Al-Qaeda's Next Generation

[FruitandNut]

They worked straight from Google!

 

[oi2002]

There is a passive Jihad and a violent Jihad, I have read Qu'ranic texts, translations by Muslims...

I'd agree with you that the Koran is austere and can hardly be described as progressive. I'm also told it can only really be understood in the Arabic which I don't have. But both parts of the Bible are essentially reactionary and excepting the the superb King James translation are a very dreary read.

Happy clappy Christianity has obscured that ultimately the New Testament is perhaps the bleakest of all; it's one long celebration of eager martrydom: Jesus offers no easy path to his followers and demands much more than the more worldly Mohammed. Submit and love Allah as the one God and live by these rules if you can is not like being told by a mad carpenter to pick up your cross and follow me.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So if we're actually discussing the next generation of recruits to this particular brand of fundamentalist muslim terrorism, I think it's reasonable to ask whether the sort of stuff that comes up when you put "allah the moon god" into a search engine is helpful or harmful.

My personal view is that it's positively harmful for a number of what are probably fairly obvious reasons, and that it too is on the increase globally, as it is being pushed by irresponsible but extremely well-funded US evangelicals who are pretty openly bent on some sort of "purifying" cultural warfare.

It seems fairly clear to me also that hatred feeds on hatred and bigotry on bigotry. So I think those pushing either sect's attempts to purify the world are not doing humanity any favours, because their activities just throw more fuel on the fire on both sides. All the anger that they generate is entirely servicable for their opposite numbers, because it breeds new recruits. This process, without some mechanism to slow it, is one of exponential growth.

There are other factors certainly. The people in the Reagan administration who thought it'd be a smart idea to wind up their very own jihad and point it at the Russians in Afghanistan weren't doing us any favours. Nor were the present Bush administration when they channeled the reaction of the US population to 911 into a new crusade. Nor, as that article at the head of the thread points out, are draconian domestic security measures likely to be a net benefit. I also think that when the US finally leaves Iraq, in one of those really embarassing scenes with marines hanging off the skids of the last helicopter that they seem to do whenever they invade anyplace tougher than grenada, that they'll be handing another massive recruitment boost to these nutcases.

It's a pretty nasty situation all around I think and I'm really very puzzled as to what would be a sensible course to take, assuming we had leaders who were prone to doing sensible things, which I beg leave to doubt.

 

[oi2002]

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...

I suspect, though I don't know, that the historical relationship is the other way round.

The first Caliph did declare war on some chaps who failed to pay Zakit which could be used as a precedent.

 

[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.

You're right there, this is a vast subject and I base my reading of Islam more on the history of Islamic states than any deep knowledge of Islamic theology.

Islamic progressives are pretty thin on the ground at the moment; conservatives are dominant.

 

[Jo/Joe]

Karen Armstrong is excellent. She recently explained how jihad can refer to a person's personal spiritual struggle, completely at odds with the casual use of the term in a military context.

 

[oi2002]

Scheuer interviewed about a month ago on Al Jaz:

I think you're right. There is a major discrepancy in our foreign policy in that we support many governments in the Muslim world that are dictatorships or police states, whether it's in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, and certainly that makes America look hypocritical. America was formed, and has had a history of destroying those types of countries. And I think there is a question that needs to be – there should be a question for Americans – about whether or not we should be supporting governments that are police states and dictatorships. It's always been hard for me to understand how we say people who supports Osama Bin Laden or someone else like him – who are willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia – how we can describe those people as people who hated freedom. It seems to me that their definition of freedom might be different than ours, but to oppose a dictatorship, one must want freedom in some kind of way.
...
Well I think we're clearly losing "the war on terror," if you will. I think it's probably misnamed. I think we're better off calling it a war against an Islamic insurgency rather than terror, and I argued in the book – and I maintain now – that we're losing it because we're not listening to what the enemy is saying. We continue to believe that somehow the Muslim world hates freedoms and liberties and equality in society, and that's clearly not the case. We're in this war because of the reaction in much of the Muslim world to U.S. foreign policies, and until we realize that we will not be able to take the measure of our enemy and fight this war...

I'm reminded of this:

The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgement that the statesman and Commander have to make is to establish...the kind of war on which they are embarking: neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.
- Karl von Clausewitz

 

[oi2002]

The Belgravia Dispatch on freedoms march and the Jihad.

1. Democracy is not a panacea for dealing with terrorism.

2. Extremists often fare quite well in emerging democracies by virtue of being the best-organized.

3. There is no silver bullet in dealing with the threat of Salafist terrorism and an in-depth plan is instead needed - Dr. Gunaratna provides one.

4. The US has little if any real support among the general populace of the Muslim world for reasons that well pre-date the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Our public diplomacy efforts for dealing with the general public rather than the governments of the Muslim world have been grossly ineffective and mostly non-existent.

5. This is a problem because al-Qaeda currently enjoys far more popular support than any earlier terrorist groups.

6. Setting up merely a democracy in the sense of voting and majority rule is pointless as far as preventing terrorism or political violence if the institutions needed for such a society to function or flourish do not exist or are not being respected.

7. The European Muslim population is attracted towards jihadi groups through a combination of the Middle Eastern political culture being imported to Europe and/or European governments being unwilling to deal with known Islamic radicals in their midst.

8. Democratization is effective with regard to dealing with state sponsors of terrorism since the issue there is one of state policy rather than popular support.

There are some rather strange assumptions in this post.

Finally, there is the issue of state sponsorship to consider. Here in my view is where the democratization argument makes the most sense, as an authoritarian state pursues terrorism as a matter of policy and then undergoes democratization is not likely to revive the practice. Iraq, for instance, is not going to reviving its support for the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, Hamas, or the Abu Nidal Organization at any point in the near future as a matter of state policy.

The future Iraq, even if democracy does take hold, is very likely to support Hezbollah and sympathise with the PLO and even Hamas rather than Israel.

Established democracies have a long history of involvement with terrorist groups. The US itself supported the Contras and currently supports both brutal anti-Farc paramilitaries and the Iranian dissident MEK that was probably responsible for the bombing wave during the Iranian election. The Israelis have always been prepared to use terrorist tactics as an arm of state. The French weren't adverse to bombing the rainbow warrior, and in Algeria in 62 the OSF was carrying out 300 bombings a day with the full cooperation French military.

 

[oi2002]

I've just read the actiual text of the recent letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi. Now this could be one big, very well made, fake but this is what I get out of it:

Zawahiri is worried that anti Shi'a bigotry will vanish with the Yanks and with it the popular base:

The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
...
This, in my limited opinion, is the reason for the popular support that the mujahedeen enjoy in Iraq, by the grace of God.

As for the sectarian and chauvinistic factor, it is secondary in importance to outside aggression, and is much weaker than it. In my opinion-which is limited and which is what I see far from the scene-the awakening of the Sunni people in Iraq against the Shia would not have had such strength and toughness were it not for the treason of the Shia and their collusion with the Americans, and their agreement with them to permit the Americans to occupy Iraq in exchange for the Shia assuming power.

He senses the Yanks are getting ready to tuck tail and urgently urges revolutionary preparation to move into the vacum.

...it doesn't appear that the Mujahedeen, much less the al-Qaida in the Land of Two Rivers, will lay claim to governance without the Iraqi people. Not to mention that that would be in contravention of the Shura methodology. That is not practical in my opinion.
...
My answer is, firstly: Things may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.

Second: This is the most vital part. This authority, or the Sharia amirate that is necessary, requires fieldwork starting now, alongside the combat and war. It would be a political endeavor in which the mujahedeen would be a nucleus around which would gather the tribes and their elders, and the people in positions, and scientists, and merchants, and people of opinion, and all the distinguished ones who were not sullied by appeasing the occupation and those who defended Islam. We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Taliban, who restricted participation in governance to the students and the people of Qandahar alone.
...
Therefore, I stress again to you and to all your brothers the need to direct the political action equally with the military action, by the alliance, cooperation and gathering of all leaders of opinion and influence in the Iraqi arena.

This is sage advice the great weakness of the rebellion is the lack of a coherrent political scheme. The Salafi Jihad in Iraq has a narrow base but is disciplined and the political field amongst the Sunni looks ripe for revolution. I'm reminded of the Bolsheviks in 1915.

On Iran and the Shi'a he says the time is not yet ripe to crush them:

(C) People of discernment and knowledge among Muslims know the extent of danger to Islam of the Twelve'er school of Shiism. It is a religious school based on excess and falsehood whose function is to accuse the companions of Muhammad { of heresy in a campaign against Islam, in order to free the way for a group of those who call for a dialogue in the name of the hidden mahdi who is in control of existence and infallible in what he does. Their prior history in cooperating with the enemies of Islam is consistent with their current reality of connivance with the Crusaders.

(D) The collision between any state based on the model of prophecy with the Shia is a matter that will happen sooner or later. This is the judgment of history, and these are the fruits to be expected from the rejectionist Shia sect and their opinion of the Sunnis. These are clear, well-known matters to anyone with a knowledge of history, the ideologies, and the politics of states. (E) We must repeat what we mentioned previously, that the majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it. For that reason, many of your Muslim admirers amongst the common folk are wondering about your attacks on the Shia.

The man's from Cairo and still thinks like an Egyptian familiar with his cities shrine of Hasan and toleration of Shi'a. I think he's missed the revolutionary opportunities presented by sectarian war in Iraq.

The old Dr is also more fastidious than the jailbird:

Among the things which the feelings of the Muslim populace who love and support you will never find palatable - also- are the scenes of slaughtering the hostages. You shouldn't be deceived by the praise of some of the zealous young men and their description of you as the shaykh of the slaughterers, etc. They do not express the general view of the admirer and the supporter of the resistance in Iraq, and of you in particular by the favor and blessing of God.
...
However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives by bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don't need this.

One things apparent from this the 2nd man in AQ knows very little about what's going on in Iraq. He doesn't even know if Al Jaz broadcast all of his speech. I think what we have here is not command and control but yesterdays man perhaps abandoned by Bin Laden offering his services to al-Zarqawi. Trotsky asking Stalin for a job. If I was al-Zarqaw I'd invite the clever old bugger over and then posion his couscous.

 

[kyser_soze]

There is much talk given of the potential next gen AL-Q etc. but has anyone really studied and collated intelligence on the potential for Xtian global paramilitary activity against Islamic targets?

I don't know about anything else, but it strikes me as an inevitable - potentially even something that is used by the US (whom I believe will slide into a kind of twisted modern version of the middle ages as reglion replaces rationalism in that country) as a proxy force in place of the clearly unsuitable conventional forces in the future.

Maybe I'm being a controversialist saying this, but for my money at some point Xtian terrorism will become a reality, if for no other reason than a reaction to the Islamic variant - and it's not as if there isn't a sizable pool of condidates is there?

 

[oi2002]

Maybe I'm being a controversialist saying this, but for my money at some point Xtian terrorism will become a reality, if for no other reason than a reaction to the Islamic variant - and it's not as if there isn't a sizeable pool of condidates is there?

Well there's been plenty of Christian sect aligned terrorist groups in the 20th century and it's easy to imagine hate attacks on mosques but I doubt if a coherrent movement will occur.

Some US security wonks in the states actually fear their own far right Christian militias might opportunistically align with Salafi Jihadis. Apart from the Jesus being God thing they have a good deal in common idealogically and share a deep hatred of DC, the FBI, the UN etc.

 

[oi2002]

Juan reckons the latest from Zawahiri is faked and Al Jaz is doubtful. Well Al Jaz says the guys that call themselves AQ in Iraq are saying it is bollox.

I'm a little sceptical myself, as it is well made, timely, and serves a number of political purposes stateside rather well. I'd err on the side of belief here as I can't see why DC, eager to keep 9/11 in the minds of the voters, would portray AQI as fading and the AQII they've created in Iraq as the new driver in the Salafi Jihad.

Is it is the man himself or a professional empathiser in Langley trying to write his heart to DC's spin? Either reveals a practical set of fears.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Usual hall of mirrors stuff then. Somewhere in amongst all the multiple competing interpretations, and interpretations of interpretations of what's going on in Iraq, from Bush/Blair press statements to unlikely conspiracy theories: is the truth, but amongst all that noise, we can't be sure what it is.

Some things I think we do know with reasonable certainty.

1) The constitution the US/UK is ramming down the Iraqis throats is a neo-liberal charter for exploiting Iraq.

2) The US/UK is extremely keen to see it pass, probably for two reasons. It helps them to claim to their domestic voters that they're "bringing democracy" and it legitimises Bremer's neo-liberal status quo.

3) The US/UK is having lots of trouble with an insurgency made up of many different groups who seem to agree on wanting them to leave if nothing else.

4) There is a clear motivation for the US/UK to exploit the dangers faced by ordinary Iraqis in a kind of "strategy of tension" designed to get the constitution signed and to allow them to claim that they're "staying to prevent civil war"

5) Points 3) and 4) do provide a rationale for playing divide and conquer games, but if that's been going on, the US/UK is playing with fire big-time.

6) The resulting situation creates precisely the sort of conditions that might easily lead to powerful new mutations of the violent strains of radical Islam.

 

[oi2002]

I think Pat Lang has it about right on the constitution and the political process in Iraq.

The rebellion has if anything been escalated into a sectarian war by the political process which is all just smoke and mirrors to cover withdrawal next year regardless of the consequences and that's why it's being bulldozed through so fast.

A decent interval, to use Nixon's phrase will then elapse and the drawdown will begin. The Iraqis will be left with a promise of continued air support from Kuwait.

The letter allows Dubya to present AQII as a growing threat to Israel and the center of the whole Jihadi movement being Iraq. Sustaining the US publics will to continue for even that "decent interval" may be the goal.

Juan's other idea was that the Iranians wrote the letter. Keeping the Yanks remaining energy focused on al-Zarqawi and the Sunni Triangle would serve their purposes.

 

[oi2002]

David Ignatius in the WaPo:

Reading the Zawahiri letter, you sense that the field of battle is shifting. Al Qaeda is waging a political war for Muslim hearts and minds as it seeks to build a global caliphate. America shouldn't make the same mistake for which Zawahiri is upbraiding his Iraq commander -- fighting in the Iraq theater in ways that make it harder to win the larger war.

I see no evidence that al-Zarqawi is subject to command and control by al-Zawahiri. Al-Zarqawi only adopted the AQ brand 2 years or so ago probably to increase his attractiveness to new recruits. This letter and the previously intercepted correspondence suggests a loose alliance of convenience between respectful former rivals within the Salafi Jihad (which has never been a coherrent movement) who have always had deep strategic differences.

There's nothing in this letter that is inconsistent with al-Zawahiri's previous writings; he's always been for mobilising the Umma on issues like the Jews and Yankee imperialism as an indirect path to his revolutionary Caliphate. His very guarded criticism of al-Zarqawi's strategic choice in not deferring war with the Shi'a are hardly shocking for Salafi. Given the letter has become controversial how long will it be before al-Zawahiri expresses his view on it via Al Jaz?

 

[oi2002]

Pat Lang

I have read the letter in English and looked at the Arabic on a "sampling" basis and my conclusion would be that it was writen by someone who was not a native speaker of Arabic but who had been well educated in the language. I would guess that an Iranian, A Pakistani or the odd Westerner with such a capability would be likely possibilities.

 

[oi2002]

Abu Aardvark on the Zawahiri letter.

 

[oi2002]

Al-Zawahiri has a Geldof moment and appeals for Muslims aid to Pakistan.