Al Qaeda Failed. What About Us? Ten Questions.(skatingonstilts.com)
skatingonstilts.com
Al Qaeda Failed. What About Us? Ten Questions.
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/12/al-qaeda-failed-what-about-us.html
13 comments
I was with you until you said: "the best way to fight the war on terror is to give people in Afghanistan, Saudui Arabia, etc. a decent life."
Take this very terrorist, for instance.
- engineering student
- son of a "prominent" banker (a retired board member of his bank)
- family "mansion" in Central London
source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200912260001.html
Osama Bin Laden grew up extremely wealthy, Al-Zawahiri was a surgeon, etc. You think these are outliers? I could make a suggestion myself as to how I'd like to see this fought but, this being Hacker News, I'd settle for an examination of the statistics to determine cause-and-effect.
Take this very terrorist, for instance.
- engineering student
- son of a "prominent" banker (a retired board member of his bank)
- family "mansion" in Central London
source: http://allafrica.com/stories/200912260001.html
Osama Bin Laden grew up extremely wealthy, Al-Zawahiri was a surgeon, etc. You think these are outliers? I could make a suggestion myself as to how I'd like to see this fought but, this being Hacker News, I'd settle for an examination of the statistics to determine cause-and-effect.
Good point - I was actually thinking about deleting the second paragraph before hitting submit. Maybe I should have.
Poverty does seem to be a large part of the problem though. It appears that the reason Al Qaeda can gather a following is because they give people hope and a common enemy in a desolate and very poor world. If the US had sent televisions, jobs and a McDonalds on every corner to Afghanistan instead of bombs the result might have been different.
Poverty does seem to be a large part of the problem though. It appears that the reason Al Qaeda can gather a following is because they give people hope and a common enemy in a desolate and very poor world. If the US had sent televisions, jobs and a McDonalds on every corner to Afghanistan instead of bombs the result might have been different.
...namely terror carried out in the Western world.
You're making two mistakes: One is confusing goals with what is used to achieve goals. For Al Qaeda, terror is only a means to an end. The end is more along the lines of restoring a worldwide Islamic state under Sharia law and a particular brand of Islam. Latter bit, particular brand of Islam, is pretty important (it partially explains why bin Laden had his Saudi citizenship revoked, despite Saudi Arabia being under Sharia law already)
The other mistake is that you're assuming that all the organizations under Al Qaeda (think of them as an umbrella corporation, really) or people within Al Qaeda want to fight against western nations. Abdullah Azzam (one of the initial founders of Al Qaeda) wanted to move into Israel after Al Qaeda's small part in pushing the Soviets out of Afghanistan, not the West (like al-Zawahiri wanted) or Saudi Arabia (like bin Laden wanted). And bin Laden - and Al Qaeda - have some pretty strong ties in Africa as well (see Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, for example).
You're making two mistakes: One is confusing goals with what is used to achieve goals. For Al Qaeda, terror is only a means to an end. The end is more along the lines of restoring a worldwide Islamic state under Sharia law and a particular brand of Islam. Latter bit, particular brand of Islam, is pretty important (it partially explains why bin Laden had his Saudi citizenship revoked, despite Saudi Arabia being under Sharia law already)
The other mistake is that you're assuming that all the organizations under Al Qaeda (think of them as an umbrella corporation, really) or people within Al Qaeda want to fight against western nations. Abdullah Azzam (one of the initial founders of Al Qaeda) wanted to move into Israel after Al Qaeda's small part in pushing the Soviets out of Afghanistan, not the West (like al-Zawahiri wanted) or Saudi Arabia (like bin Laden wanted). And bin Laden - and Al Qaeda - have some pretty strong ties in Africa as well (see Sudan, Somalia and Yemen, for example).
Your first point - I agree of course, sorry if it wasn't implied.
Your second point - That's exactly the point I'm making. Al Qaeda isn't led by one person who dictates what to do and what not to do. It's more of an ideology, and not all it's members choose to fight the same enemy in the same way. That's exactly why it's so hard to fight - you're trying to kill people's ideas which is not something you can do with bombs.
Your second point - That's exactly the point I'm making. Al Qaeda isn't led by one person who dictates what to do and what not to do. It's more of an ideology, and not all it's members choose to fight the same enemy in the same way. That's exactly why it's so hard to fight - you're trying to kill people's ideas which is not something you can do with bombs.
You misunderstood my second point a bit: By "an umbrella corporation", I don't just mean that Al Qaeda is made up of different cells. I mean that each of the cells is united by a group of people higher up. In this case, it primarily means Bin Laden and al-Zarqawi, but there are others (Azzam used to be on this list, for example). These guys still have their own goal - a global Islamic state.
bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, etc just view the rest of the groups under the umbrella as different pieces to helping them achieve their goal. That group x wants independence, while group y wants to maintain control (or whatever the case may be) is irrelevant to them. They want all the groups to succeed because if it does, then, thats one more area in the world where Islam rules, one step closer to their end-goal.
And that is why Al Qaeda having ties everywhere is such a problem. That Al Qaeda is an umbrella to bring all of these groups together to trade people and/or skillsets among groups is the problem. Not that Al Qaeda will go and blow up some building in some country. Because then, thats two more groups with information that can (potentially) be used in bad ways.
bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, etc just view the rest of the groups under the umbrella as different pieces to helping them achieve their goal. That group x wants independence, while group y wants to maintain control (or whatever the case may be) is irrelevant to them. They want all the groups to succeed because if it does, then, thats one more area in the world where Islam rules, one step closer to their end-goal.
And that is why Al Qaeda having ties everywhere is such a problem. That Al Qaeda is an umbrella to bring all of these groups together to trade people and/or skillsets among groups is the problem. Not that Al Qaeda will go and blow up some building in some country. Because then, thats two more groups with information that can (potentially) be used in bad ways.
This strikes me as a ham-fisted effort to politicize this incident. In other words, a crock.
his name "appears to be included in the government's records of terrorist suspects, according to a preliminary review."
Along with how many other people? Hundreds of thousands?
Along with how many other people? Hundreds of thousands?
550,000 according to the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27terror.html?hp
And this excerpt seems relevant:
"A senior Obama administration official said Mr. Abdulmutallab had come to the attention of American officials at least several weeks ago, but the initial information was not specific enough to raise alarms that he could potentially carry out a terrorist attack.
"The investigative file was opened after Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father warned officials at the United States Embassy in Nigeria of his son’s increasingly extremist religious views, the official said.
""The information was passed into the system, but the expression of radical extremist views were very nonspecific", said the senior administration official, who has been briefed on the inquiry but spoke on condition of anonymity because it is continuing. "We were evaluating him, but the information we had was not a lot to go on.""
Do we really want to prevent anyone who expresses extremist religious views from boarding an airplane?
"A senior Obama administration official said Mr. Abdulmutallab had come to the attention of American officials at least several weeks ago, but the initial information was not specific enough to raise alarms that he could potentially carry out a terrorist attack.
"The investigative file was opened after Mr. Abdulmutallab’s father warned officials at the United States Embassy in Nigeria of his son’s increasingly extremist religious views, the official said.
""The information was passed into the system, but the expression of radical extremist views were very nonspecific", said the senior administration official, who has been briefed on the inquiry but spoke on condition of anonymity because it is continuing. "We were evaluating him, but the information we had was not a lot to go on.""
Do we really want to prevent anyone who expresses extremist religious views from boarding an airplane?
Unfortunately you already have.
At least two of my friends are barred from entering the United States for life simply because they were members of a Marxist organisation in their teens, and are now labelled as terrorists. I come from a fairly left-leaning country (Denmark) where Marxism isn't all that unusual. We call it free speech.
At least two of my friends are barred from entering the United States for life simply because they were members of a Marxist organisation in their teens, and are now labelled as terrorists. I come from a fairly left-leaning country (Denmark) where Marxism isn't all that unusual. We call it free speech.
Huh? The hypothetical was about religion not about economic systems and/or government/social structures. So you've basically changed the subject as opposed to responding to the comment.
It isn't really possible to respond in any substantial way to the mis-mash of ideas you introduce with your anecdote but I will say that free speech is not an absolute right for US citizens never mind for non-citizens.
It isn't really possible to respond in any substantial way to the mis-mash of ideas you introduce with your anecdote but I will say that free speech is not an absolute right for US citizens never mind for non-citizens.
free speech is not an absolute right
Then you are indeed lost.
Then you are indeed lost.
If you look at the amount of money the US government is spending on the war on terror proportionally to how much money Osama Bin Laden has at his disposal he is by far the best financed. The argument is made stronger if you look at the current state of US economics. The country is going broke, partly because of the war on terror which has been tremendously expensive. Particularly if you include effects on business, travel, etc.
Furthermore Al Qaeda isn't a military construction as we are used to, it's a series of loosely connected cells that share the same ideology and goals, namely terror carried out in the Western world. This makes it hard to fight in a traditional sense since you can't kill the soldiers or kill the people in command. When a terrorist is killed a new one will spring up to take the dead ones place. The US government doesn't seem to grasp this, and the fact that the best way to fight the war on terror is to give people in Afghanistan, Saudui Arabia, etc. a decent life so they have something to live for instead of running around blowing everybody up.