It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What the Terrorists Want

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
How about you read either book and present the passages that say 'All non-beleivers must be killed, you must wage war against them until you have exterminated them'????


Nygdan, ask and you shall recieve:

047.004
YUSUFALI: Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

PICKTHAL: Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

And the problem Nygden is, some Muslims do read this as ALL non beleivers. And thats the problem, and that is Islams problem.




posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
You have voted skippytjc for the Way Above Top Secret award.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I find it pretty interesting how the replies to this
post have gone. Very few have commented on the main
theme of the original post (Islamic revolution and
reestablishment of the Caliphate). Insteadof attention
like xmotex did, to the main theme there has been a
barrage of nitpicks about what the Koran says.

In skippy's post he said that "Some Islamic teach...."
Then came the attacks that "The Koran doesn't teach
that". Wake up! What the Koran teaches should not
even have been a point of contention. Skippy said
that "Some Islamic teach...." If you want to disagree
with that fine, then show that nowhere in the world
that "Some Islamic teach....whatever". But!, you
didn't do that, you just tried to show that skippy
was an idiot for not knowing what the Koran taught.
You can't make up what Skippy said and then show
that it is wrong. Let Skippy speak for himself
and then disagree with what he actually said, not
what your limited attention span thought he said.
On top of this someone has even contributed that
the Koran does say what Skippy said some Islamic
teach. I don't know what the Koran says just as
99% of Muslims don't know what it says, but these
facts do not have much bearing on what is now
taking place with Al Qaeda and their affiliated
groups. What is of importance is what they are
trying to do, and that fact is being swept aside
by a lot of nitpicking about the Koran, which in
actual fact does not affect us much and also does
not affect the average Muslim that much.

The main theme of this topic could not have been
more effectively hijacked if Osama bin Laden himself
did it.

Does anyone have any definitive counter to skippy's
main point about what the terrorists (Al Qaeda) wants.
If you do, lets hear it. On the other hand I gave
an in depth follow up supporting his view and it
has not received one comment, and this in view of
the fact that it was exactly on his main topic.

If you have some real substance to add, I would like
to hear it. If you just want to put up pictures
of tee shirts, I think your attention span has
effectively been exceeded and you should go back
to your coloring books.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
MajorCee, excellent info as well. When you write in such volumes, expect it to take a little longer for people to digest it all.

Skippytc, this is just souljah's way of telling you that you have intellectually defeated him. He can't just come straight out and say it.

Nygdan, I have admired what you've written on other threads, but don't understand how or why you keep fighting the logic presented in this one. It overwhelms anything you and others have tried to say in opposition.

Tapeworm, I have spoken with 5 year olds that are less naive about the world than you appear to be.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I dont know if i agree with this. that is what the terrorists want. So what you are saying, the reason the so called terrorists are doing all of these bombings and such is because they want a world ruled by islam. your telling me that is why they supposedly hit the wtc. I dont know about that. Why you say? because it makes no sense. if you want to spread your religion and force it on people, why in the hell would you try to do it to the biggest, baddest fuggin nation in the world. lol, that makes no sense whatsoever. Now your gonna have these(the U.S.) on your asssss hot and heavy. Why would you not just leave the big dogs alone and concentrate on the weaker nations and people. Which i am sure they have done that as well. But dont go attack a nation that will totally rid your kind from the world within 10 years. that just makes absolutely no sense. You start small, gain some strenght and work your way up. you dont go str8 to the top.



DTA:
__________________



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I dont know if i agree with this. that is what the terrorists want. So what you are saying, the reason the so called terrorists are doing all of these bombings and such is because they want a world ruled by islam. your telling me that is why they supposedly hit the wtc. I dont know about that. Why you say? because it makes no sense. if you want to spread your religion and force it on people, why in the hell would you try to do it to the biggest, baddest fuggin nation in the world. lol, that makes no sense whatsoever. Now your gonna have these(the U.S.) on your asssss hot and heavy. Why would you not just leave the big dogs alone and concentrate on the weaker nations and people. Which i am sure they have done that as well. But dont go attack a nation that will totally rid your kind from the world within 10 years. that just makes absolutely no sense. You start small, gain some strenght and work your way up. you dont go str8 to the top.



DTA:
__________________



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Let's say the US supports a tyrant, like Saddam, or a dictatorship, like say Saudia Arabia, don't you think the repressed people are going to be upset with us? If my freedom is being repressed by weapons bought and paid for by the US, I may feel some resentment. If the Taliban won't let me go to school because I'm a woman, is it so odd that I'd be mad at the US for arming them? Or leaving may country in shambles after they removed them? Maybe some people don't like the US meddling in their affairs. Or would rather like to have food and education for it's citizens, instead of guns for it's government.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Curne, all thats on the agenda, its on the "list" of reasons to focus on the USA. But none of that causes Islamic extremism. It certainly is a factor, but not the cause. After all, Islamic extremists existed long before the USA has.

So Islamic terror driven by Islamic extremists has existed since the inception of the religion itself. So blaming the USA for Muslim extremists could not be further from the truth.

But the USA and its policies certainly give the movement a nice target.

Also: It really does say in the Qur'an that everybody must convert to Islam. And it really does (as I have quoted) say to kill them if they dont convert.

So what have we learned?
#1 Extreme Islam has existed long before the USA has
#2 The Qur'an does in fact preach the conversion of the world to Islam, violently if need be

After these two facts is it to hard to imagine that the extremists main motivation is to do what the Qur'an tells them to do?

Not at all.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Arnold skinney,

You are giving too much credit to the terrorists.
You expect them to make sense and be smart. Through
out history people have taken off on imperialist
ventures that don't make any sense. Why do you think
the current group has to make sense? Nothing made
less sense than the communist doctrine, yet it went
around the world at high speed. How much sense did
Hitler make? Why on earth did Alexander the Great
go around the world as far as he could conquering?
What sense did it make?

On top of that you have to get into their minds.
To Al Qaeda this makes perfect sense. Al Qaeda
was born out of the remnants of the Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan. Osama was there with them and
instrumental in the set up of the taliban government.
They fought the Russians for 10 years and defeated
a super power with God's help. They did because
God was on their side, and God wanted them to
prevail on earth. They believe this. Now it makes
perfect sense to them that they can reestablish
the greater glory of God and his Islamic Caliphate
because God has shown them the way, in their
defeat of the Super Power of the USSR. They have
the blue print right at their finger tips, all they
have to do is follow God's will. Would God have
let this rag tag bunch defeat Russia if it was
not his will? Go back and read my post about Al
Qaeda and what their scenario was for Afghanistan.
See what they envisioned for how the war would
progress and see how it meshed perfectly with
their previous success against Russia. Do you
see the logic to it, at least in their minds?

Like I said, you expect them to be perfectly logical
and make sense, yet if they did that, why on earth would
they attack the most powerful nation on earth? You
have to set aside the belief that they will act
logically, with the proof that they have given, they
have shown beyond a doubt that they don't have to
be logical. After all with God, all things are
possible.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Also: It really does say in the Qur'an that everybody must convert to Islam. And it really does (as I have quoted) say to kill them if they dont convert.


I find those parallels with Christianity. "Believe in me, or die!" That's what the Christian God says. "I created you, and if you don't worship me, you will suffer eternal pain and damnation." Some could argue that Islamic fanatics kill you now for not believing now, and that's better. Better than say, the Christian God killing you later (maybe tomorrow) when He returns for not believing (and the He still tortures you after you die, well Satan does, but He won't help because you didn't worship Him on earth). In the end, either death sounds very appealing.

I think the problem is with all of these "Believe in me or die and rot in Hell" religions (Islam and Christianity). It's hard to love your fellow human being when you think he will suffer eternal damnation for not believing what you do.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

I find those parallels with Christianity. "Believe in me, or die!" That's what the Christian God says.


I dont dissagree with any of that. But my post is about Radical Islam. I like the Christians about as much as an impacted tooth, so dont get me started.

In the end, no matter what the USA or any nation does, terrorism isnt going aywhere as long as the rest of te Islamic faith stands idle.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Skippy,

You are right on again with this latest observation,

"In the end, no matter what the USA or any nation
does, terrorism isn't going anywhere as long as the
rest of the Islamic faith stands idle."

This actually goes along with some other facts
brought out in this thread. One of the major parts
of the Bush strategy has been the involvement of
other Islamic forces to come to our aid in this
fight. This strategy actually surfaced right
away in Afghanistan, when the US sent special
forces into there and coordinated the Islamic
Northern Alliance and the western Shiite forces
to oppose the Taliban there. Use of Islamic ground
forces there was overwhelming. Only a hand full
of Americans (10-20) were there and successfully
brought down the Taliban. The next theater was
Pakistan, where cooperation was obtained to
fight Al Qaeda there. This has been an ongoing
cooperation that has resulted in many Al Qaeda
killed and captured, including the number 3 man
of Al Qaeda. In Iraq, the strategy changed
somewhat initially because the driving force
there included removing Iraq as a supplier of
nuclear weapons or materials to terrorists. I
laid out the case in detail about this in the
thread entitled "Discussion-America's Response
to a Nuke Strike" in case anyone is interested
in seeing the complete background of how nukes
was at the center of the Iraq invasion. The
follow up in Iraq has also seen the US strategy
of getting the Iraqi Islamic to join this fight.

The number one strategy on the Bush team has been
to get Islamic forces in the Middle and far east
to oppose Al Qaeda. The US just does not have
the resources to enter every Islamic nation in
the world and root out terror cells within those
countries. The US is dependant on getting those
countries to "clean up their own act". The first
time this became apparent was in Afghanistan where
the US successfully got the native Islamic forces
opposing Al Qaeda (and Taliban) to fight the war
for us. The invasion of Iraq put every country
on notice in the middle east that the US was willing
to go all the way and was not pulling any punches.
This served up notice to all those governments that
if they did not take steps to remove Al Qaeda and
supporting groups from their soil that they could
very well hear the sounds of M16s shortly with
Americans doing it for them. One of the very bad
places for Al Qaeda support was Saudi Arabia.
Much financial support for Al Qaeda was coming
from Saudi and they were doing nothing to stop it.
They actually had more fear of Al Qaeda than they
did of the US. The invasion of Iraq and the aligning
with Iran to do so served as a catalyst to change
Saudi behavior.

Here is something I wrote about March 2004 of
how the Iraq attack was changing the dynamic
of things in Saudi.
-----------------------------------------
The latest significance from the war in Iraq has
been the attacks against entirely Iraqi Shiite
targets. As noted before this is significant.
A synopsis including much of what Stratfor reports
and also some other sources on this latest
phenomenon from the war in Iraq is as follows.

The face of the war in Iraq is changing in a large
way to favor the US. US casualties declined during
the last month. It appears that the main effort has
now shifted away from the US to those Iraqis that
are cooperating with the US. The first signal of
this was with the capture last month of a CD-rom
written by top al Qaeda leader Abu Usable al-Zarqawi.
The CD-rom indicated a change in emphasis by the
jihadist guerrillas away from the US and toward the
Shiites. The attacks on Shiites in Baghdad and Karbala
that killed more than 170 verifies this shift further.

The guerrilla movement has 2 components, remnants of
the Atheist government and foreign jihadists who
have come to Iraq to fight the US. The jihadists
switching to an anti-shiite strategy, has been
accompanied by a petering out of Atheists effort. Since
December 2003, we have seen a decline in Atheist
operations. The high in their activity was probably
during Ramadan in November 2003.

Al-Zarqawi, the apparent leader of the jihadists, appears
to have made a basic strategic change. It seems to now
be clear to him that the US cannot be defeated by a
guerrilla war. Although things appeared bright to them
during fall of 2003, the failure of the Atheists and
improvement in US intelligence, changes in US tactics,
the difficulty of guerrilla operations in a large desert,
and the difficulty supplying a guerrilla force from
large distances over bare deserts have helped American
forces avoid large scale guerrilla attacks. In actual
fact, the US has won, and al-Zarqawi knows it.
Following up on this, al-Zarqawi appears to have
decided that the primary failure of the guerrilla
war lies with Iraq's Shiites. If the Shia acted in
cooperation with the Sunnis, the US position in Iraq
would have become unsustainable last fall. The guerrilla
war in the Sunni Triangle plus an intifada in the Shiite
regions would have killed an American occupation of Iraq.
If the United States had not withdrawn, it would have
had to pull its forces back into small strongholds well
defended but lacking control over the countryside. The
situation might have resembled Afghanistan but on a
larger more important scale.

The ramifications of a Shiite uprising would have been
a tough problem, but did not occur, and from al-Zarqawi's
viewpoint this has redefined the war. For him now, the
problem is not the Americans, but the Shia because they
did not play their role, and the Shia are the real enemy.
This has brought back the old long standing fault line in
the Islamic world between Sunni and Shia. The jihadists
now see the key in Iraq as being a war against the Shia
that forces them to fall in behind the jihadists or to be
shattered. This could well be a long shot for al-Zarqawi.
He does not have overwhelming support from the Sunnis,
especially their leadership. Even if they did there may
be no fact in the assumption that the Sunnis could win a
showdown with the Shia.

United States is still in Iraq and clearly is siding with
the Shia against the jihadists. A likely outcome could
well be that al-Zarqawi will find himself trapped between
the Sunni leadership, the Shiites and the US. The probability
that Al-Zarqawi is going to win his point in Iraq is near
zero.

The Iraqi Shia have sided with the Americans because
they did not want another Sunni government in Iraq,
seeing their experience with the last one under Saddam
Hussein was so uncomfortable. Also there is to consider
the Iranians, who had helped organize the Iraqi Shiite
community, have their own strategic interests. Iran desires
that Iraq be neutralized as an enemy or become a protectorate
of Iran. Iraq historically has been Iran's enemy, and the
American problem in Iraq gave an opportunity to Iran to
make the geopolitical status of Iraq something less dangerous
to them. This lets Iran pursue their national interests
concerning their ideological and religious principles. When
confronted with the choice of siding with their Islamic
brothers or the United States, they chose to side with
the US politically.

In the overall picture, Iran aligning with the US, makes
the US position in the region as near impenetrable as
possible, which brings us back to Saudi Arabia. Along
with al Qaeda getting sanctuary in Pakistan, they were
getting much financial support from Saudi. Saudi was
dragging its feet with the US and not doing anything
about this financial support and also not cooperating
with the US originally in its efforts on Iraq. Now
this has all come around to put Saudi Arabia in very
deep trouble. Regardless of the aversion between the
jihadists/al Qaeda and the Saudi government, Saudi Arabia's
problems affect al Qaeda.

If the Islamic world is going to pit Sunni against
Shiite, then you have to weigh the strengths of the
Shia, a small minority, against the rest of the Islamic
world. The Shia though are the majority in the Persian Gulf.
For example, the Saudi oil fields are in a Shiite-dominated
region of Saudi. The cooperation between the US and Iran makes
Iran enormously powerful in the Persian Gulf region.
It has the most powerful military force and its ties to
Shia throughout the region are the reasons. As Iranian
domination increases through more influence in Iraq, Saudi
vulnerability increases dramatically.

In any generalized conflict between Sunnis and Shia,
the Saudis are vulnerable to both direct military action
from Iran and indirect subversion from their own Shiite
population, facing an internal challenge from jihadists,
the Saudis can quickly find themselves trapped between
the conservatives and the Iranian-backed Shia. The
conservatives could decide that the territorial integrity of
Saudi Arabia is of less importance than the purification of
the House of Saud, while the Iranians might view the
rise of a more extremist government in Riyadh as worth
the price of dominating Saudi oil fields. Being caught
between the Sunni-Shiite confrontation could dramatically
influence redrawing the map of the region.

The United States, of course, was the factor that can
trigger much of this. Its original goal was the unilateral
influence of power on Iraq. The surprise rise of the guerrilla
war threw a monkey wrench into this, creating a dependency on
the Shiites and Iran serves to counter the original plan.
The Iranian decision to underwrite US presence in Iraq in
exchange for a long-term strategic interests did more than
simply helping the US out of this unforeseen. It gave rise to
a potential conflict between Sunnis and Shia that has two
possible benefits. The first benefit is to divert the attention
of jihadists from the US to the Shia. The second is to increase
pressure on Saudi Arabia, forcing the Saudis to look
again to the United States as a protector of their national
security.

Sunni and Shiite leaders in Iraq have tried in the past few
days to present a united front against al-Zarqawi. This will
probably be aided by al Qaeda, who in recent letter referred
to the Shia as infidels. This drives home the point that its
hostility toward the Shia is deep. A confrontation with the Shia,
in the final analysis is probably irresistible to al Qaeda.

The upcoming question now that the jihadist attacks against
the Shia is started is how will these attacks be received
in the next few weeks in Pakistan and Lebanon and other
places. If these attacks bring approval among the Islamic
Sunni masses and others also take up the attack then the
conflict could spread.

The first possible problem area for the US is that its
dependency on the Iranians and the Shia could rapidly trap
them in unpleasant ways, and the US could become hostage
to Iranian geopolitical aspirations. It follows that the
US must work quickly to establish a balance of power in
the region. The traditional balance was between Iran and
Iraq. If the Iraqi Shia can be convinced that they have a
national interest separate from their religious interests
which also fall with Iran then Iraq could become a
counterweight to Iran once again. There is tension between
An Najaf, the seat of Iraqi Shia, and Qom, Iran's religious
capital. The extent of that tension is not known but the
US must find a way to contain Iranian ambitions before
the solution becomes the problem.

If the counterweight does not work out to be Iraq then
United States is going to be the counterweight, and it
needs a geographical base to build on. The US probably
does not want a presence in Iraq any more that they do
in Afghanistan, so the countries of Turkey and Saudi Arabia
become important again. The Turks, in the end, have too
many common interests with the United States not to cooperate.
It is the Saudis who will become the real point of attention.
The Saudis have consistently misread the situation since Sept.
11. and are moving into their worst nightmare which has
components of domestic insurrection, rising Shiite power and
a hostile US. From the Saudi standpoint, things can't get
much worse. They have three choices available.
(1) Ally with the jihadists, and face the US and Iran both.
This is not a good idea.
(2) They can try to make a deal with Iran and oppose both
the jihadists and the Americans. This is worse than choice 1.
(3) They can turn back to the United States and use American
power to crush the jihadists at home and serve as a shield
against Iran. Not a great choice, but the best of the three.
It is the choice they will have to make in the end.

This will mean that the Saudis will have to shut down all
financial support for al Qaeda, and give the US access to
Saudi intelligence files, without exception, and access to
Saudi nationals who are working with al Qaeda. That will be
the American price for any deal. If the Saudis make that deal,
al Qaeda will become uncovered and put the US in a better
position for final liquidation of al Qaeda. Getting the
Saudis to deal with Al Qaeda within their borders is far
better than the US attacking into that area. Any general
attack of the US into Saudi could have disastrous world wide
effects from shutting of Saudi oil production that would
accompany any US invasion.
-------------------------------------------------
Since I gave that synopsis above back in 2004, the Saudis
have stepped up and began serious operations against
Al Qaeda.

In addition, if you look at the fight now in Iraq you
see that at least 95% of the casualties have been Iraqis
for quite a prolonged period now. The war has become
Islamic against Islamic. With a further increase in
Iraqi police and national guard this casualty rate will
become more and more favorable. As the Iraqis assume
the dominant role, the US will be able to pull back
and reduce force more and more. All indications are
that the anti terrorist Iraqis are gaining the upper
hand. The amount of volunteers are increasing for the
good Iraqis and also the Iraqis are giving more and
more information against the insurgents, as the insurgents
are becoming more hated for their attacks against the
good Iraqis. CNN reported last week that over 12,000
Iraqi civilians have died now from these terrorist
attacks. This figure does not include the Iraqi police
and military which right now are taking the largest
losses. With all this killing the insurgents are not
winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi population.



[edit on 27-7-2005 by MajorCee]



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
MajorCee, excellent info as well. When you write in such volumes, expect it to take a little longer for people to digest it all.

Skippytc, this is just souljah's way of telling you that you have intellectually defeated him. He can't just come straight out and say it.

Nygdan, I have admired what you've written on other threads, but don't understand how or why you keep fighting the logic presented in this one. It overwhelms anything you and others have tried to say in opposition.

Tapeworm, I have spoken with 5 year olds that are less naive about the world than you appear to be.




If you don't think poverty and oppression play a huge part in why people fall for this type of ideology, you are sadly mistaken. These attacks are political, not religious, as a lot of you seem to claim. The attacks change the political landscape, they do not change the religious landscape.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
What the terrorists want is to spark a general war between Islam and the West, in order to unify the Islamic world under one Caliphate, not coincidentally headed by OBL himself. The war with the West is incidental to the real goal: the unification of Islam.

Unfortunately, our own fanatics are determined to do everything they can to help OBL get what he wants.


sorry xmotex. I dont think it is as short term as you suggest. Even the extremists must know that if they are to achieve what they want to achieve, it won't be in OBLs lifetime.

Skippy, you dont need to keep pretending that you hate all religions equally. We know where your loyalty lies and whose side you would pick if TSHTF. Pretty hard to escape dealing with Christians in the US, I'm sure you have plenty of hardline hallelujah friends. If I'm wrong, then I would love to "get you started". Tell us all about what you think of Christians, we are reminded hourly about what you think of muslims. It's getting a bit stale.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
MajorCee, I would like to see a link to your copy and past job, please.


I think the terrorist want what happen in london, man shot 5 to 7 times in the head over fear.



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tapeworm

If you don't think poverty and oppression play a huge part in why people fall for this type of ideology, you are sadly mistaken. These attacks are political, not religious, as a lot of you seem to claim. The attacks change the political landscape, they do not change the religious landscape.


Poverty and "oppression" are FACTORS, not the cause. These poor and "oppressed" people are misserable no doubt. But then you have others in their lives who turn that misery into a tool for their agendas. Thye use that as the catalyst to turn these people into fanatical robots.

Remember: The USA wasnt even a dream or an idea when Islamic extremism first appeared, so how can it be the cause?

The poverty and oppression are just the sails that catch the wind, they are not the wind istelf...



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Update on the Al Qaeda world strategy.

Today 8/4/2005 President Bush, for the first
time that I have noticed, publicly referred to Al Qaeda's
main strategy concerning their world wide view.
In his speech today, he referred to Al Qaeda
with these words, as I can recall them.

Al Qaeda has a strategy to impose their will
and philosophy upon the world, starting in
the middle east.

This is the closest I believe you will see
him referring to an Islamic revolution
publicly.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
While there may be a small body of fools calling for a new CAliphate/World Islamic take over i dont beleive that is the real goal of most terrorists.

I think that most grievances the average terrorist have revolve around the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the war in raq, Muslims simply feel that the powerful nations of the world are out to get them, and so some fight back.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Uncle Joe is quite right when he says Al Qaeda is a
very small group, at least their core is small, maybe
as few as 200 or as many as 2000, probably closer to 200.
This is both their strength and their weakness. It
is their strength, in that it makes them very hard
to find. The core does not carry out strikes but
is the motivating factor that gives the missions
out to those who do carry them out. It is their
weakness in that it really ties their hands
in what they are capable of doing. In this regard,
note that they have not been able to carry out a
successful attack in the US since 9/11/2001. They
have been able to carry out some activity in Spain
and England using personnel there on the spot. They
are also able to influence other terrorists as noted
by Uncle Joe. The fact that Al Qaeda is small does
not mean that their plans are not large. Also remember
their grandiose plans include recruiting other
Islamic to help them in their fight and this was a
central part of their strategy when they successfully
targeted the US WTC and killed over 3000 Americans.
The fact that they are small certainly did not stop
them from a successful attack on the WTC.
The attack on the US was part of their plan to gain
support and grow throughout the Islamic world.
They have been partially successful in their
recruiting. In Iraq this has resulted in aligning
with the Sunni resistance and gaining them as
allies. If the resistance there of Al Qaeda and
Sunni cooperation is successful, Al Qaeda will
trumpet it over Al Jazeera as an Al Qaeda victory
and they will gain in strength, also the Sunni
there may give them key positions in a victory if
they are able to pull it off. To offset this success
though Al Qaeda have alienated the Shia of Iraq who
constitute 80%. Also to offset this success the
Iraq campaign is showing more and more joining
the US side and this is key. The jihadists seem to be
gaining allies but making more enemies even faster.
Also this organization has cells in some key Islamic
countries where they recruit more personnel, and
raise money. Saudi has been one of those key
countries and so has Pakistan.

Now that the US is in Iraq, Al Qaeda have shifted much
of their attention there, believing that if they
can defeat the US, that they will greatly increase
their respect throughout the world. Actually they
are correct in this assessment, but the odds that
they are going to succeed are near zero. The US
team recognize this fact as being key in destroying
Al Qaeda credibility and support throughout the Islamic
world and has instituted some very good strategy there
after initially failing to see that guerilla war
was actually Saddam's original plan for the
strategy there. By enlisting the majority of
the country to help defeat the jihadist mission,
the US has greatly increased the effort that is
going to be needed by Al Qaeda to prevail. Also
they have the Shia joining in as an active partner
to fight the jihadists. As the US gives the fight
over to the Iraqis, the jihadist will be even
further from their goal, having then taken on an
entirely Islamic enemy.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well it finally happened publicly, what was reported by
Stratfor intelligence service several years ago. Bush
made some passing statements that will probably go
completely unobserved by 99.9% of the population.
If you aren't paying attention you won't even notice
the words in the speech to which I refer.

Update August 4, 2005 Bush gave in a public speech the
first acknowledgment to Al Qaeda's basic strategy that I am
aware of. I noticed that Bush did not call this war
an Islamic revolution. Enstead he referred to the
terrorists beliefs and points of view. Even this though
was a first in that he acknowledged that it was an
effort to spread their point of view worldwide starting
in the middle east.

CNN has a video of the speech which is dated:
3:52 PM August 4, 2005 is available on their site
and you can view it by doing a search on Bush
and looking for the above date/time group and I
believe the video is intitled something like Bush
stays the coarse in Iraq.

CNN links to story on the speech:
www.cnn.com...

www.cnn.com...
CNN.com - Al Qaeda threatens more UK, U.S. attacks - Aug 4, 2005

Some quotes from the above article and speech follow:
===========================================================
The U.S. president described the ideology of al-Zawahiri and
his adherents as "dark, dim, backwards. They don't appreciate
women. If you don't agree to their narrow view of a religion,
you'll be whipped in the public square." (link to Full story)

Their goal, he said, is to spread their point of view throughout
the world, starting in the "broader Middle East. And part of
their goal is to drive us out of the broader Middle East."

But Bush said the United States would not bend to the threats
of al Qaeda or of al-Zawahiri.
=============================================================


Compare those words above with one paragraph that I extracted
from my previously posted notes concerning this basic strategy
of Al Qaeda. My previously post notes were post # 1564066
which was about the 3rd post to this thread.
The notes follow:
===================================
So in review Al Qaeda goals were to bring about
a jihadist revolution within Islamic countries.
Their main strategy to do this was to bring
about the unity of the Muslim world to expel
The US. Integral to this was the strategy of
baiting the US into attacking into the Muslim
world. Through this ploy it would be demonstrated
that the US was the enemy and jihadist governments
would be constructed throughout the Islamic
world to replace the puppet and hypocritical governments
present in the Islamic world. Al Qaeda strategy
was to spread jihadist Islamic governments and
the re-establishment of the caliphate.
====================================


For those of you who haven't considered this to be a
possiblility, what do you think now that the words have
come from the president? It might not hurt to go back
and read post 1564066 if you did not take it seriously
the first time.

[edit on 7-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by MajorCee]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by MajorCee]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join