Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 275

Thread: Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)

  1. #221
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    I think your right carl,
    One has to ask why are we afraid to face this? It is a religious war, the goal is to hurt America anyway possible. I am sure there are other motives to go along with this but it seems to be the primary mover. Political Correctness is going to destroy this country, it prevents the discussion of reality. What a propaganda win for the PC crowd, they have completely destroyed our ability to think as a Nation in order to defend ourselves and never fired a shot. Anything that violates the love boat foreign policy is not even considered no matter obvious it has become.
    Actually Carl and Bob are both right. There must be a new political arrangement in the Middle East for any hope of a sustainable peace that will lessen, not erase, the appeal of radicalism. We also need to take the radicals' threat to the wider region and the U.S. very seriously. Foreign fighters are not flocking to Syria for secular reasons, but to support a religious war. Some will continue that fight when they return home. We can do little to influence the political outcome, but we can implement a wide range of security measures, to include military action to reduce the threat. This war is far from over, but we can be smarter about how we conduct ourselves so we don't make the situation worse like we did with our invasion of Iraq. We also can make it worse by not taking action as we failed to do against AQ prior to 9/11.

    No easy answers, which is why I think this discussion is valuable.

  2. #222
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    I think your right carl,
    One has to ask why are we afraid to face this? It is a religious war, the goal is to hurt America anyway possible. I am sure there are other motives to go along with this but it seems to be the primary mover. Political Correctness is going to destroy this country, it prevents the discussion of reality. What a propaganda win for the PC crowd, they have completely destroyed our ability to think as a Nation in order to defend ourselves and never fired a shot. Anything that violates the love boat foreign policy is not even considered no matter obvious it has become.
    I did not realize "American" was a religion.

    That statement, more than anything else, demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. You confuse religious organizations and political organizations. So you will never be able to define the problem correctly.

    Bob is right, religion is NOT the main driver. By using religion to define the problem you include vast numbers of people who are unrelated to the problem. YOUR religious opinions make you see the problem as religious. You have defined the sides, the "us and them", based on your religious views. I wonder is Muslim Americans see the problem the same way.

    So what is your solution, genocide?
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-12-2014 at 04:29 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  3. #223
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Let me offer "a modest proposal" - a way to examine the question of religion in conflict. I will assume that the average American is Christian. Based on that observation alone, I can assume that the American answer to radical Islam is total annihilation of the entire Muslim population.

    That is a fair interpretation because of the religious teachings of both Christians and Jews. The bible teaches them that, when confronted with an enemy it is appropriate to kill them all. In 1 Samuel 15 God instructed them to destroy Amalek completely, “man and women, child and infant, oxen and sheep, camel and donkey.” Total genocide.

    So clearly the teachings of the bible would direct all Americans to engage in the total extermination of every Muslim in the world.

    Think about this for a minute. Based on what I have just said is it fair to impute motivation and desire to every member of a religion based on the religions teachings. Is it really fair to say that, because there are a few passages in the Koran about killing infidels, that every Muslim is now a threat to my existence?

    Religion is not the problem. Men interpret religion. They adapt it to their own thinking. It is not the religion that cause acts of terror, it is the motivations of the people and the way they twist the religion to fit their desires. It is those initial motivations that are the problem. They are what has to be addressed to find a solution.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-12-2014 at 05:44 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  4. #224
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Slapout can speak for himself, but i think you just left the ballpark completely with your comment about America not being a religion, so therefore the other side can't wage jihadists. First off the religious conflict is principally between Muslims, we are simply seen as the far enemy viewed as a secular state that is supporting those the jihadists see as undesirable. Al-Qaeda linked movements are most definitely fighting to impose their view of Islam, which is also a political system. Just because we separate church and state doesn't mean that others do this. As we all recognize there are multiple groups fighting and the coalitions constantly shift. Some of those group are seeking political power regardless of religion, so it is complex. It is also wrong in my view to claim ISI isn't motivated by religion. Why we shy away from I don't understand.

  5. #225
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Slapout can speak for himself, but i think you just left the ballpark completely with your comment about America not being a religion, so therefore the other side can't wage jihadists. First off the religious conflict is principally between Muslims, we are simply seen as the far enemy viewed as a secular state that is supporting those the jihadists see as undesirable. Al-Qaeda linked movements are most definitely fighting to impose their view of Islam, which is also a political system. Just because we separate church and state doesn't mean that others do this. As we all recognize there are multiple groups fighting and the coalitions constantly shift. Some of those group are seeking political power regardless of religion, so it is complex. It is also wrong in my view to claim ISI isn't motivated by religion. Why we shy away from I don't understand.
    The problem is not that we shy away from religion, it is that we use it as the primary evil without looking any further. We make no effort to understand how religion is being used by the extremist. The history being invoked, to try to find the reason why anyone would follow them. We think in shallow terms - they are evil people who are religious, therefore their religion is evil and so is everyone who practices it.

    The recent article "The Coming War with the Caliphate" is a prime example. The author had no idea what he was saying by using that term the way he did. He might have well have said "The Coming War with the Ummah."

    For some people it is enough to know that they are Muslim extremists. That categorization alone explains their motivations. It is this narrow thinking that causes the problem.

    Extremists of all strips use a doctrinal base from which to espouse their message. Be it Muslim, Cristian, Communism, or some ethnic identity myth. Again, it is not the religion that is at issue, it is the base of the extremist view and why that view resonates with a particular segment of the population.

    Thinking that way is complicated. Thinking that way is hard. But what we have done up until now is not working. There is no reason to expect that it will in the future.

    BTW, it was Slap that compared America to a religion, not me. You can't mix metaphors without revealing a little about how you think.

    Explain to me how Islam is a political system. What part of the Koran explains how a government should be established? What part discusses who the executive is? How laws are made? How budgets are determined? The reason there is a Sunni Shia split is because Mohamed failed to leave anything like a plan for future governance. So no, Islam is not a form of government. It lays out some laws, just as the bible does. That is nothing new. It certainly does not make Islam a political system.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-12-2014 at 08:31 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  6. #226
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    The problem is not that we shy away from religion, it is that we use it as the primary evil without looking any further. We make no effort to understand how religion is being used by the extremist. The history being invoked, to try to find the reason why anyone would follow them. We think in shallow terms - they are evil people who are religious, therefore their religion is evil and so is everyone who practices it.

    The recent article "The Coming War with the Caliphate" is a prime example. The author had no idea what he was saying by using that term the way he did. He might have well have said "The Coming War with the Ummah."

    For some people it is enough to know that they are Muslim extremists. That categorization alone explains their motivations. It is this narrow thinking that causes the problem.

    Extremists of all strips use a doctrinal base from which to espouse their message. Be it Muslim, Cristian, Communism, or some ethnic identity myth. Again, it is not the religion that is at issue, it is the base of the extremist view and why that view resonates with a particular segment of the population.

    Thinking that way is complicated. Thinking that way is hard. But what we have done up until now is not working. There is no reason to expect that it will in the future.

    BTW, it was Slap that compared America to a religion, not me. You can't mix metaphors without revealing a little about how you think.

    Explain to me how Islam is a political system. What part of the Koran explains how a government should be established? What part discusses who the executive is? How laws are made? How budgets are determined? The reason there is a Sunni Shia split is because Mohamed failed to leave anything like a plan for future governance. So no, Islam is not a form of government. It lays out some laws, just as the bible does. That is nothing new. It certainly does not make Islam a political system.
    First off I think very few people in uniform default to all Muslims are evil terrorists, and I think more than half have actually read a fair amount of history on the topic. You and Bob can come across as more than a little condescending at times. Our military is full of bright and educated folks who have put their lives on the line to protect Muslims, so keep that in mind.

    Second we have always had our share of simpletons, to include rednecks, in the public sector who form opinions based on 15 second sound bytes in the news. Those people don't make policy, but admittedly if stupidity mobilizes voters then it could influence policy.

    Islam according to al-Qaeda and I believe the Wahabbists should guide both social and political life. The laws are based on Sharia law, and law is a function of the state. I agree that governments must eventually form institutions, and since Saudi Arabia seems to be a state that follows Islam closely maybe a close look at their institutions would be informative.

    http://www.merip.org/mer/mer205/what-political-islam

    What is Political Islam

    by Charles Hirschkind


    Over the last few decades, Islam has become a central point of reference for a wide range of political activities, arguments and opposition movements. The term “political Islam” has been adopted by many scholars in order to identify this seemingly unprecedented irruption of Islamic religion into the secular domain of politics and thus to distinguish these practices from the forms of personal piety, belief and ritual conventionally subsumed in Western scholarship under the unmarked category “Islam.” In the brief comments that follow, I suggest why we might need to rethink this basic framework.

    The claim that contemporary Muslim activities are putting Islam to use for political purposes seems, at least in some instances, to be warranted. Political parties such as Hizb al-‘Amal in Egypt or the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in Algeria that base their appeal on their Islamic credentials appear to exemplify this instrumental relation to religion. Yet a problem remains, even in such seemingly obvious examples: In what way does the distinction between the political and nonpolitical domains of social life hold today? Many scholars have argued that “political Islam” involves an illegitimate extension of the Islamic tradition outside of the properly religious domain it has historically occupied. Few, however, have explored this trend in relation to the contemporaneous expansion of state power and concern into vast domains of social life previously outside its purview -- including that of religion.
    Gets more interesting as you keep reading....

  7. #227
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    I think your article makes my point:

    Grasping such complexity will require a much more subtle approach than one grounded in a simple distinction between (modern) political goals and (traditional) religious ones. Terms such as “political Islam” are inadequate here as they frame our inquiries around a posited distortion or corruption of properly religious practice.
    My issue is that we, as professionals, should not give into the the desires to simplify the problem. If we start using terms like "political Islam" without the necessary clarifications between the terrorist/insurgents' interpretation of Islam and a more pedestrian meaning of the term Islam then how can we hope those who read our writing to understand there is a difference. If we are incapable of understanding and articulating the difference in conversations amongst ourselves, how are we ever going to get the general population to understand.

    As professionals, people listen to what we say. We should be clear when we use terms like "political Islam."

    BTW, the article you site makes a great point on how Islam is blamed for socioeconomic problems that are larger than Islam.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 07-12-2014 at 10:29 PM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  8. #228
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I think your article makes my point:



    My issue is that we, as professionals, should not give into the the desires to simplify the problem. If we start using terms like "political Islam" without the necessary clarifications between the terrorist/insurgents' interpretation of Islam and a more pedestrian meaning of the term Islam then how can we hope those who read our writing to understand there is a difference. If we are incapable of understanding and articulating the difference in conversations amongst ourselves, how are we ever going to get the general population to understand.

    As professionals, people listen to what we say. We should be clear when we use terms like "political Islam."

    BTW, the article you site makes a great point on how Islam is blamed for socioeconomic problems that are larger than Islam.
    As professionals it probably way past time to explore updating our lexicon.

    Obviously Islam isn't a cause for economic problems, since the same economic problems impact other societies and states that are not Islamic. A lot of countries that are primarily Muslim suffer from the same issues of corruption, the resource curse, and borders drawn to facilitate exploitation by western powers as many non-Muslim countries. On the other hand, those that practice fundamental Islam do have an issue with marginalizing approximate 50% of their population by hindering the ability of women to get an education and pursue professions, and I can't help but think that is a factor in some countries for retarded economic growth.

    Islam is the underlying reason for the wide ranging jihad we're wrestling with now. That doesn't mean every Muslim embraces it, and most likely a small percentage do, nonetheless a small percentage of 1.3 billion people is still a lot of people. We have to understand our adversary and ourselves, and based on the recent dialogue I fear we understand neither.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 07-13-2014 at 03:38 AM.

  9. #229
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

    in their own words
    Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
    Compilation and commentary

    Jihadis can also be categorized as Islamists, political movements that want to bring the practice of Islamic law into government. Here, too, the jihadis are at the extreme end of a spectrum. At the moderate end is the Islamist-oriented government of Turkey, a NATO ally and a nation where secularism is enshrined in the constitution. Further along the spectrum, the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the Egyptian Parliament. And finally, there are the Islamists in Sudan who countenance the genocide in Darfur (of non-Arab Muslims), the Taliban, and the jihadis.
    The following statement is indictative of the bias we start with when viewing these challenges, which makes one wonder why they thought that Muslims were going to embrace western civilization in the first place?

    “Many writers, thinkers, scholars, and leaders who were advocating conformity with the values of western civilization and adherence to its norms and the complete adoption of its principles began rethinking their ideas and started to change their tone and replace it with a new more cautious and wary approach. The call for the return of Muslim society to the fundamentals and teachings of Islam became more powerful, paving the way for the re-islamisation of all aspects of life.
    Below Naji references the competing political systems.

    “The interest in understanding the rules of the political game and the political reality of the enemies and their fellow travelers and then mastering g disciplined political action through sharia politics and opposing this reality is not less than the importance of military action.” (Naji, 2004)
    You can't more clear than this in a vague sort of way

    “In other words, any political program will not succeed unless we can defeat the West militarily and culturally, and repel it from Muslim lands. At that time, it will not be difficult for the nation—with its great energies and vast wealth—to re-form its life in accordance with the fundamentals of Islamic Sharia.
    This is where I think you and Bob are too quick to draw parallels to the West, even when claim to be above that. Highlights are mine.

    The caliphate we are working to establish cannot be compared with
    any known man-made political system.
    ” (Ibrahim, 1984)
    One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.
    Do they desire to fight the West? Some do,

    “Islam is an all-encompassing religion. It is a religion for people and for regimes. . . . Islam is the only alternative for the countries [of the world]. . . .

    “Therefore, the crime of the tyrants in infidel [i.e. non-Muslim] countries, who do not rule according to Allah’s law, is an enormous sin . . . and we are obliged to fight them and initiate until they convert to
    Islam, or until Muslims rule the country and he who does not convert to Islam pays Jizya.

    “That is the religious ruling with regard to infidel countries and all the more so with regard to those who rule Muslim countries by way of the cursed law [i.e. a man-made law].” (al-Najdi, 2003b)

  10. #230
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #231
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default My Goodness Curmudgy........

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    I did not realize "American" was a religion.
    I go to work for awhile and you just fall off a cliff....Read it again I did not say American....You said that! I said America!!! referring to the country....based upon a conversation with a Muslim American who asked me directly "Why America doesn't get it?" Allah is everything....All must start with him not Politics according to my friend. But he is right most people don't get it which why we are in the mess we are in.

    That statement, more than anything else, demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. You confuse religious organizations and political organizations. So you will never be able to define the problem correctly.
    I have no flaw in my thinking but you sure do. I am stunned you are such a Cartesian thinker that you really have know clue do you? Here let me help you. Please read "Understanding Islamic Fundamentalism" by William R. Polk

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/29...undamentalism/


    And finally NO! I do not nor have never recommended genocide!

  12. #232
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default BTW Slap Never said that!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post

    BTW, it was Slap that compared America to a religion, not me. You can't mix metaphors without revealing a little about how you think.
    If you are gonna quote me get it right!!!! I never said that read it again.

  13. #233
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Somewhat dated, but these excerpts from a RAND study are worth considering, and it helps clarify my point that we're looking at this through a Western bias that almost makes it impossible for us to imagine a government without institutions, yet the jihadists admit that they want a government that doesn't stand in between God and man, and they admit they don't know what that will look like, and the transition will be rough. You may also be right, and this could be their downfall.

    http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_MG602.pdf

    in their own words
    Voices of Jihad, by David Aaron
    Compilation and commentary
    As your post observes, there is nothing unique in the using Islam to justify a utopian ideal.

    One of the unfamiliar characteristics of these writings is the way religious sayings and symbols are used to address issues that in the West would not take on such religious aspects. It is reminiscent of the way the communist movement in the 20th century discussed almost every political issue in terms of “class struggle,” and in much of the Christian era, secular problems were debated in the language of church doctrine. Similarly, jihadis address contemporary problems in terms of their religious ideology.
    There is nothing new here. The Christians did it if the 14th-17th centuries in Europe. The communists did it with ideology.

    To say that the Caliphate will be like no government on earth is just motivational speak. To govern, a theocracy has to have systems. Look at the Vatican - the ultimate theocracy. It has banks, police, PR people. And it only governs over a small space (and an large congregation). Iran is a theocracy and is very complex with its ruling Ayatollahs and its more secular government. There is nothing new under the sun. To say that Islam is somehow unique is to deny the rest of human history. So to approach it as a unique problem, a primarily religious problem, is to feed into its own propaganda.

    More important to the current problem is al Baghdadi. He is more cleaver and pragmatic than a simple religious leader. He has managed to create a self funded movement that has succeeded in using alliances with less religious groups to gain and control territory. He is more of a rational actor than his followers whom he manipulates. He is a man who apparently has no issue with the luxurious west as he wears a Rolex. Yet he is willing to be Stalinistically vicious in order to control his followers.

    Actually, it might be more appropriate to compare his to Stalin than to any Mullah or Ayatollah. He has taken a fundamentalist ideology and he it taking it over piece by piece. He will now consolidate his power. Kill his rivals and control the purse.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  14. #234
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.
    It is important to clarify this statement to avoid confusion. Sunni populations is too broad a description to be useful, that is even broader than saying Americans think this or that. If you read the writings of various Sunni revolutionary writers I agree with you statement. This thread specifically is focused on al-Qaeda and al-Qaedaism, which narrows the focus to a small percentage of the Sunni population. I agree AQ targets this broader population, and ultimately needs to win it over through conviction or coercion to be successful.

    Specifically al-Qaeda leaders, and the religious leaders they reference, align their thoughts to some degree with our American revolutionary leaders when they talk of freeing their people from tyrannical regimes who oppress their people. Several fundamental and radical Muslims were fond of U.S. Information Service during the Cold War, because they believed we were the only ones effectively telling the truth about the USSR and their oppression of Muslims. However, they (for lack of a better term, the radical leadership that embraces al-Qaedaism) see us as the oppressors due to our perceived desire to impose secular governments elected by the people, which in their view puts the people above God. They agree on removing regimes that oppress the Muslim people, but that is where al-Qaedaism linked groups stop being aligned with our founding fathers. They have no use for democracy, equal rights, etc. The form of governance they plan to implement is equally oppressive, but perhaps more just, than the ones they desire to expel.

    They adjust their words over time based on local context and to respond to the adversary's actions, so their religious (same as political in their case) narrative continues to evolve, but the core of establishing a caliphate remains; and some extremists are on record as looking globally, not just re-establishing the caliphate.

    The vast majority of Sunni Muslims who are not aligned with al-Qaedaism, still seem to find some aspects of AQ's arguments credible (Islam is under attack, Muslims are being oppressed, etc.), and any military action the West takes can unintentionally give additional legitimacy to AQ linked groups. Dictators in Muslim countries, especially where the majority of Muslims live in poverty also lend legitimacy to AQ's assertions. We agree on this, and it explains why AQ is able to spread its message and help mobilize the local population to act against their government, so yes that aspect is political. However, I think we would be remiss to discount the larger religious context that informs the political. Unlike our nation, religion is superior and informs the political in Islam, especially to al-Qaedism linked groups.

    Steve is probably right that once the extremists establish governance they'll probably lose power when coercive power isn't enough to hold it altogether. That still doesn't reduce to the West from the AQ linked members who still desire to strike the West either out of revenge, or to convince the West not to interfere in their countries, or in some cases in a misguided attempt to spread Islam into the West (the global caliphate).

    From a security standpoint we need to identify those terrorists (another word that isn't overly helpful) who intend to do "us" harm and find a way to eliminate them without giving AQ additional legitimacy. Ignoring the threat isn't an option, nor is a major ground campaign, nor is nation building in our image. It is absolutely critical we understand the narrative which is based on their interpretation of Islam. Trying to replace this narrative with a narrative based on democracy has failed and will probably continue to fail. Seems that most the appropriate approach to weaken their narrative is other Muslims promoting narratives that weaken AQ's. This is probably happening in some locations, but unfortunately leaders like Maliki further legitimize AQ's narrative.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 07-13-2014 at 04:27 PM.

  15. #235
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.
    I believe you are right, which means that a large part of the problem is not them, but us. We don't like to make the comparison between the our history and the current Sunni situation because of uncomfortable parallels and what it reveals about our own national "creation myths".
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  16. #236
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    35,749

    Default

    The exchange between Bob and Bill is interesting for a number of reasons--but having dealt often with really good Islamists (good from their understanding of the Koran and the Sunnah and their speaking a really good Arabic) and even though I was the interrogator and they were the detainees the conversations sometimes got deep.

    We in the West never took the time to try to understand what was driving them and often I caught myself actually agreeing with them--example---in 2005 and 2006 we never took the time to fully understand what was driving the Sunni insurgents---was it religious in nature, was it nationalism in nature meaning they did not like their country being invaded by Americans, was it they simply did not like foreigners and the list could go on and on.

    Example---we chased someone for over two years---one year from the previous BCT the 1st ID and then we actually stumbled across him.

    When I got his folder it was honestly four inches thick with reports over reports. So if one looked at the folder one would think you were dealing with a really major AQI fighter and or cell leader.

    When I read through the reports I was stuck by a number of repeated reports saying virtually the same thing so that really the four inches went to about a half inch.

    Then I simply said explain the remaining reports to me and just how did you get this massive reputation. He was startled by the direct question.

    Here is the story and it goes to the heart of the ME and how we as Americans failed to fully understand what we were seeing.

    This individual had a two brothers one a few years younger than himself (he was the oldest) and a really young brother of 12.

    Next to the family in a small faming village near Baqubah there was a richer farmer who had a pond and ducks. One day the rich farmers wife came to my insurgents family and accused the youngest brother in front of the mother for stealing four of the ducks---the mother of the accused brother then slapped the rich farmers wife who went home crying.

    Two days later the nephew of the rich farmers wife came to the insurgents family waving a pistol and demanding a financial payment for slapping the wife--this led to a gun fight with the nephew who was killed by the second oldest brother.

    Now at least under Saddam the police functioned in 2002---the second oldest brother was arrested as was my insurgent who was later released as the investigating judge ruled there was no involvement on his part. The brother got a 20 year jail sentence for the killing and was in Abu Ghraib when we arrived in Baghdad and was released by Saddam just before we arrived thus basically freed of all charges.

    So he goes home and there the aggrieved family then with every opportunity would finger the released brother for being in AQ , for being an insurgent, for being a criminal, for smuggling, for building IEDs, etc---and naturally we the Army collected all these reports which ended up in a targeting folder.

    True reason for the massive reporting: ---the aggrieved family was simply mad that the murderer was out of jail and free and they wanted him locked back up.

    When we did not respond by arresting the second brother the finger pointing towards my insurgent picked up as well with the same acusations ---at this stage in 2005 many BCTs did not fully understand this concept of Iraqi finger pointing which was using the Army by the local Iraqi as a vengeance tool against their alleged and perceived enemies.

    Now AQI comes into play---in this town was a alcoholic AQ leader who often would walk down the street shooting his pistol at the locals---my insurgent had two windows shot out by him and one evening he goes down and basically shoots the AQI leader seriously wounding him---so now he is in trouble with the US Army, the AQI and caught between both the fronts.

    He was also pushing AK47s that he had stolen from a local military camp because we did not get to Diyala until five weeks after arriving in Baghdad. So AQI upped the pressure and threatened his family if he did not sell them the weapons which he did --so now we have him on the radar as a AQI weapons dealer.

    So now I have him sitting in front of me with a four inch folder as a AQI member, an AQI weapons dealer---all because of four allegedly stolen ducks back in 2002.

    Or as the BN that captured him stated---he was a really bad dude.

    Guess what--- we the US Army until 2010 never got this finger pointing exercise that the Iraqi's used with us to settle their personal disputes.

    By the way many Iraqi women learned quickly that by accusing their husbands of being AQI we would arrest them and then they were gone for at least 2 or more years in Abu Ghraib and Bucca---during this period they would then divorce their husbands because the Army had arrested them as "terrorists" ---this was jokingly referred to as the "Iraq divorce".
    Last edited by OUTLAW 09; 07-13-2014 at 07:31 PM.

  17. #237
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default What Does Islam Mean?

    It literally means to submit..... does it not? or more generally to submit to the will of Allah. That means there is nothing to interpret!!!! nothing to analyze!!!! nothing to do but follow and submit!!!!! or be killed as an infidel. In fact only an infidel would try an analyze or interpret Islam which is an abomination in and of itself. This is what we never seem to understand. That is why the only way out is to follow......... The Prime Directive!

  18. #238
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The sad truth is that America's founding principals and the goals of the Sunni populations that AQ targets align far more than either side is comfortable to admit.
    LOL. I hate to use that but nothing else fits...and it did make me.

    Freedom of association. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press. Representative government. Checks and balances.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  19. #239
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Carl,

    Who are "They"?

    You are right that "they" in charge of ISIS, ISIL, Muslim Brotherhood, AQ, etc. choose to define the conflict in religious terms. As I have often said, this is the smartest and most effective way to recruit citizens to serve as guerrillas, as an underground, and as an auxiliary (in US doctrinal terms) in support of their agenda. But even those three broad groupings of the population only make up a small portion of Sunni populations of the greater Middle East and the entire planet writ large.

    I suspect the majority of Sunni believe strongly that the governance they live under must change; but that a much smaller percentage believe they must act out illegally to effect that change; and a much smaller percentage still that believe that the future governance they should replace their current governance with is that extreme Islamist version is espoused by the "they" you seem so concerned about. The much larger "they" simply want fair opportunity, justice under the law, and reasonably evolved rights more in tune with the environment of the current day.
    They are, as you said, the ones who are defining this as a religious conflict, as I said. They are the people with the weapons and the organization. So that makes them dangerous. What you believe the majority of Sunnis believe makes no difference at all even if they do believe as you think because the ones who matter are the ones with the weapons and the organization. They have not attended some secret conference somewhere and all agreed to pretend that they are motivated by religion just to recruit and motivate the foot killers. They don't fool themselves. They motivate their rank and file with the same thing that motivates them, religion.

    As you said, but seem to refuse to acknowledge, the conflict is religious. They defined it such. We have to believe that they have done so in order to combat it. You gotta know the kind of fight the other guy has put you in even if you didn't want to be put into it.
    Last edited by carl; 07-13-2014 at 09:12 PM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  20. #240
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    They are, as you said, the ones who are defining this as a religious conflict, as I said. They are the people with the weapons and the organization. So that makes them dangerous. What you believe the majority of Sunnis believe makes no difference at all even if they do believe as you think because the ones who matter are the ones with the weapons and the organization. They have not attended some secret conference somewhere and all agreed to pretend that they are motivated by religion just to recruit and motivate the foot killers. They don't fool themselves. They motivate their rank and file with the same thing that motivates them, religion.

    As you said, but seem to refuse to acknowledge, the conflict is religious. They defined it such. We have to believe that they have done so in order to combat it. You gotta know the kind of fight the other guy has put you in even if you didn't want to be put into it.
    Carl,

    What do you think it is about this religion that motivates them?
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

Similar Threads

  1. Refugees, Migrants and helping (Merged Thread)
    By Jedburgh in forum NGO & Humanitarian
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-04-2018, 11:10 PM
  2. Drugs & US Law Enforcement (2006-2017)
    By SWJED in forum Americas
    Replies: 310
    Last Post: 12-19-2017, 12:56 PM
  3. Bin Laden: after Abbottabad (merged thread)
    By SWJ Blog in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 11-01-2017, 08:08 PM
  4. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  5. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •