Scheuer on London Attack

[Grammatron]

You refer to appeasment. It is not a matter of 'appeasing' anyone, in WWII terms. Hitler was taking land and people over. Withdrawing troops from places they should not have been in the first place is a completely different matter. OBL doesn't rule these places either. He can cause terrorism, but I don't believe he would be accepted as any sort of popular ruler. Witness the recent fighting in Iraq between exremists Islamics and nationalists.

Then what exactly is your point? Aside from Iraq and to a much lesser extent Afghanistan, we didn't invade any other place and any troop bases that exist there are due to negotiation with the government.

Aside from some of the middle-east countries we also have troops in Italy, Germany, Japan and Korea and while some of the local] people protest them being there, it's as far as it goes. And if the change in those governments happens and they ask us to leave we would.

However, for some reasons you accept that our troops in the middle-east nations is some how a travesty and insult to those Muslim and this their attacks have meaning that should be looked into - that's preposterous.

 

[Grammatron]

We need to help NGOs provide for education and charity to the poor. We need to be seen as fighter for freedom and wealth not as oppressors.

CBL

The hijackers and many of these terrorist come from middle-class and up, not to mention the rich-boy OBL. And although I can't find the study at the moment, I recall that many suicide bombers are also educated middle-class. And support, in terms of the $$$, comes from the wealthy. Which makes the situation have very little to do with our image to the poor.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Grammatron
The hijackers and many of these terrorist come from middle-class and up, not to mention the rich-boy OBL. And although I can't find the study at the moment, I recall that many suicide bombers are also educated middle-class.

You are correct. I started to write about this in my last post but it got too wordy.

Young people everywhere tend to be idealistic. The rich young Arabs can see the poverty and injustice around them and, being idealistic, want to help. It is similar to western college students wanting to help the poor or young whites being involved in the civil right movement.

Additionally, the Arab economy are in shambles. There are not good jobs for many college graduates. These leave many of them underemployed or working for opression. All this leaves the middle class as another breeding ground for OBL.

They also suffer from the other oppression of the tyrants.

And support, in terms of the $$$, comes from the wealthy. Which makes the situation have very little to do with our image to the poor.

The Arabic terrorists groups are frequently the charitable groups as well. Most members of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Queda are helping the poor rather than killing. It is hard to say how much the wealthy are trying to give to the poor and how much to the murderers.

Also, some of the Arab tyrants (e.g. the Saudis) use religion as a way to distract from their own incompetence and actions. The Saudis were perfectly happy funding terrorists until 9/11. Even then they were not too opposed to terrorists. It was only when OBL started bombing them directly that the government really decided to crackdown.

One of the other points that Sheuer mentions is how OBL frames his rhetoric in religious terms that match the aspirations and desires of the oppressed which includes the middle class.

CBL

 

[zenith-nadir]

However, for some reasons you accept that our troops in the middle-east nations is some how a travesty and insult to those Muslim and this their attacks have meaning that should be looked into - that's preposterous.

It's called "Turnspeak".

"you attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you"

For example:

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

"But if the sword falls on the United States after 80 years, hypocrisy raises its head lamenting the deaths of these killers who tampered with the blood, honour, and holy places of the Muslims". - Osama bin Laden - in a BBC transcript October, 2001

Because America did "A" we were forced to do "B"...Because Britain has troops in Iraq we are forced to blow up buses and subways in London.

Some people are confused by this propaganda technique and actually accept these statements.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by ZN
Because America did "A" we were forced to do "B"...Because Britain has troops in Iraq we are forced to blow up buses and subways in London.

Some people are confused by this propaganda technique and actually accept these statements.

The west has troops in the Islamic world. The west help keeps tyrants in power. These are facts. OBL presents facts as indication that we are invading the Islamic world. It is not too much of a stretch.

Here is Wikipedia's description of defensive jihad:

There are two types of armed religious warfare in Islam, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad. Most Muslims consider armed struggle against foreign occupation or oppression by domestic government to be worthy of defensive jihad. Indeed, the Qur'an appears to require military defense of the besieged Islamic community.(My emphasis).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Once the actions of the western world are depicted as part of invasion, it is a requirement for all good Muslim to resist militarily. Not an option but a requirement. This is how OBL frames his fight and it is not a new idea. Here is Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti Abd al-Aziz Bin Bazz on the Afghanis' fight against the Soviet Union:

Jihad under this condition becomes Fard Ayn [personal religious obligation] upon the Muslims of the land which the Kuffar [infidels] have attacked

CBL

 

[CBL4]

Here is a quote from a Filipino Muslim web page:

The other duty, defensive jihad, is called Al Dafa'ah. Defending oneself being instinctive in man just as it is with animals, is not a unique duty like offensive jihad. Defensive jihad (Al-Jihad al-Dafa'ah) means expelling the Kuffar enemy aggressor who occupies their land. It is the most important of all the compulsory duties, that is, to fight to defend their Deen (way of life) and their honor

http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2001_1010_02.htm

Therefore, once OBL convinces Muslims that the western actions are an invasion, then the most important, compulsory duty for them is to actively, miliarily fight the west.

BTW, everyone quoted in this article disagree with OBL description that it is an invasion - at least from the Filipino POV.

CBL

 

[Grammatron]

The west has troops in the Islamic world. The west help keeps tyrants in power. These are facts. OBL presents facts as indication that we are invading the Islamic world. It is not too much of a stretch.
CBL

And yet he supported Taliban...I'm trying to see exactly what his "struggle" is aside from wanting more power.

 

[a_unique_person]

Then what exactly is your point? Aside from Iraq and to a much lesser extent Afghanistan, we didn't invade any other place and any troop bases that exist there are due to negotiation with the government.

That doesn't necessarily legitimise them, as the Saudi government is not democratic.

Aside from some of the middle-east countries we also have troops in Italy, Germany, Japan and Korea and while some of the local] people protest them being there, it's as far as it goes. And if the change in those governments happens and they ask us to leave we would.

You could just offer to leave? That would be the polite thing to do. You know what it's like when a guest stays to long. You yawn, say 'look at the time', etc, and hope they get the message. I mean, what are the bases in Italy and Germany for? The armed forces are desperate for manpower, I hear, yet they keep these bases open. The easiest way to get some extra manpower available would be to close them.

However, for some reasons you accept that our troops in the middle-east nations is some how a travesty and insult to those Muslim and this their attacks have meaning that should be looked into - that's preposterous.

I think it's an insult to the sovereignty of any nation to have a base on their country for no good reason. How many foriegn bases are their in the US?

 

[varwoche]

And yet he supported Taliban...I'm trying to see exactly what his "struggle" is aside from wanting more power.

Have you read Scheuer's definitive book on this topic?

He says, paraphrasing: OBL is devoutly pious, even humble. His extreme, fundamentalist views are/were in synch with the Taliban. He is truly a true believer, completely devoted to his extreme view of Islam. This is part of his charisma in the Muslim world, where to many he is a hero on a historic level.

This is all sourced up the ying-yang. I urge anyone interested in this topic to read the book.

 

[Bikewer]

I agree. I got it after listening to his interview on the Diane Rehm show right after the book came out.

At the time, the author was still being listed as "anonymous", even though he was on tour.... Claimed it was a conflict between the publisher and the CIA.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That doesn't necessarily legitimise them, as the Saudi government is not democratic.

Wow. I guess if we can disregard the wishes of non-democratic governments, then we don't need to worry anymore about what anyone thinks about Iraq, right?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think it's an insult to the sovereignty of any nation to have a base on their country for no good reason.

Why?

If the government agrees to it (and probably wants it, a military base being a powerful economic boost to the local economy) why would it be an insult to the nations soverignty?

This really just sounds like a pretext to rationalize terrorism.

 

[a_unique_person]

Wow. I guess if we can disregard the wishes of non-democratic governments, then we don't need to worry anymore about what anyone thinks about Iraq, right?

All I was saying was the the majority of Saudi's may view the presence of US troops in US bases on their soil differently to their unrepresentative rulers.

Why?

If the government agrees to it (and probably wants it, a military base being a powerful economic boost to the local economy) why would it be an insult to the nations soverignty?

This really just sounds like a pretext to rationalize terrorism.

There are better ways to boost your economy than have a US base next to you. It is the most often cited, and lamest, argument for a base I have heard.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I agree with AUP. Let's pull our bases out of Europe and put our resources toward the current war. Makes perfect sense.

Why not?

In Germany, where 30,000 U.S. troops are expected to wave good-bye in the re-deployment, many communities that will be hit by the decision have slammed the cuts, warning they would send many regions to the edge of economic disaster. The politicians, however, have been doing their best to hide their displeasure.

US Troop Withdrawal Raises Concerns

 

[Chaos]

Wow. I guess if we can disregard the wishes of non-democratic governments, then we don't need to worry anymore about what anyone thinks about Iraq, right?

Wow. Now I´d like you to tell me real fast why you think that Germany, France etc. are non-democratic.

 

[Grammatron]

All I was saying was the the majority of Saudi's may view the presence of US troops in US bases on their soil differently to their unrepresentative rulers.

Didn't we close those bases?

There are better ways to boost your economy than have a US base next to you. It is the most often cited, and lamest, argument for a base I have heard.

There's a nobel prize just waiting for you AUP.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

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

If this is true, perhaps there is a reason why the Swedes have not been attacked, as surely they embody the values you claim are hated.

And will you destroy the terrorists in the way that has already been so successful in Iraq? Or in Afghanistan, where Osama Bin Laden has yet to be brought to justice? Perhaps you just mean destroying the terrorist you don't like? For example Donald Rumsfeld helped maintain Saddam Hussein in power when he knew Hussein was terrorising his people.

Interestingly, terrorists have ended up in power in Northern Ireland and in many other places around the world including Israel and South Africa. Are you confident it will not happen again, whether you like it or not?

 

[a_unique_person]

Didn't we close those bases?

[/b]

 

[epepke]

Didn't we close those bases?[/B]

Yes, more than two years ago.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The west has troops in the Islamic world. The west help keeps tyrants in power. These are facts. OBL presents facts as indication that we are invading the Islamic world. It is not too much of a stretch.

The point I am making is that OBL uses "the west" as the cause why he sends people to fly planes into buildings or the cause for why subways and buses are blowing up in Europe. It's called "Turnspeak". You attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you. For instance;

Some Arabs Debate Where to Place Blame - Fri Jul 8, 2005 - Associated Press

CAIRO, Egypt - Islamic leaders condemned the London bombings, though many on Friday insisted the United States and Britain, with their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are ultimately to blame for fueling militant violence.

What a load of dog doo....If I follow that logic then banks ultimately are to blame for being robbed and women are ultimately to blame for being raped. Those two statements are no different than "the United States and Britain ultimately to blame for fueling militant violence".

People actually believe turnspeak because it is an effective propaganda technique. I on the other hand am not stupid and realize that the United States and Britain freed millions of muslims from Saddam's cruel tyranny and Afghani muslims from the fundamentalist Taliban. The militant violence is fueled by islamic militant leaders, their muslim clerics, financial backers and supporters. Period.

Once you take the turnspeak out of the rhetoric the onus for the terror falls squarely upon the perpetrators of the acts and not upon it's victims.


[edited to add]

Muslims Pray for London Bombing Victims - Jul 9, 2005 - ABC NEWS

Muslim clerics around the world used Friday prayers to condemn the London bombings and the suspected links to Islamic terrorists, but many layered their messages with outcry against perceived Western injustices that feed Muslim anger.

The chain of blasts in central London once again put Muslim leaders in a double-edged position: denouncing bloodshed and terrorism while trying to offer some explanations for the growth of Islamic militancy led by the U.S.-directed occupation of Iraq and Western support for Israel.

Turnspeak. You attack someone and then turn it around 180 degrees and claim they attacked you. The buses and subways blew up in London because of perceived Western injustices...Muslims are angry because of perceived Western injustices, such as the "U.S.-directed occupation of Iraq and Western support for Israel".

Ergo what should really stop the terrorism and militancy would be for millions of Iraqi muslims to have remained under Saddams harsh dictatorship and for the US to let the arabs destroy Israel. Now that would stop all that nasty militancy and terror... ...

 

[a_unique_person]

Yes, more than two years ago.

That's right, the war in Iraq was started using them. That's improved the WOT no end.