don't see OBL as a nice friendly guy who just needs a little love and understanding, but I don't see him as being the sole force driving us to the next world war, either.