Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Al-Qaeda's Next Generation

oi2002

New Member
Mike Scheuer ex-head of Langley's Bin Laden unit on AQ II: less visible and more lethal.
Despite satellites, electronic intercept equipment, and expanding human intelligence, the West does not understand al-Qaeda the way it knew the Soviet Union. Transnational targets are substantially more difficult collection targets than nation-states. We are, for example, unlikely to build an accurate al-Qaeda order-of-battle or recruit assets to penetrate the al-Qaeda equivalent of Moscow's politburo. As a result, Western analysts must closely track broad trends within al-Qaeda and its allies, and the trends toward greater piety, professionalism, numbers and modernity merit particular attention.

Well most of Bin Ladin's crew were amatuers and fools but so were PIRA in the early 70s. By the late 80s PIRA were world class terrorists and the Jihadis have a recruitment area of 1.4 billion rather than half a milion and if anything a rather more realistic agenda. This is just beginning.
 
Too right. Everyone's citing Jason Burke these days, but he seems on the money to me: al-Queda is an *idea,* not an organization. Since that idea is that the Umma is under attack by infidels and therefore all individual Muslims have a duty to defend it by any means necessary, its hard to deny that it has some plausibility...
 
Hardly a minority position; John Simpson wrote the same thing on the BBC site recently, and all the stuff about "franchises" from the US, even though inevitably expressed in the market of the language, indicates that there is no real "al Qaeda", just an idea that can be picked up by anyone who is attracted to it. Actually it's running behind things like the ALF and ELF, who've been doing that for a while, though obviously not killing nearly as many people or indeed anyone at all.

It's only in the idiot propaganda that we continue to see the concept of al Qaeda as an actual organisation with a chain of command and so on.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
It's only in the idiot propaganda that we continue to see the concept of al Qaeda as an actual organisation with a chain of command and so on.

That's right. The interesting question is: whose interests does this propaganda serve? Who *wants* us to believe that al-Queda is an "organization" that could be defeated by military aggression?
 
Well, that's an easy one isn't it? Who wants to use military aggression against whichever targets they pick in the Middle East, on their say-so?

To an extent it is in the interests of those subscribing to the "al Qaeda position" to portray themselves as more organised than they are, but not to the same degree; they are better off portraying themselves as the voice of the Umma, everywhere but not dependent on one leader or organisation.
 
The Belgravia Dispatch on the growing influence of Al-Suri's Dawaa lil Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah al-Alamiyyah.
Al-Suri is easily one of the most talented terrorists still active in al-Qaeda, a lethal combination of a terrorist and scholar. In Afghanistan, he served as senior explosives instructor but also delivered many lectures on jihad, strategy, religion, and indoctrination to recruits. Many of his Afghan lectures are posted on his website as video or audio files and many of these ideas appeal in his book. He seems to retain the patient character of the first generation of al-Qaeda leadership and unlike second or third generation leaders active in Iraq and Saudi Arabia prefers to act according to a deliberate and well-organized plan. In his 9-page open letter to the US State Department in November 2004 as well as in his book and lectures, he has taken on innovative positions and even engaged in constructive criticism towards bin Laden. More pragmatic than others as far as assistance from "infidels" is concerned, he has expressed willingness to ally with Iran and North Korea against the US. He has no anti-Shi'ite sentiments and has apparently made a deliberate decision to refrain from being active in the Iraqi insurgency. His pragmatism may derive from his family's Sufi background, while he prefers terrorism carried out by small cells of elite fighters to an insurgency according to his writings, which may explain in part his absence from Iraq.
 
This sort of Islamic extremism, personified by Bin Laden seems to be winning the ideological battle amongst poor and middle class Muslims at the expense of left wing or nationalist ideologies. Why is that? Is it it becasue they've delivered
military victory in places such as Lebanon against the Israeli's or Afghanistan against the Soviet Union? Or is it because it appeals to their sense of traditional values, whereas the competing beliefs encourage such things which are alien to most of the Muslim world such as gay rights?
 
The problem of tracking down al-Qaeda is in the very nebulousness of it's nature. It has only one point of commonality 'Islam'. We can't even say that it's agendas are to eliminate the Western way of life and values, as it is also engaged in conflict in many other areas through it's affiliate and 'autonomous' groups.

Most counter-terrorist organisations are just that, 'organisations'; what they are up against is much less so.

peppery - 'Bin Laden's' greatest asset (aside from American Foreign Policy), is the very nature of traditional Islam itself. It is a holistic view of life that is simple and certain in it's core message, it also excuses almost anything against non Muslims so long as it is in the name of Allah and the Great Jihad and is viewed as furthering the aim of an Islamic World. This view of things is carried over to seeing fellow Muslims who do not fit their particular brand of Islam as being apostates and therefore fair game to recieve 'Allah's Vengence/Mercy/Justice' or whatever.

The biggest danger is that most of those on Capitol Hill are abysmally ignorant of the true nature of the beast with many heads that is Islamic fundamentalist, traditionalist al-Qaeda. We are involved and engaged in a second 'Battle of the Trench', whether we like it or not, and this time we had better win. It is a myth that Mohammed was merciful to Jews, Christians and other 'Infidels' - they essentially had three choices, conversion, servitude/submission or death. It is against this background that the poor and middle class among Allah's chosen become suicide bombers and executioners.

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam16.htm

Take away trad. Islam and we have no al-Qaeda. Coca Cola and KFC is the longer term answer. I believe there is a publication that goes into this issue - can't remember the title though.
 
FruitandNut said:
Take away trad. Islam and we have no al-Qaeda. Coca Cola and KFC is the longer term answer.
I disagree - as long as the middle east is expolited and attacked (culturally and physically) by the West there will be political violence and extremism.

To engage with others "culturally" (Coca Cola and KFC) is a subtle and long term process that requires diplomacy and tact - two words that do not exist in dictionaries of USA' admin. or that of MNC's (multinationalcorps).
 
Posted this before but here goes again...it's worth reading trust me!

Good book:

Terror Inc: Tracing The Money Behind Global Terrorism

Overview of the book

And for those who want the short and snappy overview:

Did you know…?

1. The ‘New Economy of Terror’ is worth $1.5 trillion – that’s twice the entire GDP of the UK.
2. Terrorism is funded through both illegal activity such as drugs, arms, gems and people smuggling, as well as through entirely legal operations from charities to legitimate business.
3. In 2001 alone, the IRA raised $7 million through criminal activity.
4. The smuggling of narcotics generates a turnover of around $400 billion a year.
5. Of this $400 billion, as little as $1.4billion stays in the country of origin.
6. The smuggling of people, weapons and other goods totals $100 billion.
7. In Pakistan, a legally bought 21-inch Sony TV cost around $500. An illegally smuggled one cost 25% less.
8. One of Osama bin Laden’s most profitable businesses is his Gum Arabic Company Ltd in Sudan – gum arabic is a substance used to stop sediment forming in soft drinks and to create a protective shell around sweets and pills. Gum Arabic Company Ltd supplies 80 per cent of the world’s demand for this product.
9. In 2001, about $68 billion were given in aid to countries which produce drugs such as Afghanistan, or are drug transhipment points such as Chechnya. The bulk of this money never reached the needy, but went to sustain the drugs, smuggling and terror industries, which in turn shipped or spent the profits outside the country of origin.
10. The budget to carry out the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre was only $500,000.
More

Also there's this...

A related paper by the same author
 
niksativa said:
I disagree - as long as the middle east is expolited and attacked (culturally and physically) by the West there will be political violence and extremism.

I've been to the ME a few times and to be honest it isn't the West screwing the poor it's the ruling elite. However; if anyone thinks being ruled by a different set of dictators is going to help ...
 
niksativa said:
I disagree - as long as the middle east is expolited and attacked (culturally and physically) by the West there will be political violence and extremism.

To engage with others "culturally" (Coca Cola and KFC) is a subtle and long term process that requires diplomacy and tact - two words that do not exist in dictionaries of USA' admin. or that of MNC's (multinationalcorps).

BTW I did mention AFP at the beginning of my discourse on 'Bin Laden' to pepper.

Perhaps if there had been no oil, then the West would have left Abdullah on his camel tending his goats and date palms, contemplating his Moon God and obeying his feudal lords, the Sheiks. (Who would not have most of their palaces, or any of their jet planes, floating 'gin palaces' or Rolls Royces and Caddies.) Also their armaments would have likely stayed as match and flintlocks and we wouldn't be bothered by AK47s and Semtex.

ps. 'Abdullah' means 'slave of Allah' and was Mohammed's father's name, a dedication to Allah the Moon God before the advent of Mohammed and his 'creation' of Islam.
 
FruitandNut said:
The problem of tracking down al-Qaeda is in the very nebulousness of it's nature. It has only one point of commonality 'Islam'. We can't even say that it's agendas are to eliminate the Western way of life and values, as it is also engaged in conflict in many other areas through it's affiliate and 'autonomous' groups.

Most counter-terrorist organisations are just that, 'organisations'; what they are up against is much less so.

peppery - 'Bin Laden's' greatest asset (aside from American Foreign Policy), is the very nature of traditional Islam itself. It is a holistic view of life that is simple and certain in it's core message, it also excuses almost anything against non Muslims so long as it is in the name of Allah and the Great Jihad and is viewed as furthering the aim of an Islamic World. This view of things is carried over to seeing fellow Muslims who do not fit their particular brand of Islam as being apostates and therefore fair game to recieve 'Allah's Vengence/Mercy/Justice' or whatever.

The biggest danger is that most of those on Capitol Hill are abysmally ignorant of the true nature of the beast with many heads that is Islamic fundamentalist, traditionalist al-Qaeda. We are involved and engaged in a second 'Battle of the Trench', whether we like it or not, and this time we had better win. It is a myth that Mohammed was merciful to Jews, Christians and other 'Infidels' - they essentially had three choices, conversion, servitude/submission or death. It is against this background that the poor and middle class among Allah's chosen become suicide bombers and executioners.

http://www.letusreason.org/Islam16.htm

Take away trad. Islam and we have no al-Qaeda. Coca Cola and KFC is the longer term answer. I believe there is a publication that goes into this issue - can't remember the title though.


Being a muslim myself i can tell you that you're spouting crap about my religion. Muslims aren't allowed to attack unless its in self defence. Killing an innocent is considered a sin. You sound like a fundamentalist christian propagandist who doesn't understand Islam at all. Rather you fear it and try to discredit it using distortions and lies becasue you fear the rate at which Islam is growing compared to your own religion. You're scared that it will be the dominaent religion in future. As for your illiterate rubbish about the moon
god, Allah was a term used by Christians and Jews in the Arabian peninsula, its root being the Hebrew term Eloha meaning 'the deity'. Your offensive racial stereotyping of Arabs as goat or camel herders shows the depth of your contempt for them as a race.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
"Moon god" eh?

Interesting choice of terminology. Where did you first come across it if you don't mind me asking?

I can't remember the first time I heard it mentioned, but it was some years back now. For some time I have been interested in comparative religion and have studied Islam with some intensity, particularly since living for a while in Malaya and in view of what has been going on and intensifying around the world. I number among my friends 'progressive' Muslims who are willing to debate their religious views, rather than come out with mantras that are often couched in double-speak. I they feel that my understanding of Allah and 'his' origins is not deviod of merit. I remember wondering about the crescent moon that is a prominent badge of Islam, and the up to three stars that represent 'his' daughters. The Hajj is performed in much the same way as it was around the pagan temple on the site of the present day Ka'bah which was also known by the same name. The 'Moon God' was the major deity among about 350 or so pagan gods at the time. It appears that Mohammed's family's particular devotion was to this Moon God, one of his uncles in addition to his father had Abdullah figure among his names. At some stage, and for 'what ever' reason Mohammed appears to have focussed on Allah (which means 'god', but can also refer to the senior among gods) the 'Moon' god to whom the Ka'bah was particularly dedicated and do away with the others.

There has been much that is suspect and biased on the topic, web sites are filled with a variety of hypotheses, but I think you may find the following site a reasonable one.
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/allahs_identity.htm

ps. peppery - Ah, yes, Mohammed and his later followers truly bussied themselves defending their way into cities and lands all over the Middle East and beyond. They defended themselves when they slaughtered prisoners and cast others into slavery and usary. Yeh, I suppose the best form of defense is attack then? Honestly, there is so much ignorance and differing interpretation. Most of what western Muslims are fed these days is a concentration of Muslim 'benevolence' to Muslims. That Allah is indeed 'merciful'. But it all seems to break down when Sunnis see Shiites as apostates and inter sect violence breaks out, even to the bombing of the other's mosques. As the Bible says in a general reference, 'They have eyes and see not'. It is all too easy to see only that which we want to see. In my case it is truth I search for, therefore I question even my own religion and have reservations and unanswered questions as a consequence. Fundamentalists accept that which is fed to them and often fear to question too hard.
 
FruitandNut said:
I can't remember the first time I heard it mentioned, but it was some years back now. For some time I have been interested in comparative religion and have studied Islam with some intensity, particularly since living for a while in Malaya and in view of what has been going on and intensifying around the world. I number among my friends 'progressive' Muslims who are willing to debate their religious views, rather than come out with mantras that are often couched in double-speak. I they feel that my understanding of Allah and 'his' origins is not deviod of merit. I remember wondering about the crescent moon that is a prominent badge of Islam, and the up to three stars that represent 'his' daughters. The Hajj is performed in much the same way as it was around the pagan temple on the site of the present day Ka'bah which was also known by the same name. The 'Moon God' was the major deity among about 350 or so pagan gods at the time. It appears that Mohammed's family's particular devotion was to this Moon God, one of his uncles in addition to his father had Abdullah figure among his names. At some stage, and for 'what ever' reason Mohammed appears to have focussed on Allah (which means 'god', but can also refer to the senior among gods) the 'Moon' god to whom the Ka'bah was particularly dedicated and do away with the others.

There has been much that is suspect and biased on the topic, web sites are filled with a variety of hypotheses, but I think you may find the following site a reasonable one.
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/allahs_identity.htm

You claim to have studied Islam and yet you state that it excuses anything against non muslims, which if you really had studied Islam you would have known is crap. And what on earth is 'the great Jihad'?? You an illiterate who quotes verbatim the crap you find on evangelical christian sites. Prove me wrong??????
 
Well, I cut and pasted your phrase "allah the moon god" into google, just by way of an experiement. What came up was a great deal of extremely bigoted christian fundamentalism. Pages and pages of it, mostly real chick-tract stuff.

I didn't see anything that looked remotely like a credible academic paper, which is what I'd expect to find some trace of, if that view was current anyplace except among fundamentalist christians. I've certainly only seen that particular phraseology used in places like "Free Republic".

Now I know this doesn't prove anything in particular, but if you do have some peer-reviewed research papers in comparative religion or some similar field that you can link to, I'd be quite interested to see them.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well, I cut and pasted your phrase "allah the moon god" into google, just by way of an experiement. What came up was a great deal of extremely bigoted christian fundamentalism. Pages and pages of it, mostly real chick-tract stuff.

I didn't see anything that looked remotely like a credible academic paper, which is what I'd expect to find some trace of, if that view was current anyplace except among fundamentalist christians. I've certainly only seen that particular phraseology used in places like "Free Republic".

Now I know this doesn't prove anything in particular, but if you do have some peer-reviewed research papers in comparative religion or some similar field that you can link to, I'd be quite interested to see them.
I've only ever seen it in those contexts too - well, also in the context of debunking it, I was reading something recently indicating that it was nonsense. Combine that with "Abdullah on his camel" and the usual "Islam: Religion Of HATE!!!" stuff that seems to have popped up and, well....
 
Meanwhile back on topic, I was interested by this analysis in oi2002's first link above.
At the basic level, the steady pace of Islamist insurgencies around the world—Iraq, Chechnya and the northern Caucasus, southern Thailand, Mindanao, Kashmir and Afghanistan—and the incremental "Talibanization" of places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and northern Nigeria, ensure a bountiful new mujahideen generation. Less-tangible factors will also contribute to this bounty.

-Osama bin Laden remains the unrivaled hero and leader of Muslim youths aspiring to join the mujahideen. His efforts to inspire young Muslims to jihad against the U.S.-led West seem to be proving fruitful.

-Easily accessible satellite television and Internet streaming video will broaden Muslim youths' perception that the West is anti-Islamic. U.S. public diplomacy cannot negate the impressions formed by real-time video from Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan that shows Muslims battling "aggressive" Western forces and validating bin Laden‘s claim that the West intends to destroy Islam.

-The adoption of harsher anti-terror laws in America and Europe, along with lurid stories about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, and the handling of the Qur'an will give credence to bin Laden's claim that the West is persecuting Muslims.

-The ongoing "fundamentalization" of the two great, evangelizing monotheist religions will enhance an environment already conducive to Islamism. The growth of Protestant evangelicalism in Latin America, and the aggressive, "church militant" form of Roman Catholicism in Africa, has and will revitalize the millennium-old Islam-vs.-Christianity confrontation, creating a sense of threat and defensiveness on each side.

Compounding the threat posed by the next, larger generation is the possibility that analysts underestimated the first generation's size. Western leaders have consistently claimed large al-Qaeda-related casualties; currently, totals range from 5,000-7,000 fighters and two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership. If the claims are accurate, we should ponder whether the West has ever fought a "terrorist group" that can lose 5,000-7,000 fighters, dozens of leaders, and still be assessed militarily potent and perhaps WMD-capable? The multiple captures of al-Qaeda's "third-in-command"—most recently Abu Ashraf al-Libi—and the remarkable totals of "second- and third-in-commands" from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's organization suggests the West's accounting of Islamist manpower—at the foot soldier and leadership levels—is, at best, tenuous.
source

To my mind, this suggests that security professionals in the west are quite appalled by the size and potential to spread, of the fires of fear and bigotry that various kinds of political and religious opportunists have been incautiously playing around with for the last few decades.
 
There is a passive Jihad and a violent Jihad, I have read Qu'ranic texts, translations by Muslims. I do not just take on board bullshit, 'though there is much bullshit around. I look at the life of Mohammed and find him a rather grim, violent character who had some 'interesting' ideas in regard to women and girls. I have read this stuff in translations of the texts by practising Muslim scholars. Mohammed 'the nice guy' is in large part true so long as you saw things his way.

Cry bullshit all you like. :rolleyes:

ps. If enough followers of whatever ideology or religion can be convinced of the CERTAINTY of going to a 'better' place I would imagine most would be prepared to fight away and follow the guidance of their leaders.

The nearest modern equivalent we have to go on is the Banzai and Kamikazi of Nipponese troops in WWII.
 
FruitandNut said:
There is a passive Jihad and a violent Jihad, I have read Qu'ranic texts, translations by Muslims. I do not just take on board bullshit, 'though there is much bullshit around. I look at the life of Mohammed and find him a rather grim, violent character who had some 'interesting' ideas in regard to women and girls. I have read this stuff in translations of the texts by practising Muslim scholars. Mohammed 'the nice guy' is in large part true so long as you saw things his way.
That's putting it in the most crude and simplistic terms possible frankly and ignores the contexts in which Islam places diff areas of the world, and so what that means in each 'house'.
 
FruitandNut said:
'Bin Laden's' greatest asset (aside from American Foreign Policy), is the very nature of traditional Islam itself. It is a holistic view of life that is simple and certain in it's core message, it also excuses almost anything against non Muslims so long as it is in the name of Allah and the Great Jihad and is viewed as furthering the aim of an Islamic World.
Looked at historically the other peoples of the book were always second class citizens under Muslim rule but provided they paid their extra tithe to the state they had the protection of law, this can't be said of Jews in Europe who would wait a millenia to receive similar rights. The difference is entirely due to the Prophets general avoidance of dogmatic Christian anti-semitism as part of his new faith.

You have to read the both the Quran and the Hadith very selectively to justify currrent Jihadi actions you also have to ignore the analogies that have traditionally been draw from the bedrock of scripture by Muslim clerics and the current consensus of Muslim scholars. Unfortunately the Salafi movement, of which Bin Ladin is part, makes a practice of precisely this kind of theological cherry picking.

The Salafi includes quietist movements like the Tablighgi. Others like Hasan al-Banna who founded the Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood whose main thrust has always been to achieve change through mass politics. If we move even further from theological orthodoxy we find the Salafi Jihad; a rapidly growing fringe movement in the vast Umma.

A useful comparison would be the relationship between certain small revivalist Christian Churches and violent far right militias in the US. This marginal connection exists but has not lead many to condemn all Southern Baptists as murderous fanatics, demean American Protestants in general or blame messianic Christian theology for the KKK, the murder of abortionists, or the Oklahoma bombing. Anybody with some knowledge of Christianity's generally benign role in American society would find such suggestions truly ridiculous.

Conventional Islamic theology in fact presents many severe obstacles to the Salafi jihad whose main goal is the removal of existing Muslim governments by putsch, whose most favored tactic is the entirely heretical terrorist use of suicide bombers and whose victims are overwhelmingly fellow Muslims.

The largest of these is that since the begining of the first Caliphate both of the main Islamic traditions strongly condemn fitna (civil strife) within the Umma and it's only through Sayyid Outb's use of the very dubious concept of the state as jahiliyya (having reverted to pre-Islamic practices) that revolt against Muslim rulers is sanctioned.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab the iconoclastic founder of Wahhabism used the charge of jahiliyya to justify the assault by the house of Saud on neighboring Muslims which lead to destruction of many Muslim holy places including the tomb of the Prophet itself and the massacre of the Muslim population of the holy cities. This was only halted by the Ottomans intervening to stop the slaughter. The Wahhabi have been regarded as apostates by most of the Umma ever since.

The Prophets theology leaves no room for Muslims making war on each other. The concept of jahiliyya dates back to fatwas issued by ibn Taymiyya in the 13th century to permit Muslims to resist invasion by Mongols who had recently converted to Islam but obeyed Sharia imperfectly. It's very clear that despite being frequently imprisoned by his Mamaluke rulers ibn Taymiyya never intended his fatwas to justify the toppling of Muslim governments.
 
oi2002 said:
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab the iconoclastic founder of Wahhabism used the charge of jahiliyya to justify the assault by the house of Saud on neighboring Muslims which lead to destruction of many Muslim holy places including the tomb of the Prophet itself and the massacre of the Muslim population of the holy cities. This was only halted by the Ottomans intervening to stop the slaughter. The Wahhabi have been regarded as apostates by most of the Umma ever since.

The Prophets theology leaves no room for Muslims making war on each other. The concept of jahiliyya dates back to fatwas issued by ibn Taymiyya in the 13th century to permit Muslims to resist invasion by Mongols who had recently converted to Islam but obeyed Sharia imperfectly. It's very clear that despite being frequently imprisoned by his Mamaluke rulers ibn Taymiyya never intended his fatwas to justify the toppling of Muslim governments.

However, the concept of jahiliyya does logically lead to that of takfir - that is excommunication, which them allows (or even demands) war on those expelled...
 
First two don't work, third one goes directly back to the same evangelical sites...

And yes that is a good book.

edit: first one works now, no mention of moon as far as i can see...

second one - no mention of moon god and links directly back to evangelicals...albeit formally secular anti-islam ones... (another edit) but certainly with an interesting persepective
 
They do now.

ps. Yeh, an evangelical Buddhist, can't have that. Only evangelical Islamists allowed, tut, tut, my mistake. ;)

ps. oi2002 - Islam 'progressives' also cherry pick, indeed it is very difficult, nay impossible for any of us in the absence of complete knowledge and non-bais to entirely avoid doing it ourselves. :confused: :)

Life is noisey with the sound of cherry picking, some are better at it than others.
 
FruitandNut said:
They do now.

ps. Yeh, an evangelical Buddhist, can't have that. Only evangelical Islamists allowed, tut, tut, my mistake. ;)
Nah, his/her links on the moon god thing go to christian evangelical sites - that's what i meant, not he s/he is...

...and if you think that i'm a friend of Islam you need to ask around...
 
Back
Top Bottom