|
Title: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 11, 2005, 04:43:06 PM DISCLAIMER
well after all happenings on the board about terrorism i figured it would be about time that a thread actualy existed that can answer questions about it, and Gurrila tactics. For perspectives I have also been doing some cross ref. for it. please use this thread to break down past and current attacks Title: Terrorism Lessons From 1870 Post by: Prometheus on July 11, 2005, 04:43:40 PM Terrorism Lessons From 1870
By Arnold Kling Published 07/11/2005 "Fools Crow thought of the final design on the yellow skin in Feather Woman's lodge. He saw the Napikwan children playing and laughing in a world they possessed. And he saw the Pikuni children, quiet and huddled together, alone and foreign in their own country." -- James Welch, Fools Crow The conflict between modern democracies and Islamic terrorists reminds Lee Harris of a blood feud. The idea of a blood feud in turn reminds me of Fools Crow, a novel about the travails of the Pikunis, a small band of the native American Blackfeet tribe, in 1870. For the Pikunis, blood feuds are normal. The traditional way of life includes raids on other bands. In a typical raid, horses are stolen, one or two of the enemy are killed, and the scalps are taken home. As Lee Harris might put it, the horse-stealing and scalping are theatrical gestures. They are attempts to humiliate the other band, not to defeat them. Going on a raid is a rite of passage for young members of the tribe. In fact, the title character in Fools Crow earns his name and his honor on one such raid. As the Napikwans (white men) begin to encroach on the Pikuni lands, some of the Pikunis express their frustration and resentment by scalping and horse-stealing. However, instead of leading to a tit-for-tat response, as in the traditional intra-tribal feuds, these gestures provoke a massacre in which native Americans are annihilated by the whites. The Paralysis of Moderate Muslims Following the London subway bombings, Thomas Friedman expressed a point of view that I imagine is fairly widespread in the West. "because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists -- if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings -- or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way -- by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent. "And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village." Friedman's point of view seems eminently reasonable and logical. He is calling on moderate Muslims, for the sake of self-preservation, to do something to stop the barbaric theatrical gestures of the terrorists. Up to this point, however, moderate Muslims have seemed paralyzed. We might wonder why this is the case. In Fools Crow, there are moderate native Americans. However, they, too, are paralyzed. Their failure to restrain a small group of terrorists is what leads to the massacre. Perhaps James Welch, writing from the native American point of view, can offer some insights into the reasons for this paralysis. Here are some ideas that I took away from the novel. 1. The native Americans felt they were in a no-win situation. They saw fighting the white man as futile. However, they saw peace with the white man as being on terms that would make it impossible for native Americans to pursue their traditional way of life. For many of the Blackfeet, this is unacceptable. One character says, "the day will come when our people will decide that they would rather consort with the Napikwans than live in the ways our long-ago fathers thought appropriate. But I, Three Bears, will not see this day. I will die first." 2. Moderate native American chiefs were viewed as weak and unmanly, particularly by younger men. 3. Even though the native Americans viewed Owl's Child (the terrorist leader) as wicked and detrimental to their cause, they could not take the humiliating step of turning one of their blood brothers in to the white soldiers. 4. The native Americans did not have the cultural and institutional foundation with which to cope with the crisis. "As Fools Crow lay in the shadowy lodge...he felt the impotence that had fallen over his people like snow in the night. Before the coming of the Napikwans, decisions had been made. There was always the arguing, but in the end, the men had made a decision and all had abided by it. Fools Crow's grandfather had told of a much simpler life when the decisions were easier -- when to move camp, when to go to the trading house across the Medicine Line, where the hunting would be best, if it was time to raid the Crow or Snake horses." Patience It is possible that the culture of the world Muslim community, including its religious and secular institutions, simply is not yet equipped to confront the radicals in the way that Thomas Friedman and the rest of us might wish. A lack of social capital, or what James Bennett calls "civil society," means that the Muslim community's circuits are overloaded. Like the Native Americans living in Montana in 1870, Muslims are confronted with too much change happening too quickly. We live in a "can-do" society. If a terrorist group arose from within Western culture, after one or two atrocities it would be strangled by a myriad of networks, community organizations, and political entities capable of enforcing group norms. Perhaps Muslim society cannot address radical terrorism with its existing institutional base. If so, then it will take time for new organizations to emerge within the Muslim world that are capable of effectively promulgating and enforcing prohibitions against terrorism. I am not trying to absolve moderate Muslims, and moderate Muslim leaders, of responsibility for helping to end the barbaric gestures of terrorism. I agree with Friedman that in the end the only humane way to end the war between the West and radical Islam is for moderate Muslims to exercise better leadership. However, the approach that I would favor with moderate Muslims is high expectations rather than ultimatums. We should not be tolerant or passive in response to terrorism. We should continue to pursue, incarcerate, and kill terrorists -- without apologies or mindless insinuations. As to the Muslims who are not active terrorists, we should be particularly hard on those who voice moderation in Western-style press conferences but who preach hatred when they think that no one from the West is watching. However, we should not rush to declare that the moderates' cause is hopeless. Their task may be more difficult than we can appreciate. If we are to avoid turning our clash with radical Muslims into a re-run of 1870, we will need patience. Arnold Kling is author of Learning Economics. Copyright ? 2005 Tech Central Station - www.techcentralstation.com Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 11, 2005, 05:10:56 PM They will attack exactly where they said they would. Unless they have something blocking them. I also have the feeling that the london bus was not meant to explode because it was an hour later, because all were tubes but 1 bus. maybe the guy supposed to plan the bomb had a major problem to plant it where he should have and not knowing what to do, took the bus instead, knowing his bomb would go off anyway. It just seems higly illogical that all tubes explode in the same area and for some unknown reason, an hour later, a double decker blows. it makes no sense to me or my logic. Well jess ill guess i nail this one over to you as you ahve read a tonne on the subject. me....... got alot from everywhere........ but jess based on what you have read..... doesnt it always seem that the ex-agents...... always seem to be rather stupid.... and well bomber for the most part are rather stupid in deployment of their bombs. take london as it is most recent. ok at approx the same time the "underground" bombs go off causing huge amounts of panic and shutting down the train system. if we take yours idea that it was not timed proper of the bomber missed his target... etc.... how mush more whould have been killed in the stations and on the trains? most likely a fair number... injured would have increased by about another 150+ dead by about 15-30. all in all not a bad day for terror. lets run this scenario. ok so you set off 3 bombs on trains causing a shut down of the system.... cause a delay of travlers causing an increase in the number of people in the stations now getting evac'd. at 4 extremely busy stations you have remote bombs in the trashyou can have it out side if you want, but you put them at a choke point... say in near the stairwell people will herd back into the station..... you then blow th ones agfter 1-2 mins that rmain in the station. you could have increased the number of dead and injured by 1000%. now if you extend it to the bus system and manage to get say 15 busses that are leaving other stations with full loads..... wait till they reach a busy intersection..... and suicide the busses.... you just tacked on at least another 500% based on those numbers you would have increased the death toll fomr... 57 now? to 855..... injured would be close on 4000-5000..... gve or take on the injuries.... as where teh numbers of dead would climb simple injuries would tend to reduce.... and critical injuries would rise... so with all honesty injuries would remain at about 2000. thats why its of my opnion that the delay bomb may have been intended..... and timed.... just that it was miss timed maybe the spread should have been 10mins not 60..... but you see the point. ladt, but not least, few terrorists now do things for a " cause" since economy or money are causes in themselves. Se what i'm getting at ? no, probably not. How easy would it be for IRA members, in exchange of a juicy amount, to plant a bomb in london without getting any hassle ? A favor against a favor, and i have read of people being extremely loyal in cases of " friendships", and it's funny how money makes friends you'd never have otherwise. For money, it could have been anyone trained well enough. And secret services KNOW Ben Laden trained or his money trained almost ALL terrorist groups in the world, trained the same way, i nthe same deserts, ont oythe same devices, and probably by the same people. Oosp, is the task easier or more complicated now ? yes human capicity to work and do almost anything for money is insane. However I will accept that perhaps I over estiamte howmany are relgious zealots going to god as a soilder. If you will accept that you under estimate how many that actualy do do it for hatred of the US and for love of god. Also, since you mention talking tactics, why not give an opinion on secret services of different countries. After all, we pay taxes, their job is paid by us, so we may as well comment, don't you think ? As for the Jihad, yes, some are into it for religious reasons, their crusade as they call it, but few. Look at how much Arafat made over the years ? How come such a " saint" for some people managed to get 500 billion dollars ? ya i know its rather inresing is it not? and by and large to talk about terroism you have to also work the CT side as well. with that note ill have somethings on Marine and US army trainning for Basic on "IED's" Title: Battling Bushwhackers Post by: Prometheus on July 11, 2005, 05:14:18 PM Well here is what is done purely on basic... this is not even SF stuff..... and you have not even became full military yet ;)
Quote Battling Bushwhackers U.S. Army recruits prepare for highway ambushes in Iraq. By W. Thomas Smith Jr. Fort Jackson, S.C. ? Its engine gunning to life, the big five-ton truck jerks into gear then begins rolling down an isolated stretch of sandy dirt highway. Seated in the truck-bed on a centerline bench are 16 young American soldiers. All are armed with M16A2 rifles, and all are dripping sweat in the near-100-degree heat and unimaginable humidity beneath combat uniforms, Kevlar helmets, and bulletproof vests. Eight of the soldiers are facing portside (left). Their backs are to the other eight soldiers who are facing starboard (right). All weapons are locked-and-loaded, aiming out at the countryside from both sides of the truck. Two sergeants are standing between the two groups of soldiers. As the truck rounds a corner near several wrecked, burned, and bullet-riddled vehicles, a soaking rain begins, turning the soldiers? uniforms and helmet covers from a woodland camouflage to a dark green. No one is talking. The only sound is the rain, the squeaking of the truck?s undercarriage, the engine, and the occasional soldier tapping on the bottom of his gray, metal magazine to make sure it is properly locked into the magazine-well of his rifle. ?BOOM!? The earth-jarring sound of an IED (improvised explosive device) detonating a few feet from the truck momentarily stuns everyone except Staff Sergeant Osvaldo Rodriguez. ?Fire! Open fire!? he shouts at the portside group. The truck slows, lurches once, then halts. Short bursts of fire crackle from the muzzles of the M16s. The rain is now falling in sheets. ?Dismount! Dismount! Get out of the truck! Move!? Rodriguez shouts at the soldiers on starboard. The portside group remains in the truck and continues pouring a murderous fire into an enemy ambush position. Despite being encumbered with personal gear and weapons, the starboard side soldiers leap with an almost athletic grace from the rear of the truck and sprint to positions between the vehicle and the enemy. Dropping to prone positions in the mud, they thumb-off their rifle safeties, and begin blasting away at the enemy. As they do so, the soldiers who first began firing switch on safeties and begin leaping from the truck as quickly and as much like clockwork as the others. These soldiers have been in the Army for only seven weeks. They are not yet in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, they have another two weeks of basic training ahead of them before graduation, then on to a few weeks of advanced individual training (AIT). But even at this stage, their performance is impressive. They all move in-sync with one another, reacting to commands as if this response to a vehicle-disabling IED blast followed by an immediate enemy ambush is second nature. With the smoke from the exploded IED now dissipating in the rain, the soldiers continue firing at a variety of man-sized pop-up targets at varying distances. In a real fight, the targets would be shooting back, and the badly wounded on both sides would be screaming. But this live-fire convoy exercise in the sandhills and piney woods of Fort Jackson, S.C. is as realistic as can be allowed in a training environment. It has to be. According to the Army, many ? if not most ? of these young recruits will soon be in harm?s way. The biggest threat to their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan will be roadside bombs, highway ambushes, and suicide bombers. And not being assigned to a combat occupational specialty is no guarantee that these soldiers won?t find themselves in the middle of a full-blown firefight. ?Most of the soldiers who graduate from basic combat training, can expect to be deployed into an AOR [area of responsibility] which will require them to travel in convoys,? according to a U.S. Army document, Convoy Live Fire for Basic Combat Training, used by instructors at Fort Jackson. Additionally, ?100 percent of the soldiers who graduate from BCT will travel and operate in their AOR via convoy operations in soft-skinned vehicles. The threat?s main TTP [tactics, techniques, and procedures] for attacking U.S. forces in theater is to avoid our strength and seek weakness in soft-skinned vehicles.? Soft vehicles aren?t the enemy?s only consideration. Another concern is the combat capability of the chosen target. If a unit is less capable than others of launching an effective counter-attack, the more likely it is to be targeted for ambush. ?The enemy chooses when, where, and how he will strike, and he usually tries to choose softer targets,? Brigadier General Abraham Turner, commanding general of Fort Jackson, tells NRO. ?You see, an infantry platoon is a hard target. If the bad guys go after an infantry platoon, they know that platoon may take them out before they?ve accomplished their mission. Infantrymen are trained to fight off attackers and defeat them. The bad guys know this.? Indeed. Last week, a U.S. Marine convoy ? primarily manned by support (non-combat) Marines, most of whom were female ? was targeted by an al Qaeda suicide bomber. Five Marines (two of them female) and one female sailor were killed in the attack. Because they cannot stand toe-to-toe with U.S. and allied ground combat forces in a pitched battle, ambushes and IED detonations on passing vehicles and foot patrols are Al Qaeda?s tactics of choice. How to respond to those tactics is the responsibility of combat commanders who?ve been there and experienced the reality on the ground. They bring that experience home to share with American recruits who must develop the instincts to survive once they deploy. ?If I was a general for a day, I?d have them [the recruits] do this convoy training 50 times over,? says Captain Jeremy Smith, a recruit company commander who, while serving with 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, experienced and survived an IED attack. ?It?s great training in terms of teaching the soldier how to handle the weapon in this environment and being confident that he can survive it. Also, these soldiers here are going to get more training on this when they graduate and get to their unit before they go to Iraq.? How long might it be before some of these soldiers find themselves in Iraq? ?They?ve got to have 30 days of training [post BCT] before being deployed,? says Smith. ?But it?s fast. We had a soldier just out of basic training, did his additional 30 days, two weeks later, he was killed in Iraq.? Aside from responding to an IED blast, firing, dismounting the truck, and repositioning on the ground; recruits are taught to identify and engage targets from moving, bouncing vehicles that are traveling at different speeds. They come to the week-seven convoy exercise fully prepared. They?ve already qualified on the range, firing the rifle at stationary and pop-up targets, and they?ve developed reflexive firing skills. Reflexive firing is a quick-fire method wherein soldiers are trained to instantly bring the rifle up to the ready position and fire into a target without aiming the weapon from the shoulder. Though reflexive firing is not employed from the back of a five-ton, it is useful in all live-fire exercises because through-it recruits develop a confidence in their ability to handle the rifle in rapidly changing gunfights, and convoy ambushes are always rapidly changing. From a tower overlooking the ?Old Anzio? range where the convoy exercise is taking place, Lt. Col. Fred Johnson, a battalion commander at Fort Jackson, adds, ?These soldiers today are joining the Army knowing they are going to war. It?s up to us to make sure they are ready for battle.? ? A former U.S. Marine infantry leader and paratrooper, W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a freelance journalist and the author of four books, including the Alpha Bravo Delta Guide to American Airborne Forces. http://www.nationalreview.com/smitht/smith200506280841.asp Title: Jihad Unspun: News that let's you decide Post by: Prometheus on July 11, 2005, 05:32:13 PM With a tagline of 'Jihad Unspun: News that let's you decide' it seems to take a very biased point of view towards the global war on terror.
http://www.jihadunspun.com (http://www.jihadunspun.com) And the uneasy feeling I got while reading the site...what else can I say but Canadian owned and operated.(Bev Giesbrecht aka. Khadija Abdul Qahaar ,a muslim convert and Vancouver resident ) [fact check: do a 'WHOIS' on jihadunspun.com or a google search on 'Bev Giesbrecht'] hmmm man this site is well...... you can read for yourself...... Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 11, 2005, 06:11:44 PM I am going to have to get my logics working tomorow, as it's a bit late here tonight and i have to carfully read and re read what you've put so that i don't do the " dumb me" impression tomorow when i reply to this.
But it looks fascinating from here. Finally some real interesting subjects !!!! Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 11, 2005, 06:17:19 PM ahhh ma chere im glad to accomadate ;)
lol Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: jameslofton29 on July 11, 2005, 06:58:56 PM As I've stated before, the only way to destroy terrorism is to kill large numbers of people in the countries that sponsor it. These countries living in the dark Ages need to be told that we are not going to fuck around any longer. MASSIVE bombing campaigns would be a good way of telling them. We need to fight fire with fire. They enjoy killing civilians, lets kill their civilians. They like to kidnap and descecrate nuns and debase other symbols of christianity, lets destroy Mecca. Its time to rid the world of this scum once and for all, and nuking some cities and napalming some villages would be a good start. You think this is crazy, but when another 9/11 happens in the US or Europe, its gonna happen.
Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 11, 2005, 07:05:40 PM To me, the only way to kill terrorism is to, as a first, grant people what is theirs, and that's ,as a first, intelligence :
once our world has stopped thinking all white creatures are evoluted and all the other chimps, then, we got a huge step towards a better understanding of the situation. Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Rain on July 12, 2005, 03:59:47 AM As I've stated before, the only way to destroy terrorism is to kill large numbers of people in the countries that sponsor it. These countries living in the dark Ages need to be told that we are not going to fuck around any longer. MASSIVE bombing campaigns would be a good way of telling them. We need to fight fire with fire. They enjoy killing civilians, lets kill their civilians. They like to kidnap and descecrate nuns and debase other symbols of christianity, lets destroy Mecca. Its time to rid the world of this scum once and for all, and nuking some cities and napalming some villages would be a good start. You think this is crazy, but when another 9/11 happens in the US or Europe, its gonna happen. Jesus f***ing christ !!!! :nervous: :confused: I haven't been here for a few days and when I come back I come accross the same stupidities that were being said before the Iraq war. Dude, do you really think what you're saying ? If you do I suppose you never travelled and only know the city you live in ! If you do have travelled and been abroad I can't find any excuses to the enormities you're writting ... ::) :P Fight fire with fire ... ::) Ah Metallica are indeed great philosophers !!! ::) :P Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: jameslofton29 on July 12, 2005, 04:13:08 AM Fighting fire with fire to deal with terrorists has nothing to do with Metallica. I know, you're a liberal pacifist who wants to bow down in fear to these fucking cowards, but thats not how you defeat them. What more do these people have to do for you to understand what we're dealing with? Thousands burning in skyscrapers not enough for you? Young people dancing their last dance in a Bali nightclub not enough for you? Children blown to pieces in a Russian province not enough for you? Trains exploding in London and Spain not enough for you? I have a question for you: When is it enough? Do you even have a line in the sand? These people want to send us back to the Stone Age, and you just want to sit there and jerk off and suck your thumb while they do it?
Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Rain on July 12, 2005, 06:14:53 AM Fighting fire with fire to deal with terrorists has nothing to do with Metallica. I know, you're a liberal pacifist who wants to bow down in fear to these fucking cowards, but thats not how you defeat them. What more do these people have to do for you to understand what we're dealing with? Thousands burning in skyscrapers not enough for you? Young people dancing their last dance in a Bali nightclub not enough for you? Children blown to pieces in a Russian province not enough for you? Trains exploding in London and Spain not enough for you? I have a question for you: When is it enough? Do you even have a line in the sand? These people want to send us back to the Stone Age, and you just want to sit there and jerk off and suck your thumb while they do it? I have nothing against fighting the terrorists ... But since when innocent civilians, the one you want to nuke, are terrorists ? With your logic, if a marine kills an iraqi a member of his family would have the right to enter your house and kill and torture and burn it to the ground. Is that fair ? Well it matches your fight fire with fire theory ! And please don't come up with the pacifist liberal shit because I'm taking the subway here in Paris everyday and everybody in here has only one thing in mind when down there.? :P Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Where is Hassan Nasrallah ? on July 12, 2005, 06:19:53 AM As I've stated before, the only way to destroy terrorism is to kill large numbers of people in the countries that sponsor it. These countries living in the dark Ages need to be told that we are not going to fuck around any longer. MASSIVE bombing campaigns would be a good way of telling them. We need to fight fire with fire. They enjoy killing civilians, lets kill their civilians. They like to kidnap and descecrate nuns and debase other symbols of christianity, lets destroy Mecca. Its time to rid the world of this scum once and for all, and nuking some cities and napalming some villages would be a good start. You think this is crazy, but when another 9/11 happens in the US or Europe, its gonna happen. Jesus f***ing christ !!!! :nervous: :confused: I haven't been here for a few days and when I come back I come accross the same stupidities that were being said before the Iraq war. Dude, do you really think what you're saying ? If you do I suppose you never travelled and only know the city you live in ! If you do have travelled and been abroad I can't find any excuses to the enormities you're writting ... ::) :P Fight fire with fire ... ::) Ah Metallica are indeed great philosophers !!! ::) :P rain, can't you see that he is playing :) he's justbeing funny :) gosh. dont take jameslofton too seriously, he doesnt think .... uh...doesnt think what he's saying. Prometheus MacMaul > soldiers > 16 years old !!! ... man, they go from Halo 2 to real shooting .... Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: jameslofton29 on July 12, 2005, 07:17:09 AM Rain, France has been pacifying these fucking cowards for years. So when you ride the subway, don't worry, you're not a target. Its the countries who have the courage to fight these bastards that are the targets.
Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 12, 2005, 07:30:27 AM Rain, France has been pacifying these fucking cowards for years. So when you ride the subway, don't worry, you're not a target. Its the countries who have the courage to fight these bastards that are the targets. uuum, last bomb by arabs in france : 1994, in the tube/subway Actually, it's funny, but the english, as we speak, have begged the cowards to let them use their secret services ( who are damn good btw) Oh, and even america now admits france is extremely knowledgeable when it concerns these terrorists. You know, when you attack, you have no time to watch, but right now, what could save everyone, is what people's conclusions are, after watching for a while. You can't act and trhink. France is more known for thinking. Considering what's happened in NY, Madrid and London, and considering you ( coalition) ACTED, considering that didn't work, don't you think now is the time someone THOUGHT ? Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Rain on July 12, 2005, 09:02:23 AM Rain, France has been pacifying these fucking cowards for years. So when you ride the subway, don't worry, you're not a target. Its the countries who have the courage to fight these bastards that are the targets. That shows how you lack knowledge of what happening in the world. We already had our share of bombings in the parisian subway ! thank you very much ! :-X :P Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: jameslofton29 on July 12, 2005, 09:13:36 AM Oh yeah, France does a real good job at thinking. They sat on their ass in WW2, bowed down to Hitler, and my grandpa and thousands of other americans had to free them from the germans. In the 1980's, France didnt do a damn thing in trying to help end the cold war, France was too busy thinking. In the 1990's, with the atrocities going on in Bosnia/Kosovo, France was so busy thinking, the US had to fight a war on France's own continent, the US successfully stopping it from spreading. 9/11 happens, making the world open its eyes to the evils ahead, and France decides to busy itself thinking. The war in Iraq starts, which pitted the world's best democracies against Saddam, France decides to twiddle its thumbs and think. I have a question for you: If a catastrophic nuclear or chemical attack were unleashed by Al Queda on Paris, would France be too busy thinking? Of course they would. France would be thinking of Bush's phone number so the US can come to the rescue, like we always have, and always will.
Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 12, 2005, 09:19:52 AM Oh yeah, France does a real good job at thinking. They sat on their ass in WW2, bowed down to Hitler, and my grandpa and thousands of other americans had to free them from the germans. In the 1980's, France didnt do a damn thing in trying to help end the cold war, France was too busy thinking. In the 1990's, with the atrocities going on in Bosnia/Kosovo, France was so busy thinking, the US had to fight a war on France's own continent, the US successfully stopping it from spreading. 9/11 happens, making the world open its eyes to the evils ahead, and France decides to busy itself thinking. The war in Iraq starts, which pitted the world's best democracies against Saddam, France decides to twiddle its thumbs and think. I have a question for you: If a catastrophic nuclear or chemical attack were unleashed by Al Queda on Paris, would France be too busy thinking? Of course they would. France would be thinking of Bush's phone number so the US can come to the rescue, like we always have, and always will. You know, you didn't seem more clever attacked on your soil by ben laden than france was when the german attacked. :rofl: Actually, when you have been attacked so many times by a neighbour, you have two choices : you fight or you don't. When you come to france, to normandy, today, you"d better not start your speech, because there were more french wome nraped by americans than germans. Actually, german SOLDIERS were good guys, fighting a territorial war, nothing more, nothing less. But usually, they even paid for the milk they got from farms and stuff. Very educated. France does have HORRIBLE stories about Gi's, so stop your thing, our EDUCATED country is not irak, you cannot make epople believe you are heroes. The americans, on our soil, behaved like DOGS. and were not alone in the liberation of EUROPE, france being a tiny tiny part of what was under german control. Now, kosovo, we were, and are still there. My ex is still there you fuckwit. he is called william and risks his life day and night for people like you ! Now, we had to fight more wars on our own continent than you probably ever will and you know where lies our pride ? We were helped by no one before the USA existed, world history proves it, therefore, you can shut it. We have an existence of 1400 odd years as a united country. And in these 1400 years, we have needed help few times. Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: jameslofton29 on July 12, 2005, 09:43:10 AM You're so full of shit, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. My grandpa was too busy killing germans so you wouldn't have to worship Hitler for the rest of your lives. There wasn't any time to rape french women. You compare our response to 9/11 to the french response to the german invasion? Damn, thats hilarious! After 9/11, we bombed the living shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had covert operations going in Indonesia, Columbia, Somalia, Phillipines, and Kosovo. What was the French response to the German invasion? Asking Hitler to pull his pants down and bend over. If Hitler's body was discovered, there would still be a french lip imprint on his ass. You might like the way France does things, but I prefer the american response. If Al Queda ever invades France, dont kiss Bin Laden's ass for too long, because there is gonna be a US cruise missile heading straight for his asshole.
Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Rain on July 12, 2005, 10:44:18 AM You're so full of shit, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. My grandpa was too busy killing germans so you wouldn't have to worship Hitler for the rest of your lives. There wasn't any time to rape french women. You compare our response to 9/11 to the french response to the german invasion? Damn, thats hilarious! After 9/11, we bombed the living shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had covert operations going in Indonesia, Columbia, Somalia, Phillipines, and Kosovo. What was the French response to the German invasion? Asking Hitler to pull his pants down and bend over. If Hitler's body was discovered, there would still be a french lip imprint on his ass. You might like the way France does things, but I prefer the american response. If Al Queda ever invades France, dont kiss Bin Laden's ass for too long, because there is gonna be a US cruise missile heading straight for his asshole. Oh my god !!!! :confused: :nervous: You're really unbelievable ... man you know a lot about France ... have you ever been here ? If I have to bow down and ask the United States for help and be eternally thankful afterwards ... so do you ... Lafayette ? Ring a bell ? And stop wanting to nuke eveyone's ass because that's the best way for you to have your own ass nuked ! And I have to remind you we were w/ you in afganisthan ... and in the first Iraq war ... our troops were in ex-yougoslavia ... we're not and never were sitting on our asses ... And our dicks are bigger than yours type of debates are riduculous. And for ww2 we declared war against germany in 1939 ... where were you back then ? I know it's a stupid statement but I want you to understand that against your stupid statements we can find some of the same level ! Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 12, 2005, 11:26:03 AM You're so full of shit, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. My grandpa was too busy killing germans so you wouldn't have to worship Hitler for the rest of your lives. There wasn't any time to rape french women. You compare our response to 9/11 to the french response to the german invasion? Damn, thats hilarious! After 9/11, we bombed the living shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had covert operations going in Indonesia, Columbia, Somalia, Phillipines, and Kosovo. What was the French response to the German invasion? Asking Hitler to pull his pants down and bend over. If Hitler's body was discovered, there would still be a french lip imprint on his ass. You might like the way France does things, but I prefer the american response. If Al Queda ever invades France, dont kiss Bin Laden's ass for too long, because there is gonna be a US cruise missile heading straight for his asshole. OMG....lol.......... thats some funny shit im still cring its soo funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ok so now to shit on ya........ #1 rape........ it happens....... 5 of my grandpas brothers were there...... and well they tell me that there was more tehn once that they ended up beating on some random allied servicemen..... due to the fact that they were raping them....... it fucking happens..... you'd be surprised how much time that you can find to have sex...... no matter what your doing.... screwing in the stacks at the libary the morning b4 a huge final....lol Quote You compare our response to 9/11 to the french response to the german invasion? Damn, thats hilarious! After 9/11, we bombed the living shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had covert operations going in Indonesia, Columbia, Somalia, Phillipines, and Kosovo. yup compared it too.... but not so much how you harpe on it.......lets break down some facts here. France was invaded....... by utterly massive amounts of troops in a short amount of time..... the majoirty of french troops were by passed at the start of the invasion so the germans faced little resistance....... but lets say it with me "INVASION" k... you got it right..... k ..... what was 9/11? was it an "INVASION"?...... fuck no...... it was an attack.... the military was not beaten ground was not captired. infastructure was not harmed......and dont go..... the towers are gone..... i may just fly to ya and bitch slap ya. As for you bombing the shit outta everythign..... forgetting that Afgan was a pure NATO war? thought you did...... forget that Nato memebrs are increasing their deployments to help out the US..... casue unless you want a fucking draft you cant fight 2 wars as much as you say you can..... bombing wise you can... ground wise you can fight and win just not win in the aftermath. Ohhhhh and as for your covert operations ......... i like how you define covert..... it was on the 11pm news not the 6pm...... lol..... its almost as bad a kept secret as the air base canada runs in Saudi..... for doing iraq resupplies and ship resupplies in the middle east..... intresting that we handle about 30% of all goods in theatre and were not in the war..... oh and as a side note...... if bin ladden did "INVADE" france......... im sure his small numbers would be squashed by french legions....... invade really............. ::) You're so full of shit, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. My grandpa was too busy killing germans so you wouldn't have to worship Hitler for the rest of your lives. There wasn't any time to rape french women. You compare our response to 9/11 to the french response to the german invasion? Damn, thats hilarious! After 9/11, we bombed the living shit out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and had covert operations going in Indonesia, Columbia, Somalia, Phillipines, and Kosovo. What was the French response to the German invasion? Asking Hitler to pull his pants down and bend over. If Hitler's body was discovered, there would still be a french lip imprint on his ass. You might like the way France does things, but I prefer the american response. If Al Queda ever invades France, dont kiss Bin Laden's ass for too long, because there is gonna be a US cruise missile heading straight for his asshole. Oh my god !!!! :confused: :nervous: You're really unbelievable ... man you know a lot about France ... have you ever been here ? If I have to bow down and ask the United States for help and be eternally thankful afterwards ... so do you ... Lafayette ? Ring a bell ? And stop wanting to nuke eveyone's ass because that's the best way for you to have your own ass nuked ! And I have to remind you we were w/ you in afganisthan ... and in the first Iraq war ... our troops were in ex-yougoslavia ... we're not and never were sitting on our asses ... And our dicks are bigger than yours type of debates are riduculous. And for ww2 we declared war against germany in 1939 ... where were you back then ? I know it's a stupid statement but I want you to understand that against your stupid statements we can find some of the same level ! ya.... but its the classic US responce uptill that point...... wait till they attack us if not its not our problem....... well they were this way since they tried to invade canada..... and we flattened you guys and burnt down teh white house as a warning......lol....... i gues Canada is on the US hit list still........... Rain if your dick is bigger....... that would be rather disturbing......... lol Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 12, 2005, 12:07:47 PM Security Sources: all 4 bombers are dead.
All bombers are British born. Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 12, 2005, 11:50:38 PM man .......... they are all coming outta the wood work now..... wever extreme wing group is going to start doing this shit now i guess.....
Title: Whither Political Islam? Post by: Prometheus on July 13, 2005, 09:49:54 PM Whither Political Islam?
Mahmood Mamdani From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2005 http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101fareviewessay84113a/mahmood-mamdani/whither-political-islam.html The debate over why the attacks of September 11, 2001, occurred has been dominated by different versions of "culture talk," the notion that culture is the most reliable clue to people's politics. Their differences notwithstanding, public intellectuals such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis agree that religion drives both Islamic culture and politics and that the motivation for Islamist violence is religious fundamentalism. Ascribing the violence of one's adversaries to their culture is self-serving: it goes a long way toward absolving oneself of any responsibility. The singular merit of two new books by Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy is that they take the debate about the rise of political Islam beyond culture talk. Kepel seeks to understand the intellectual history of political Islam, Roy the social conditions under which Muslims think and act. Of the two, Roy makes the most forceful break from culture talk. He dismisses "the culturalist approach" that treats Islam as "the issue" and that assumes it bears a relation to every preoccupation of the moment, from suicide bombings and jihad to democracy and secularism. Not only does culturalism treat Islam "as a discrete entity" and "a coherent and closed set of beliefs," Roy explains, but it turns Islam into "an explanatory concept for almost everything involving Muslims." Roy argues that the Koran's most important feature is not what it actually says, but what Muslims say about it. "Not surprisingly," Roy observes, "they disagree, while all stressing that the Koran is unambiguous and clear-cut." Like culturalists, Roy and Kepel examine very carefully the Islamist discourse about both the Koran and the rest of the world. But they understand it as the product of many forces, rather than as the necessary development of its religious origin. In doing so, they provide a more nuanced understanding of doctrinal and political Islam than do the culturalists. GOING GLOBAL In a historical account that is both careful and user-friendly, Kepel tracks two radically different strands of Islamic thought: the ultra-strict, quietist Salafist, or Wahhabi, school and the more political thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood. These two schools later merged, producing the more hybrid ideology now identified with Osama bin Laden. Kepel traces the origins of Salafism to Saudi Arabia and the ideas of the radical theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. In the opening decade of the nineteenth century, the Wahhabis and the House of Saud formed an alliance, commencing a state-building project that was completed a century later. Wahhab agreed to glorify the Saudi tribal raids on neighboring oases by treating them as jihads, in return for King Muhammad bin Saud's promise to elevate Wahhabism to a state ideology. The project did not survive the Ottoman invasion in 1818, however, and had to be renewed with a series of Wahhabi-anointed jihads in the 1910s and 1920s. By that time, the jihad was no longer a stand-alone affair: Wahhabi blessings for the Ikhwan, the religious militia of King Saud, were doled out along with bombs dropped by the British, who by then were occupying the Arabian Peninsula. After World War II, the Americans replaced the British as the kingdom's main patrons. And under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, who was eager to use the Saudis as foils for the Soviet Union, "Wahhabism was elevated to the status of a liberation theology--one that would free the region of communism." According to Kepel, a second, more autonomous and activist strand of political Islam originated in Egypt in the 1920s when the Muslim Brotherhood resolved to go beyond observing sharia (Islamic law) to establish a full-fledged Islamic state. Their slogan was "The Quran is our constitution." The Brothers joined Gamal Abdel Nasser in the Free Officers' Revolution that toppled King Farouk in 1952, but the alliance soon dissolved. Repression, at first in Egypt and then in Baathist Iraq and Syria, forced them to decamp to Saudi Arabia in the 1970s, where they joined forces with religious Palestinians who were uncomfortable with the Palestine Liberation Organization's secular nationalism. Gradually, the brotherhood took control of Saudi intellectual life, positioning itself to shape the country's religious and political awakening after the Iranian revolution of 1979. Its power grew with the attack on the Great Mosque in Mecca on November 20 of that year, which brought the Wahhabists under official suspicion. The religious "awakening" of "a plethora of young radicals" followed; like the Iranian revolutionaries who combined traditional Shiite rhetoric with Third World anti-imperialism (portraying Saudi officials as American lackeys, for example), they mixed the activism of the brotherhood with quietist Salafism, creating "an explosive blend that would detonate throughout the region and the whole world." The effect was to be momentous. As Kepel points out, after Afghanistan in the 1980s, the jihad went global. The move was not just an expansion in scale; it was also a critical shift in strategy and tactics. Consider, for example, the seminal work by the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man: Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, the most politically grounded and comprehensive manifesto on global jihad. Its text is not yet available in English, but Kepel has translated important sections of it. Zawahiri begins with a call to shift the jihad's target from the "nearby enemy" to the "faraway enemy." To succeed, he says, the jihad needs a new leadership that is sufficiently "scientific, confrontational, [and] rational" to rethink relations between "the elite" and "the masses" and to wield inspirational slogans. (He finds that there is no cause more mobilizing than Palestine, which is "a rallying point for all Arabs, whether or not they are believers.") To those who are ambivalent about the use of political terrorism, Zawahiri explains that it is legitimate to strike Western populations, not just their governments and institutions, because they "only know the language of self-interest, backed by brute military force." "In consequence," he adds, "if we want to hold a dialogue with them and cause them to become aware of our rights, we must speak to them in the language they understand." Zawahiri defends suicide attacks as "the most efficient means of inflicting losses on adversaries and the least costly, in human terms, for the mujahedeen." The global jihad's radically different goals could warrant only radically different methods and spawn radically different organizations. So instead of seeking out recruits through patient face-to-face encounters as the Afghan jihadists did in the 1980s, the leadership of the global jihad reversed the approach: tapping the potential of the Internet and the global media, it arranged for recruits to come find it. Predictably, the strategy has produced an organization that defies conventional understandings. Al Qaeda, a "terrorist NGO," or nongovernmental organization, is not, Kepel explains, "a nation with real estate to be occupied, military hardware to be destroyed, and a regime to be overthrown." As a result, Washington has ended up reifying the group--to little effect. According to Kepel, with its "Internet websites, satellite television links, clandestine financial transfers, international air travel, and a proliferation of activists ranging from the suburbs of Jersey City to the rice paddies of Indonesia," al Qaeda is resolutely modern and innovative. Unlike culturalists who portray bin Laden and his associates as linear descendants of an esoteric Saudi Wahhabism--or as premoderns with access to contemporary technology--Kepel understands them as hybrid products of multiple intellectual traditions. That insight is the great virtue of his book. <continued> Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 13, 2005, 09:51:11 PM MISSED METAPHORS
Yet even Kepel's work is not entirely free of culture talk. He tends to associate "reason" with "the West" and "metaphysics" with Islamic homelands. Of the September 11 suicide bombers, he says, "These militants, educated in the West, must have [had] the discipline, intelligence and training to carry out complex operations" and "[been] able to shift back and forth between the rational mindset they had cultivated during their studies of engineering, urban planning, medicine, or administration and an alternate mindset that infused suicide attacks with metaphysical meaning and value." In search of this alternate mindset, he scans "Mohammed Atta's testament," where he finds evidence of "fanatical faith" in the promise of "gardens of paradise" and of houris--the virgins with which the martyrs will sleep, Kepel explains--"wearing their finest clothes." Here Kepel's logic fails. Roy wonders, quite rightly, how the promise of houris in heaven could motivate female suicide bombers. More to the point, Kepel need not have looked so deep into a martyr's heart to find a contemporary example of how interest and ideology can mix: neoconservatives in the West are as apt an illustration. Kepel does have an inkling that the neoconservatives are a twin of al Qaeda--both came out of the Cold War on the winning side--and he devotes an entire chapter to them. But his occasional reliance on culturalist assumptions blind him to important parallels between the two. The neoconservatives, Kepel rightly notes, were convinced that the Oslo accords were a trap; some even thought that the entire "[Middle East] peace process posed a potentially fatal risk to the Jewish state." Their alternative to negotiation was to redraw the map of the entire region through occupation, assuming, in a simple-minded analogy with Eastern Europe, that if they blew up the government apparatus of rogue states, the newly liberated peoples would embrace their occupation with gratitude. But Kepel misses the implications of his own observation, largely because he presumes a linear development from U.S. conservatives to neoconservatives that prevents him from understanding what distinguishes the two groups. Is it not precisely the potent mix of cold-blooded interest and hot-blooded ideology that distinguishes neoconservatives who link George W. Bush to Reagan from the conservatives who drove foreign policy under George H.W. Bush? As a result, Kepel misses key parallels between neoconservatives and jihadists. In addition to the mix of interest and ideology, the two groups share global ambitions and a deep faith in the efficacy of politically motivated violence, and both count among their ranks cadres whose biographies are often tainted by early stints in the Trotskyist or the Maoist left. Both jihadists and neoconservatives are products of the Cold War, when ideologically driven violence was embraced by all sides, secular and religious. Kepel's failure to see this commonality ultimately limits his understanding of jihadist politics, heir not only to the traditions of the quietist Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood, but perhaps even more so to recent secular traditions, such as Third World anti-imperialism and the Reaganite determination to win "by any means necessary." Kepel's lapse may explain why he frames this book with a claim that he cannot ultimately sustain: "The most important battle in the war for Muslim minds during the next decade will be fought not in Palestine or Iraq but in these communities of believers in the outskirts of London, Paris, and other European cities, where Islam is already a growing part of the West." Although he points to their vast numbers--there are more than ten million Muslims living in contemporary Europe--Kepel cannot explain their significance except as so many conveyor belts between the East and the West. He does not see the Muslims of Europe as active subjects struggling to establish a new citizenship in adverse circumstances--some of which, such as racism and unemployment, were familiar to earlier immigrants; others, such as the stigma of a terrorist culture, are new. As a result, Kepel presents only stale visions of the future, redolent of culturalism: Will these Muslims bring European modernity to their homelands or religiosity to Europe? Will they be able to forge a democratic Islamic ideology by recognizing that in these times "intellectual creativity and innovation come from the West" and by building appropriate relations with "non-Muslim allies"? Although Kepel carefully renders the history of Islam's internal debates, he treats them as if they were taking place inside a contained "civilization." Casting contemporary Islam as the product of a linear tradition, he is unable to understand Muslims as fully historical and global. On this point, Kepel's historical analysis is overtaken by Roy's sociological argument. MONSTER OF MODERNITY In Globalized Islam, Roy tries to explain why jihadist Islam resonates in the communities in which it does. He sees the spread of jihadist Islam today as "a consequence of and [a] reaction to sociological changes," rather than as "evidence of the permanence of unchanging values" (the culturalist view) or as a direct historical consequence of the Saudis' and Reagan's support for the Wahhabi project (Kepel's view). Roy distinguishes contemporary neofundamentalists from traditional fundamentalists, such as Wahhabis who have tried "to delink Islam from ethnic cultures" for centuries and have everywhere "fought against local Islams"--"Sufism in South Asia, marabouts in North Africa, specific music and rituals everywhere," and even Shafism, Hanafism, and other historical schools of sharia. For Roy, neofundamentalist Islam is "born-again Islam" and strictly a product of the diaspora. Islamic religious debate is no longer monopolized by the learned ulema (teachers); as they have turned to the Internet, the neofundamentalists have also become tulaab (students). As a result, "religion has been secularized, not in the sense that it is under the scrutiny of modern sciences, but to the extent that it is debated outside any specific institutions or corporations." With the traditional ethnic community left behind, "the disappearance of traditional values ... [has laid] the groundwork for re-Islamisation," which has largely become an individual project. "Islamic revivalism goes hand in hand" with a modern trend: the "culture of the self." The growing individualization of religious practices has prompted believers to create a new community that transcends strict geography. The consequences of these changes have been contradictory. Those who have succeeded in reconciling the self with religion have tended to embrace a "liberal" or "ethical" version of Islam; those who have not have been prone to embrace "neofundamentalist Salafism." Meanwhile, the quest "to build a universal religious identity, de-linked from any specific culture," has come at a price, because such an Islam is "by definition an Islam oblivious to its own history." As a result, "the quest for a pure Islam [has] entail[ed] also an impoverishment of its content," Roy writes, and the ironic consequence of this quest is "secularization, but in the name of fundamentalism." <continued> Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 13, 2005, 09:51:35 PM This transformation has had particularly radical consequences for the Muslims of Europe, setting them apart from their cousins in the Middle East. According to Roy, political Islam is bifurcated between Islamist parties in Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and Islamists in the diaspora. Because in the Middle East, Islamist parties have mobilized in response to particular state policies, by the end of the 1990s, most Islamist movements had become "more nationalist than Islamist." As a consequence of their political integration, "violence related to Islam has been decreasing in the Middle East since 1996."
Islamist violence has increased outside the Middle East, however. The question is why, and why specifically in the West? The answer, Roy ventures, is that the violence of al Qaeda is politically, not religiously, inspired. After all, "al Qaeda did not target St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, but the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It targeted modern imperialism, as the ultra-leftists of the late 1960s and 1970s did with less success." Furthermore, the cliche "that in Islam there is no difference between politics and religion ... works in favor of the political," making it easier to redefine the core content of religion and subordinate it to a political project, as the jihadists have done. Even the contemporary notion of jihad is a marked departure--perhaps even a rupture--from its traditional forerunner. It too has been reinvented according to neofundamentalist principles: personalized, secularized, and turned into a political tool. Roy points out that, contrary to Western popular belief, traditional jihad is not one of the five pillars of Islam and that it has long been understood as a defensive, collective duty. But modern radicals now hail jihad as "a permanent and individual duty" to fight the West to the death. This modern understanding of jihad goes hand in hand with a revamped notion of community, or umma: no longer bound by traditional solidarity, the umma is the "reconstructed" product of the "free association of militants committed to the same ideal." The umma now plays the same role as did the proletariat for Trotskyist and leftist groups in the 1960s: it is "an imaginary and therefore silent community that gives legitimacy to the small group pretending to speak in its name." Roy observes, moreover, that most contemporary Islamist ideologues are neither clerics nor ulema but former leftists, yet he offers no explanation for this fact. These politicos were able to move into the religious domain despite poor theological credentials, partly because, unlike Christianity, mainstream Islam has no institutional backbone. Catholicism is organized on the model of Rome, the empire state. But Sunni Islam has no organized hierarchy, only a prayer leader. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's creation of velayat-e faqih (The state of the jurist), with the clergy as constitutional guardians, is a relatively recent development that goes against the thrust of Shiite tradition. And judging by events in Iraq, such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani's insistence that the ulema are a moral force outside, not within, the state, it does not seem to be taking well in non-Iranian Shiite milieus. Roy's analysis has important implications. If secularism--the subordination of the church to the state--is mainly of institutional significance, then it would appear to be a given where Islam is not organized as an institutional power. But even where Islam is institutionalized, as in Iran or Saudi Arabia, Roy observes, "conservative Islam, without reformation, could be as compatible with democracy as Catholicism has been since it was defeated in its face-to-face confrontation with modern secularism at the end of the nineteenth century in France." In contrast to culturalist views, Roy's account can explain why a religious or cultural world-view (fundamentalism) does not necessarily have a political corollary (terrorism). A WORLD-HISTORICAL MOMENT Still, if Roy's sociological analysis is always insightful, it is, in the end, limited. His account of neofundamentalism, a religious tendency, cannot fully explain the nature of Islamism, a political construct; the first seeks salvation, the second liberation. Curiously, although Roy traces the transformation of Islamist parties in Muslim-majority Middle Eastern countries to political rather than sociological conditions, he attributes the rise of jihadist Islam in the Muslim diaspora in the West only to sociological causes. Ultimately, Roy's argument cannot explain why jihadist Islam, an ideology of marginal political significance in the late 1970s, has come to dominate Islamist politics any more than can Kepel's skillful intellectual history. And although both Roy and Kepel (the former perhaps more so than the latter) have begun to part from the premises of culture talk, the break is still incomplete. They share a common failing: Kepel's history refuses to relate Islam to non-Islam, and Roy avoids studying encounters between Muslims and non-Muslims. Yet in fact, the birth of jihadist Islam, which embraces violence as central to political action, cannot be fully explained without reference to the Afghan jihad and the Western influences that shaped it. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration declared the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and set aside the then-common secular model of national liberation in favor of an international Islamic jihad. Thanks to that approach the Afghan rebels used charities to recruit tens of thousands of volunteers and created the militarized madrassas (Islamic schools) that turned these volunteers into cadres. Without the rallying cause of the jihad, the Afghan mujahideen would have had neither the numbers, the training, the organization, nor the coherence or sense of mission that has since turned jihadist Islam into a global political force. The influence of the Afghan jihad cannot be overstated. It is evidence that the growth of political Islam has been less linear and more hybrid than is often acknowledged and that it has been driven largely by distinct political projects, such as the "global jihad" or "the West." And properly understanding the development of political Islam is the only way to gauge its prospects. According to Roy's account, political Islam will continue to bifurcate between an indigenous strand and an immigrant strand. According to Kepel's, the two strands will become more connected, but with the diaspora playing a more dynamic role, perhaps much like the African diaspora of a century ago, which later brought home notions of black consciousness and pan-Africanism developed in the West. But a full understanding of the political nature of the jihadist project, which neither Kepel's nor Roy's book quite achieves, begs a radically new question: Will political Islam follow the example of Marxism, which spread from the West to fuse with various local nationalisms and create hybrids potent enough to topple regimes? It is too soon to tell, but anyone who wants to venture a guess should first turn to Iraq, where, more than anywhere else today, the future of political Islam is being cast. Every Middle Eastern movement that opposes the American empire--secular or religious, state or nonstate--is being drawn to Iraq, as if to a magnet, to test out its convictions. More than a year after the U.S. invasion, it has become clear that, by blowing the top off one of the region's most efficient dictatorships, the United States has created a free-for-all for fighters of every hue--Islamist and nationalist, from the homeland and the diaspora--sparking a contest that will influence the course of political Islam for years to come. Title: sucide bombings,,,, Post by: Prometheus on July 14, 2005, 11:22:43 AM Quote The Islamist View The basis for the Islamist view - which is not supported by the majority of moderate Muslims - is that the individual undertaking a suicide bombing (the term they commonly use is "martyrdom operation") is doing what that individual understands is his/her Islamic duty, and thus regards their own life, in this world, as but a stage, a path, toward the next, and eternal, life. These radical schools of Islam teach that such a "martyrdom operation" may result in them be rewarded, by Allah, with Paradise (Jannah) and rewards such as 72 houri in the afterlife. That is, they are willing to sacrifice their own life in the hope of becoming a Shaheed, a martyr. Furthermore, it has been argued by Islamist militant organisations (including Al Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad) that martyrdom operations are justified according to Islamic law, despite Islam strictly prohibiting suicide and murder. ill highlight this off as it is what most seem to argue over...... this comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 15, 2005, 06:11:32 AM Prom :
Citing sources close to the investigation, the BBC declared the used explosive was : triacetone triperoxide (TATP) An VERY UNSTABLE product made from products sold anywhere and in any shop. So we go back to what i was saying about the bus blast : I still think that stupid young guy was supposed to tube it and for whatever reason, he sat on a bus, gutted, going to his death. Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 15, 2005, 06:45:14 AM I have just given it some thought after i saw a photograph of a guy carrying a rucksack.
Theory : Mister X wants to plant bombs in the city of London. Mister X being known by the police cannot employ usual type bomb planters. But Mister X knows the chippy boy ( chip shop) and other youngsters. Mister X also knows a community guy who just had a baby and who desperately needs money. Mister X has an idea : What if he proposed money to these people to each carry a rucksack to london ? So a, b, c and d accept. After all, no questions asked, it's only a rucksack to carry, they only need to bring it, each to a given address, and they have been given clear indications, evne concerning th tube lines, so they don't get lost into london. Oh, but mister C did get lost !!! And for some UNKNOWN reason to him, all trains are blocked. Nevermind, mister C decides to take the bus to go back to central london, so he can go back home with the rucksack. He'll tell mister X he got lost and that he won't take the money. But Mister C only has time to think it, before he explodes. Who is guilty ? 3 teenagers and a man needing money, who could have unknowingly carried their death for money, or the commanditor ? THEORY ONLY One of the guys was jamaican, there are no clar linkings to al quaida, there were 3 gullible teens ??? Sounds to me as if they got all used. I hope to be proved wrong. If not, question : WHO is mister X ? and WHERE is mister X ? Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Skeba on July 15, 2005, 07:15:56 AM Of course they got all used... There's a mastermind behind this, that didn't get killed.
But I do think, that all of these people knew what they were doing. Plus I think that the fact that according to the eye witness, with whose help the police were able to start identifying the men carrying bonbs, the man on the bus was constantly nervously looking at and going through his bag though he never took anything out, is a sign that he knew what was going to happen. And if I remember right, I read in a newspaper that they have identified your mr. X, and that he left the country a day before the strikes. Yeah.. Here's the story on that (don't know how reliable they are, but some of the evening papers in finland used it as a source): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1694998,00.html Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Jessica on July 15, 2005, 07:30:57 AM cheers..
I do remember seeing young streatham and brixton kids ( south london) doing very veyr silly things for elder people, bringing stuff from one place to another. i cannot go more into it, but i know that kids hav a tendancy to be impressed by big nasties. In london, i actually saw white AND black kids whose heroes are still named reggie and ronny kray. Says all. Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 15, 2005, 10:47:21 AM I have just given it some thought after i saw a photograph of a guy carrying a rucksack. Theory : Mister X wants to plant bombs in the city of London. Mister X being known by the police cannot employ usual type bomb planters. But Mister X knows the chippy boy ( chip shop) and other youngsters. Mister X also knows a community guy who just had a baby and who desperately needs money. Mister X has an idea : What if he proposed money to these people to each carry a rucksack to london ? So a, b, c and d accept. After all, no questions asked, it's only a rucksack to carry, they only need to bring it, each to a given address, and they have been given clear indications, evne concerning th tube lines, so they don't get lost into london. Oh, but mister C did get lost !!! And for some UNKNOWN reason to him, all trains are blocked. Nevermind, mister C decides to take the bus to go back to central london, so he can go back home with the rucksack. He'll tell mister X he got lost and that he won't take the money. But Mister C only has time to think it, before he explodes. Who is guilty ? 3 teenagers and a man needing money, who could have unknowingly carried their death for money, or the commanditor ? THEORY ONLY One of the guys was jamaican, there are no clar linkings to al quaida, there were 3 gullible teens ??? Sounds to me as if they got all used. I hope to be proved wrong. If not, question : WHO is mister X ? and WHERE is mister X ? only problem is this...... last guy the one lost..... why did it take about an extra hour for his bomb to go off....... and they were all timed? to add to your theory.... as like you said in the alst post you have seen kids doing strange stuff for old people... same happens here.......... maybe the timer was busted and set to go off in the tunnels... got top side to address and no one home tunnels shut down gets on bus.... unstable explosive mix goes by by on the bus...... we had a chem teacher that told us how to make tatp back in the day.... damned if i remember....... and if i did i would not say... all i need now is cisis knocking on my door (wouldnt be knocking it down cause they are too inept for that) Title: Re: Terrorism: The How to Guide "Past present future including gurrila warfare" Post by: Prometheus on July 15, 2005, 10:56:39 AM so that quote from the blasts across London thread..... General Rick Hillier CDS Canadian Forces (Cheif of Defence Staff) in short hes the head of the joint cheifs in canada.....
heres his press release Quote OTTAWA (CP) - Last week's terrorist attacks in London underscore the need for Canada and its allies to take the fight to the enemy in failed states where "murderous scumbags" have room to thrive, says Canada's top soldier. ADVERTISEMENT Terrorists must not be allowed to feed on the instability of countries like Afghanistan lest that instability be allowed to "come home to roost here," Gen. Rick Hillier said Thursday. "The London attack actually tells us once more: we can't let up," Hillier told a media luncheon at National Defence Headquarters. "There are those who might say that by doing that we make ourselves a target in Canada here for terrorists. I would come at it this way. . . . We need to take a stand." More than 50 people died and 700 were wounded when four terrorists detonated bombs on London's subway system and a bus July 7. Hillier said Canadian military assets were offered but not needed. Headquarters also verified the readiness of its counterterrorism force, confirmed its Norad capabilities and alerted the navy on both coasts after the bombings, he said. Canada has maintained a NATO force in Kabul since August 2003 and later this month will send 250 troops to establish a provincial reconstruction team under U.S. command in Kandahar, the new focus of Canadian operations. The team will facilitate the work of aid groups, train police and help stabilize the area before a fighting force follows in the New Year. Hillier said 1,500 Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan, mainly the south, by February. He said he expects at least two task forces and three reconstruction teams to rotate through Kandahar over the next 18 months. Canada will also send a brigade headquarters for nine months, from February until October. "We're not going to let those radical murderers and killers rob from others and certainly we're not going to let them rob from Canada," said Hillier, appointed chief of defence staff earlier this year. Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden declared Canada a "legitimate target" in March 2004. Two months later, an internal RCMP risk assessment noted that Canada was the only country left on his list that had yet to be attacked. Hillier, who commanded NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Kabul for six months last year, said Canada has "a very big profile," regardless of what role its military plays in the Muslim world. As a member of the G8, and as a highly rated Western society that values rights and individual freedoms, Canada already represents "the exact opposite of what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want." "These are detestable murderers and scumbags," Hillier said. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." He said they want power to dictate people's lives, money to maintain and expand their power, and immunity from responsibility for their actions. "It doesn't matter whether we are in Afghanistan or any other place in the world. We are going to be a target in their sights . . . and I don't believe being in Afghanistan changes one aspect of it." |