BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Terror Outrage Foiled

 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
Pingle!Pop
09:50 / 22.08.06
The point is that there are likely precious few terrorist groups, and even fewer effective ones, whose ultimate goal is to cause the loss of civil rights in Western nations.

Bush says and claims, that we hate freedom, let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?'
 
 
redtara
10:08 / 22.08.06
Where did you come accross that Kay, I've not heard it before. Could you dig up a reference?

I don't doubt that you've heard this somewhere, but I'm deeply suspicious of anything atributed to al Qaeda. I don't accept the existance of a coherent, organised, international, paramilitary organisation that goes by that name. I think there are a collection of grievences (al-Andalus is a new one on me) that unite Arab peoples around the globe and that those who commit terrorist acts find it convenient to do so under al Qaeda's 'flag', but I think the term is now a catch all label for unrelated groups, independantly active and also non existant organisations, a bit like the bogey-man.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
12:45 / 22.08.06
I saw it on the BBC, but I'm having the devil's own job trying to dig up a more concrete reference than Bin Laden saying "we are determined that the tragedy of Al-Andalus shall never be repeated." (in his 7th October 2001 statement) Half-an-hour's trawling brings up plenty of references, but nothing I can honestly say I'd trust to be accurate; I remember seeing it recently on the BBC news website, but searching that ain't turned anything concrete up either. Most annoying; maybe it was just some reporter riffing on the "lost glories of al-Andalus" theme; reassuring, if that's the case.

I agree completely that al-Qaeda should not be regarded as a coherent international organisation, and that other groups use it as cover or are branded with the label; but those of its pronouncements which are generally accepted as genuine can, I think, be taken as symbolic of the ambitions of those who claim to be under its banner.

(Personally, mind, and this is just my instinct, I reckon bin Laden's been dead for some time; appearing with a recent copy of (say) Time would've been an easy enough jibe at the Americans for failing to capture him, and yet all we get are audio tapes (which intelligence agencies obligingly say are "almost definitely" him; yeaaaah right) and videos of indeterminate age. But that's another story, maybe...)
 
 
redtara
22:01 / 22.08.06
I saw it on the BBC, but I'm having the devil's own job trying to dig up a more concrete reference than Bin Laden saying "we are determined that the tragedy of Al-Andalus shall never be repeated." (in his 7th October 2001 statement)

I've had a little mooch and read lots of very ropey acounts of this speach and what it means (none with much context) and I really think that this is an allusion to the Palestinian predicament (!!euphemism alert!!). I don't think that this is a statement declaring his intent to reclaim Spain for Islam.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
08:30 / 23.08.06
I agree about that speech, but the statement I remember reading was much more recent, and specifically included the Andalus in a (long) list of "places to be reclaimed". At the time I imagined (paranoia?) it was being mentioned to provide a preemptive casus belli against the West in the event of AQ's other demands being accomodated...
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:26 / 23.08.06
You know, I keep hearing this generalization: "the West", and it really bugs me. "Western nations against terrorists", blah blah blah. The terrorist group themselves seem to make that mistake.

I live in the West too - Latin America to be more precise - and me and my people have no beef whatsoever with any middle-easterner, or they with us.
It's not "the West", people. It's the USA and their allies (and some European nations as well. Some, not all, not most)

Don't drag me to your wars, please.


"Northwest", maybe?
 
 
Dead Megatron
19:24 / 23.08.06
"Northwest", maybe?

On a second thought, that would include Canada. And, as far as I know, they are not in this mess either. Are they?
 
 
Baz Auckland
21:31 / 23.08.06
Canada's involved in Afghanistan...just for the record...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:44 / 23.08.06
El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia were also in the "coalition of the willing". On the other hand, there's a pretty firm case that they were in various ways coerced economically or politically into it - with supports DM's point that, yes, it's one very large country acting as a power bloc in itself and pulling other nations along with it. Also, of course, much of the supposed coalition has provided not mcuh beyond their names on the list of the willing...

To tie this in, maybe we ought to go back to foreign policies and terror...
 
 
Dead Megatron
00:03 / 24.08.06
Ok, Canada is to blame, then. El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Colombia, though, are all victims of USA's invasion and/or CIA influence, so "willing" is not an acurate a term as "politicaly and economically coerced", me thinks. Anyways, most Western countries are still "innocent".
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:19 / 24.08.06
And, to tie that back in, have the countries not in the coalition been subject to this kind of terrorist attack? I can't think of one offhand - wel, there was Bali, but that was aimed at Australians. It did take place on Balinese land, though, at which point you get into the problem of supporting the enemy - Is Saudi Arabia a valid target because the Saudi leadership is generally supportive of the US, for example?
 
 
Dead Megatron
09:44 / 24.08.06
Good point, Haus. (and, btw, Australia is sooo in the West, isn't she?)


I can't speak for the fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, but I wouldn't mind that much if the Saudi royal family got blown up just a bit. (preferably during a visit by Rumsfeld)

But that is not a nice thing to say...
 
 
Slim
10:06 / 24.08.06
...nor is it particularly smart, in my opinion (no offense). The departure of the Saudi royal family might allow the clerics in Saudi Arabia take power and create the next Iran. I'm not a big fan of the royal family but the alternative doesn't seem any better. Instead of wishing death upon the royalty, it would probably be better to wish that they ceased to treat the country like a welfare state and took action to improve the economy/living conditions of Saudi citizens.

Is Saudi Arabia a valid target because the Saudi leadership is generally supportive of the US, for example?

Probably so, at least after it refused to allow Bin Laden to muster forces against Iraq in the early 90s. Would Saudi Arabia be a target regardless of its support of the U.S.? Though it's a different form of government, I wonder if the situation is comparable to Egypt in the 1970s where large groups of radical Islamists attempted to overthrow the Egyptian government?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
12:06 / 24.08.06
Hasn't Bin Laden always had it in for the House of Saud anyway?
 
 
elene
13:03 / 24.08.06
Not as far as I know. As Slim says he fell out with them in '91. He offered troops to defend SA (from Iraq), most importantly Mecca and Medina, and Saud chose instead to let US troops in. Saddam was then not deposed and the US troops stayed. He got more and more vocal in his protests as this proceeded and was expelled from the country, leaving for Sudan.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
13:33 / 24.08.06
...And in a super-villain team-up with Egyptian Islamic Jihad member Ayman Al-Zawahiri formed the fantastically named 'World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders ' ((al-Jabhah al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya li-Qital al-Yahud wal-Salibiyyin) and issued the following ruling:

"[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,' and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."
The full text is available from Wikisource
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:59 / 24.08.06
The departure of the Saudi royal family might allow the clerics in Saudi Arabia take power and create the next Iran.

Also a very good point.

Real world: no easy solutions!
 
 
grant
21:13 / 24.08.06
I can't think of one offhand - well, there was Bali, but that was aimed at Australians. It did take place on Balinese land, though, at which point you get into the problem of supporting the enemy

I'm not sure how relevant this is, but Bali's also got a weird status in Indonesia -- it's the only place where you can easily get pork to eat, and where there's more/louder/more obvious animist/local religion temples than mosques.

I'd actually think there'd be more action (albeit on a smaller scale) in "strategic ally"-type nations -- Turkey, Pakistan, places like that. I get the feeling Pakistan experiences a lot of flak from within, but I'm not sure that's true for Turkey. Is it?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:55 / 24.08.06
elene- you're right- by "always" I guess I meant "as long as I've been aware of his existence", really.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
00:39 / 25.08.06
ou know, I keep hearing this generalization: "the West", and it really bugs me. "Western nations against terrorists", blah blah blah. The terrorist group themselves seem to make that mistake.

I live in the West too - Latin America to be more precise - and me and my people have no beef whatsoever with any middle-easterner, or they with us.
It's not "the West", people. It's the USA and their allies (and some European nations as well. Some, not all, not most)

Don't drag me to your wars, please.


"Northwest", maybe?


It's not a literal geographical West people mean so much as a cultural one, so I wouldn't rush out for a tin hat just yet; still and all, it's a vague enough term even then. Wikipedia has a tolerable article on the different uses.

We could probably do with something that wasn't of geographical bent at all. "Anglo-Saxon" would be about as accurate as (geographical) "West", I suppose; not very. Tricky. Politics won't do; Western countries are democratic but not all democracies are Western. Technology won't do. Economics won't do. Age-of-countries certainly won't. Judicial systems won't... buggered if I can think of any strict scheme which would map completely to the "core" group of Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I guess that it can't be done, and that use of a shorthand term meaning "that group of countries" is necessary, but that that term can't be a decently descriptive one.
 
 
Baz Auckland
04:30 / 25.08.06
How about "Most of Europe and 3 former British colonies"?
 
 
Axolotl
17:00 / 25.08.06
I count 4 former UK colonies there Baz.
 
 
grant
18:57 / 25.08.06
St. Petersburg church is burning; terrorism suspected.
 
 
Baz Auckland
01:00 / 26.08.06
Oops. Forgot New Zealand. Apologies.
 
 
MattShepherd: I WEDDED KALI!
11:36 / 31.08.06
In the "rampant hysteria" column, an Arab human rights activist was prevented from boarding a plane at Kennedy Airport while wearing a T-shirt that read, "We will not be silent" in English and Arabic.
As Bill Poser at Language Log points out, your better terrorists don't advertise their occupation. You can now pick up your Arabic-language I Am Not A Terrorist t-shirt online, but I wouldn't recommend flying with it.
 
 
elene
12:12 / 31.08.06
A New York Times article from Monday, Details Emerge in British Terror Case, that I think is blocked in the UK for fear of influencing the trial, strongly suggests that the reaction to this plot was greatly exaggerated.

Here's some of it.

... British officials said the suspects still had a lot of work to do. Two of the suspects did not have passports, but had applied for expedited approval. One official said the people suspected of leading the plot were still recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers.

While investigators found evidence on a computer memory stick indicating that one of the men had looked up airline schedules for flights from London to cities in the United States, the suspects had neither made reservations nor purchased plane tickets, a British official said.

... two and a half weeks since the inquiry became public, British investigators have still not determined whether there was a target date for the attacks or how many planes were to be involved. They say the estimate of 10 planes was speculative and exaggerated.

...

Despite the charges, officials said they were still unsure of one critical question: whether any of the suspects was technically capable of assembling and detonating liquid explosives while airborne.

A chemist involved in that part of the inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was sworn to confidentiality, said HMTD, which can be prepared by combining hydrogen peroxide with other chemicals, "in theory is dangerous," but whether the suspects "had the brights to pull it off remains to be seen."

While officials and experts familiar with the case say the investigation points to a serious and determined group of plotters, they add that questions about the immediacy and difficulty of the suspected bombing plot cast doubt on the accuracy of some of the public statements made at the time.

"In retrospect,'' said Michael A. Sheehan, the former deputy commissioner of counterterrorism in the New York Police Department, "there may have been too much hyperventilating going on."

Some of the suspects came to the attention of Scotland Yard more than a year ago ...

British officials said many of the questions about the suspected plot remained unanswered because they were forced to make the arrests before Scotland Yard was ready.

The trigger was the arrest in Pakistan of Rashid Rauf, a 25-year-old British citizen with dual Pakistani citizenship, whom Pakistani investigators have described as a "key figure" in the plot.

...

"The plotters received a very short message to 'Go now,' " said Franco Frattini, the European Union's security commissioner, who was briefed by the British home secretary, John Reid, in London. "I was convinced by British authorities that this message exists."

A senior British official said the message from Pakistan was not that explicit. But, nonetheless, investigators here had to change their strategy quickly.

"The aim was to keep this operation going for much longer," said a senior British security official who requested anonymity because of confidentiality rules. "It ended much sooner than we had hoped."

From then on, the British government was driven by worst-case scenarios based on a minimum-risk strategy.

...

In addition to Mr. Stephenson's remark that the attack would have been "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," Mr. Reid said that attacks were "highly likely" and predicted that the loss of life would have been on an "unprecedented scale."

Two weeks later, senior officials here characterized the remarks as unfortunate. As more information was analyzed and the British government decided that the attack was not imminent, Mr. Reid sought to calm the country by backing off from his dire predictions, while defending the decision to raise the alert level to its highest level as a precaution.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
13:25 / 31.08.06
Does anyone know what the Arabic word for "terrorist" actually is? Is it a transliteration, or a word or compound native to the language? And if it is a native word or compound, does a literal translation into English mean something else?

I can't help but feel it might be important somehow; there's a horrible scope for misunderstanding. I've tried to spell it out, but reading written Arabic is horribly hard. It's the first big block of letters on the t-shirt, if anyone fancies a go.

(edit)

As far as I can tell it's certainly a distinct word from mujaheddin and fedayeen, which is probably obvious, but kinda nice to know that one person's terrorist is not literally - literally literally - another's holy warrior.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
13:46 / 31.08.06
Ah... interesting, it would appear that the closest word is hirabah, which appears to mean something along the lines of "violence against the state"; apparently it's from the same root as the harb in Dar al-Harb.

There seems to be a strong argument for the term to be used to describe those people carrying out terrorist acts in the name of Islam, rather than using jihaddi which carries an implicit inference of righteousness.

(On the other hand, there's also people claiming that that is a fiendish Arabic trap designed to ensnare the dim Westerners into something or other, bringing down the Saudis or something like that; mind you, that was from Jihad Watch or somesuch, so should probably be taken with a barrowload of salt.)
 
 
redtara
03:26 / 04.09.06
As more information was analyzed and the British government decided that the attack was not imminent, Mr. Reid sought to calm the country by backing off from his dire predictions, while defending the decision to raise the alert level to its highest level as a precaution.

Just in case some wolves did come.... my arse!

Apologies for lack of intellectual rigour in the framing of my post. Sometimes only a bottom reference will do.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply