Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is making itself heard around the world these days. The Saudis have been aware of the organization since the Saudi branch of AQ merged with the Yemeni-based organization back in 2006, and particularly since it set up the attempted assassination of Pr. Mohammad bin Nayef a few months ago. Now, the Nigerian who attempted to destroy an American airliner en route to Detroit is claiming that he was acting on orders of the group. The validity of his claim is yet to be determined, but there is nothing apparent to contradict the claim at this point.
The Washington Post runs several pieces today on the attempt, including an editorial. A new Associated Press story appears on the paper’s website, too new to have made the print editions:
Al-Qaida group says it was behind jetliner attack
EILEEN SULLIVAN and LOLITA C. BALDORWASHINGTON — Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula on Monday claimed responsibility for the attack on a U.S. airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas Day, saying it was retaliation for a U.S. operation against the group in Yemen.
Federal authorities met Monday to reassess the U.S. system of terror watchlists to determine how to avoid the type of lapse that allowed a man with explosives to board the flight in Amsterdam even though he was flagged as a possible terrorist.
In a statement posted on the Internet, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula said 23-year-old Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab coordinated with members of the group, an alliance of militants based in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
…
A story that did make it into the print edition calls notice to the AQAP. This should be news only to those who weren’t paying attention to the region, including the border clashes between the group and the Saudi military:
The Post‘s editorial is strongly condemnatory of anti-terrorism efforts that failed badly enough to permit this incident to take place.
Unconnected dots, yet again, on a terror attempt
THE THWARTED Christmas Day airplane bombing raises three causes for alarm. First, it illustrates a screening system that remains porous enough to let a suspect board with the same explosive shoe-bomber Richard Reid attempted to use in 2001. Second, it exposes a terrorism bureaucracy too clumsy to catapult the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, at least to a higher level of preflight scrutiny after his father came forward with warnings that he might pose a danger. Third, if it is true that the suspect received explosives training from al-Qaeda in Yemen, the incident underscores the emergence of that troubled nation as a training ground for terrorists. To that initial list, we would add a fourth: the disturbingly defensive reaction of the Obama administration.
…
Unfortunately, this incident will have ramifications for those whose lives involve airlines. Already, stricter screening is in place for both international flights ending in the US and for US domestic flights. Air travel is becoming more onerous, more time-consuming, and far less a pleasure than once it might have been.
The complaints of some (including the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU) about new screening technologies’ being too intrusive—here, the complaint is about full-body scanning, either through X-rays or radio waves, and how it demeans the traveler to have his/her entire body seen through clothing—are likely to fall on deafer ears. There’s nothing quite so demeaning, in my opinion, than becoming a collection of body parts spread across several square miles of land or sea because a bomb was permitted aboard my plane!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
December:29:2009 - 00:29
I would accept the demeaning searches if I felt they were in the least bit effective. So now they will go through my knickers and feel me up before I get on board. And next time, someone will carry the bomb within the body cavity. Then what? Cavity searches? Hell, no!
Perhaps something more practical, like, screening, profiling (yes, even though it means I will get stopped more frequently than I am now because I am South Asian–I already get extra screening as it is), flagging suspect passengers, ACTING ON AVAILABLE INFORMATION, might be a more effective deal, don’t you think? This guy should never have been on the flight. Period. Bomb-filled undies or not.
TSA is reacting by brutalizing harmless passengers with pointless procedures that will mean jack to real criminals because the-powers-that-be are too politically correct to put in place the type of screening procedures that might actually work. It was the passengers, not the much vaunted TSA that prevented the disaster. Personally, after 9/11, if I see someone with smoke coming out of their anatomy, I would clobber them first, ask questions later, and take my chances with the justice system. And screw the TSA requirements that I not leave my seat in the last hour of the flight.
You are right, John, nothing is more demeaning than being a collection of body parts randomly distributed over square miles of land. And the way to prevent it is by the TSA actually acting on intelligence, not playing pass the buck, and holding errant officers responsible. Screwing passengers over yet once again won’t help me stay alive.
December:29:2009 - 00:40
Little did I know that those nude beaches were just practice sessions for airplane trips.
On the other hand, one wonders about an entity (TSA) that sends a 4-year Korean-American kid wearing jeans through the metal detector twice and then has him remove his jacket for a wand probe, as happened to a friend’s son.
December:29:2009 - 01:38
Kactuzkid,
You are right! Perhaps finally public nudity will become the norm thanks to the TSA’s security procedures! Thank God that the Health Care Reform bill did not stick on those taxes for botox and liposuction. Maybe we will get in the habit of a quickie lipo before heading to the airport. Can’t have anyone staring at my expanding waistline and suspecting me of carrying subcutaneous explosive devices. Or having an outsize carbon footprint from eating too many burgers
The mind boggles, really.
December:29:2009 - 11:03
Back in the 1980s, a Palestinian terrorist had his pregnant (by him) Irish wife attempt to board an El Al flight while carrying a bomb. I would not be surprised if attempts were made to use children to smuggle explosives… they’re already being used to smuggle drugs, after all.
Probably the safest travel–and great for airline profits–is to have everyone strip naked, then gas them into unconsciousness for the duration of the flight. The sleeping bodies could be stacked on shelves on the airplane with no need for flight attendants, food choices, cranky passenger complaints, etc.
On arrival, the
cargopassengers would be reawakened, permitted to dress, then process through customs and immigration.December:29:2009 - 11:26
“I would accept the demeaning searches if I felt they were in the least bit effective. ”
“Probably the safest travel–and great for airline profits–is to have everyone strip naked”
Ironically, the only airport where I remember being strip searched – right down past my underwear to the skin – was Schiphol, where the AQAP bomber’s flight originated.
December:29:2009 - 12:00
Something else: it seems the plotters of the foiled Christmas Day attack were products of the Saudi rehabilitation program: link1 link2
December:29:2009 - 12:31
Rather than ‘products’ of the program, I think it more accurate to say ‘failures’ of the program. The Saudi rehab program appears to have a recidivism rate of around 20%, which is actually pretty good when it comes to behavior modification programs.
I find the ABC report (your link1) to be particularly tendentious. It calls the program ‘art therapy’ when that is only a minor part of the overall program.
December:29:2009 - 13:50
Somehow my South Asian-ness has never led me to be searched closely on international airlines or in any place abroad – and I was in Central London on the day of London Underground blasts, in the very same area immediately after the incidents took place, which was crowded with security personnel at that time. Perhaps I have been lucky, or perhaps I am blessed with a particular kind of look that makes them think I can’t be a terrorist!
December:29:2009 - 14:28
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/schneier.air.travel.security.theater/index.html
this is required reading before anyone here comments. anyone’s point that doesn’t refute these ideas, i will consider…uh stupid.
john, your comments 4 and 7 were good. but your irrational expression of fear at the end of your main post is disappointing.
December:30:2009 - 13:49
This is related to this post and also to the discussion we have been having on The Meaning of minarets. Obama’s statement following the failed terror attack on the Northwestern airline says he intends to use every resource of the US to wipe out the terrorists, no matter whether they are from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen or Somalia.
As I have been discussing on the other post, Saudi Arabia doesn’t form a part of this list, despite the fact that Al-Qaeda is a Saudi organisation and is actually funded from Saudi Arabia. South Asia, Africa, Yemen, all geopolitically weak and not so important regions for the US can be attacked, but not Saudi Arabia, because of its strategic importance to the US, eventhough Saudi Arabia has a large part to play in the spread of terror around the world – funding it by using the US dollars they are getting out of oil and other business with the US. This kind of understanding shows a shortsightedness and isn’t going to contain terror attacks in the world. The question is, Obama will attack any part of the world, but will he attack Saudi Arabia? Unless he deals with that country strictly, I don’t see terrorism dying in the world.
I am not arguing that attacking Saudi Arabia or any other country is the solution, but pointing out the fact that this kind of thinking that leaves out the source of the problem can’t solve the problem.
John,
You said on the other post the US recognises the problem created by Saudi Arabia but is not highlighting it too much. there may be a logic to it, but not highlighting the country that is actually exporting terrorism and highlighting other countries where terrorism has been exported is only complicating the problem, not solving it.
I am not even discussing the feelings expressed by certain quarters that Obama is going soft on this issue – I feel whether he likes it or not, he can’t afford to go soft on this issue.
Those who are not familiar with the argument presented here, please see the discussion on the post on this blog titled The Meaning of Minarets.
December:30:2009 - 15:26
The TSA is rather interested in pulling away my deordorant to be bothered with taking explosives from terrorists. They also seem more interested in patting my ass down. LMFAO!
What a shame?
December:30:2009 - 16:00
@10
yeah it’s all about saudi arabia. the usa has nothing to do with terrorism. these terrorists just woke up one day and said “LET’S SPREAD TERROR! ARRGGGH! ALLAHU AKBAR!”.
your analysis is pretty shallow! i don’t know how you managed to write several paragraphs. there is no “source” of terror. do you think if saudi arabia ceased to exist that terror would stop?
the usa won’t attack saudi arabia b/c it has total control over the country and is willing to do what the US tells it to do. other countries might have control but not give in to US pressure like saddam’s post-1990 iraq and iran. “countries” like afghanistan, somalia, and yemen have less control and the usa won’t hesitate to attack targets in those countries and prove how macho it is. they are weak and can’t put up any resistance to infringement on its sovereignty.
it’s right there in the article that saudi arabia basically squeezed alqaida out of saudi and into yemen.
god it’s so hard not to insult you.
December:30:2009 - 20:53
@12 Me
Conversely, do you think that terror would have never begun had the US ceased to exist? This terror tactic has a cause. If you go back far enough and listen to the justification offered by the terrorists you will hear in their words what motivates them. I’ll give you a hint … it ain’t in the book of Psalms. Rightly or wrongly, they get their impetus from Islam.
December:30:2009 - 22:24
@13
YES! Even if it did, had the US kept to itself, YES!
Now, how about YOU explain the lack of, as you would put it, “islamic” terrorism, prior to 1948?! (hint: the US was respected and taken as a model in the Arab world prior to 1948).
December:31:2009 - 07:39
ME,
Please read John’s comment on The Meaning of Minarets which says that Saudi Arabia does have a problematic ideology and didn’t co-operate with the US in the anti-terror activities. Only difference is that he follows the idea of a diplomatic handling of the KSA while I advocate more strict measures against them.
And as civilised people we can have disagreements over everything without trying to insult anyone here. We must follow the mode of civilised discourse in order to discuss any issue.
December:31:2009 - 12:38
@15
i didn’t say it didn’t. you’re thinking i’m on ksa’s side. i’m not. i like to think of myself on the right (correct) side regardless of who happens to be there.
any discussion of terrorism necessitates a discussion of politics. too often the word terrorism is deprived of its political meaning and only shown as angry bearded ‘brown’ men.
this current conflict is a function of BOTH sides: the West, headed by the USA, and the Arab and Muslim world, headed by no one. it just ANNOYS me when someone explains terrorism by just looking at one side. it annoys me /even more/ when it’s just focused on al-saud’s arabia. and it annoys me to no end when it’s explained as a result of Islam! so excuse me if i got a little upset when you point to saudiland and describe it as a “source”!
and the relationship b/w ksa and the usa is coupled. each sees the other as their only partner in pursuing their interests. the al-saud’s interest is staying in power. while the usa’s interest is to keep the oil flowing and whatever other interest is applicable at a certain time.
so, daisy if you still want to wave your american flag, you can also blame the europeans who colonized the arab world who were there as late as the 70s and left the arab world in the political chaos that its citizens complain about until now. what does this have to do with terrorism? well, the USA gets what it wants from the middle east as it is composed of a dozen dictatorships without regard to its people. this happens to piss alot of people off.
i could elaborate more on what the USA has done but i think you get my point. furthermore, since the USA is a superpower and the middle east being a spineless collection of dictatorships, it has more say in the long-term fate of them (exception is iran).
and, since you seem to advocate “strict” measures in KSA (very easy in a dictatorship, no pesky human rights to think about), this has resulted in the lockup and labeling of reformists as terrorists and the stifling of charity work. these were started with strong US support after 2003 (as john can confirm). how do you think that looks to even “moderate” citizens?
by 2007, the crackdown seemed to be successful and now we have them in yemen. now if you reset your history to begin at 2007, you’re going to blame yemen. their culture is proud and they openly carry weapons. therefore they have a culture of violence. now, let’s see what faith they profess: islam! getting warm. their women cover up, therefore they’re also extremist. AHA! that explains it all!
January:01:2010 - 02:57
ME,
I am quite familiar with that school of thought which believes that the US and Saudi Arabia together have consciously spread terrorism in the world because of their own selfish interests. But, I find problems with that idea because while it is definitely gainful for Saudi Arabia, it has only led the US into spending large-scale war resources in different parts of the world and getting lots of negative press because of this tendency and this seems to be only increasing. Besides, the regions they are targeting now – South Asian countries, Yemen, African countries are not going to get any profit to the US. Iraq is the only exception to this rule, as the US could control the oil resources by controlling Iraq. Because this strategy is not bringing much profit to the US, I feel the US may not have got into it consciously.
Yes, it is true that the US is a greater global power than Saudi Arabia, but since Saudi Arabia controlled most of the world’s oil till recently and besides, the location of Saudi Arabia is strategically important in West Asia which the US wants to use, the US loses much of its coercive power with Saudi Arabia, which gets the power to get away with many things other less favourably situated countries can’t vis-a-vis the US. This is highly unfair in terms of international equations.
I don’t have any US flag to carry – am neither a citizen nor a resident of the US and the amount of criticism I have laid at the door of the US for its Islamic policy on this blog, I don’t think the American foreign policy experts will be happy with me either.
My intention has never been to isolate only Islam as an exclusively wrong religion – every religion has positive and negative points and Islam is no exception. But we should have the space to critique the negative points in every religion, including Islam. So I am not critiquing Islam, but am comparing the various interpretations of Islam as practised in different parts of the world – regardless of the Quranic theology and the Islam as practised in West Asia does seem to be more intolerant than in other parts of the Muslim world. And Saudi Arabia does have a role to play in the way it is interpreted there. And I am arguing that it is this version that is gradually making inroads to other regions now – using the US support to Saudi Arabia as a rider. Yemen’s Al-Qaeda should be linked to the Saudi funding of the Saudi Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan not seen in isolation.
John,
Perhaps you can give your comments when you have time.
January:01:2010 - 12:38
New Year/ new participation in this thread:
#7 John–bravo! Interesting that ABC should be more tendentious than “Little Green Footballs” LGF must be slipping.
#9 Me–Great article, thanks!
#10 Daisy–could you please share your sources about Saudi, ie the Al-Saud government exporting terrorism, as opposed to conservative Islamic teaching? or funding Al Qaeda knowingly?
#11 Sparky–don’t LMFAO! What will they have to pat down? Maybe they will have to go for…other places!
#15 Daisy–Saudi may have been slow off the mark but they seem to have a better handle on it now
#12 Ratherdashing–oh, I thought you were going to say that if you pay attention to Bin Laden about why he is doing what he is doing you hear/read a lot about US foreign policy. It seems to me the great tragic blindness, or willful refusal to see, of the US and particularly the Bush administration is its failure to recognize the impact of its foreign policy on how it is perceived in the world, and who is angry at them where, in other words there is blowback.
#16 Me–agreed!
#17 Daisy–the military-industrial complex of the USA which has been fuelling the US economy since the early 20th century that I am aware of–WWI (1914-1918) sold arms, not in until 1917; WWII (1939-45) sold arms, not in until 1942 because of the December 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbour; Indochina, Korean, Vietnam all fighting communism but also selling arms; assorted supports for right wing insurgencies, military dictators, etc throughout Latin America, Africa, MENA, and Asia, by selling arms–is happy to have a war somewhere, in fact they need a war somewhere. The famous Carlysle Group, home of the investments of so many American politicians and leaders, including Bush pere et fils, is not only known for its oil investments, but military arms as well, as I just learned recently. Wars are money; WWII dragged economies, especially the US one, out of the Great Depression. Afghanistan sits on top the route of a major oil pipeline through Central Asia, and so does Pakistan which also is the squeeze out home for Al Qaeda when things aren’t going well in Afghanistan. I am sure the US knows this, as do India and China, both also quietly fighting over as yet unfinalized borders in Central Asia which will have a major impact on oil and power. This aspect of the Central Asian wars is well documented, and impacts on the still contentious borders between Pakistan and India, and their respective shows of nuclear force, not to mention their Mumbai bombing issues.
Terror is an emotion, and terrorism a tactic of asymmetrical warfare which plays on it. Bush was a terrorist movement’s dream president, since he too deals in the emotional, consults his gut, and wraps it in ideology. Who or what group is a terrorist depends on one’s perpective. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, maquisard, partisan, anti-fascist, liberator, Nobel Peace Prize winner, or Nelson Mandela.
January:01:2010 - 12:47
John,
I leave it to you to respond to Chiara eventhough she has addressed her comments to me. Do you think Al-Qaeda should be treated as freedom fighters, anti-fascist or Noble Prize candidates? Of course oil pipeline thing is a reality but I think the US has other interests in Central Asia as well. Perhaps there are also other routes for oil pipeline available to the US, which don’t have to go through Afghanistan or Pakistan. But would like to get your response whenever you have time, since you are the expert here.
January:01:2010 - 13:13
John,
Of course I mean the issued about US’ international equations raised by Chiara and the questions in my last comment, not the issues about Saudi Arabia that I raised and you may not agree with.
Chiara,
I am arguing that what you call Saudi orthodox prosylitising should be treated as export of terrorist ideas – there should not be made a difference between the two.
What’s there to share sources about? You acknowledged in a previous comment that you know Osama is a Saudi with links with royal family. I never said I have definite knowledge Saudi royal family is funding Al-Qaeda, but rather, I have argued why shouldn’t we suspect members of Saudi royal family are funding Al-Qaeda, considering they haven’t supported the US in its anti-terror strategies. John said so too in a comment that they created problems for the US in this direction and you accepted John’s comment, rather than countering him if you felt he wasn’t giving the correct information.
Everyone knows it’s the American battle against terror, it’s not a US-Saudi battle against terror. And it can not be, considering the nature of Al-Qaeda.
You too also said Saudis are funding Al-Qaeda, so why are you asking me for sources? You obviously know the sources based on which you have made these statements. I am simply arguing why shouldn’t we suspect Saudi royal family members too are supporting Al-Qaeda and since Al-Qaeda is a Saudi organisation, why the US should not include Saudi Arabia in its anti-terror strategy? What’s wrong with that argument that you seem to be so worked up about it?
January:01:2010 - 14:05
@20
you’ve been watching too much american media since you are considering that the saudi royal family supports alqaida.
your logic is so flawed:
- mainly, WHY WOULD THEY FUND THEIR ENEMY?!
- alqaeda is a “saudi” org.? No.
- alqaeda is a saudi org, therefore saudis (inc. royal family) support it. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
i think you bought into al-saud’s propoganda that they are defenders of islam therefore, they might be on the same side. the al-saud’s have not won the hearts of muslims and arabs.
however, they might make a tactical transaction with them. i can see the royal family willing to buy off alqaida so they don’t attack them. that’s hardly “support”. but from alqaida’s side, that would be “lowering” their standards if they take the money.
alqaeda is pan-islamic and knows no borders. its ideology diffused everywhere (in various concentrations). saudi arabia is an arbitrarily defined entity, both culturally and land-wise. you are trying to put a ‘saudi’ character to alqaeda by selecting its ‘saudi’ elements. the binladens have yemeni origins. now go point your finger towards yemen.
please refrain from using black and white logic.
January:01:2010 - 14:46
The Saudi Royal Family – at least those acting in the government do NOT support Al Qaeda. It is possible random royals- as individuals might- but you would have to show specifics.
When people talk about Saudi money supporting terrorism, they do not mean the government. They mean criminal idiot individuals who agree with the Al Qaeda philosophy.
When Saudi government seems not to- or does not in reality- cooporate with the US battle against terror, it is because of power issues (Saudi doesn’t like being bossed- or has a different idea of the best way to handle things) and appearances (Saudi doesn’t like to appear they are being bossed). They are definately fighting terrorism here, however.
People seem to forget the Saudi government stripped Osama Bin Laden of his citizenship and that he was a wanted criminal, years before 9-11.
And please elaborate on the “links” with the Bin Laden family, and the royal family, and what relevance it has to this situation. The whole family are not criminals and many are highly respected members of society. They are a HUGE family.
I also have to add- regardless of how much of the Muslim violence in India is connected to Saudi Arabia. No one in India has to buy whatever Al Qaeda is selling. So there is still some internal issue and dissatisfaction or they wouldn’t be interested.
January:01:2010 - 15:30
Sleeping while Al Q grows or grew however or whatever is support in my Op and I haven’t read all posts in entirity. I am intuiting it while I am rocking to “Say Goodbye” Chris Brown.
Let me just say Al Q is shrinking
and I am happy about that!
January:01:2010 - 15:46
I sent off a comment under the name Sparkling or Sparking or something and it didn’t go through “it was ME Houston”. Anyhoo,whatup k, geesh you know what I good thought but it twas a fleeting one. CRAP!
I hope that whatever time my comment under Sparking will go up!
CHIARA at number 11. WOW that was good! You got me laughing. It seems like 2010 might be a good year for us
January:01:2010 - 15:57
Oh and I forgot to end that comment with LMFAO…all the way home like the lil pinky of these little piggies.
I just laugh it off that- always throws the best of them off. LMFAO
January:01:2010 - 16:04
#19 Daisy (and John)–the final paragraph of my comment #18 was addressed to all, not just yourself. Perhaps I should have started it “All”. No worries about disturbing John to defend the free world, as I never said that Al Qaeda was not a terrorist organization, nor lauded their efforts or aims. On the other hand, I do not underestimate their abilities, and their public and the intercepted private messages are consistent that their motivation includes US foreign policy as they see it. This obviously appeals to some recruits.
I really don’t see any US interests in Central Asia beyond pipelines, oil, and military strategic location. If you have other ideas or references, please do share them.
#20 Daisy– “I am arguing that what you call Saudi orthodox prosylitising should be treated as export of terrorist ideas – there should not be made a difference between the two.” This is where we disagree. Conservative proselytizing by any religion is not the same as teaching, supporting, and arming violent actions by anyone against anyone. Islam is not inherently any more violent than any other religion. If you disagree re-read the Old Testament. I did so once after a number of years of absence, and it is strikingly violent, tribal, vengeful, and morally crude compared to today (polygyny, slave owning, trickery, collecting foreskins of enemies, etc. and that is the “good guys”). Protestant evangelical missionaries spend huge amounts of money, time, and effort proselytizing among the Roman Catholics to correct their understanding of Christianity. This has had a definite impact in Latin American and other countries, without being held responsible for various liberation movements there.
I “acknowledged” on the Minarets post knowing Osama bin Laden’s biography which means I know the mutual hatred between him and the Al-Saud government, that he has not been funded by Saudi officially, and his family has cut him off as well, although they won’t hand him over to anyone. Yeslam Bin Laden handles that particular question extremely well in my opinion.
John’s comment didn’t say anything about suspecting the Al-Sauds of funding and promulgating Al Qaeda or terrorism, only that the Saudis were slow off the mark, and had their own ideas about how to handle it, but are more fulling onside since being attacked from within. As a Canadian I am well aware that there are times when the US thinks we are slow off the mark, pig-headed about certain policies, and then maybe come around, after we have been sufficiently diplomatically and economically reminded how to behave.
I don’t get worked up about such topics, and the topics I do get worked up about I acknowledge. I do find this topic of sufficient interest to do what is normal when presented with information that contradicts mine from sources I have understood–consider the information presented and ask for sources/links. It is part of the richness of learning for others.
#21 and #22 Me and Sandy–Agreed! and Agreed!
January:01:2010 - 16:09
Sparkling/Sparky–we did have earlier fine moments in 2009, and I am sure 2010 will bring many more. Just keep your A** On!
January:01:2010 - 16:10
Edit of myself at #25 to Daisy
I don’t get worked up about such topics, and the topics I do get worked up about I acknowledge. I do find this topic of sufficient interest to do what is normal when presented with information that contradicts mine from sources, and from what I have understood–-consider the information presented and ask for sources/links. It is part of the richness of learning from others.
January:01:2010 - 19:30
http://adnisa.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/jerusalem-mayor-okays-baby-clinic-for-jews-but-not-for-palestinians/
January:01:2010 - 21:40
When the gunfire ends, I might venture into this chat.
I have never seen such a heated discussion at Xroads as this one.
Good thing you folks are using keyboards, not knives.
January:01:2010 - 22:00
Quote: How do you YOU explain the lack of, as you would put it, “islamic” terrorism, prior to 1948?!
Let me see if I can find any “Islamic” terror prior to ’48….
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said: … I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/…/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
Yep, I would guess that was written prior to 1948.
Me, I have no doubt that America’s actions have been contributing factors to Islamic terror – but if you are serious about the “root cause” of the terror we see today I suggest you look at the Quran and ahadeeth. What we see is a resurgence of 7th century Islam – the Islam of Islam’s prophet. Anyone that discusses Islamic terrorism without looking at Islamic theology has no credibility.
January:02:2010 - 01:43
@31
YOU have no credibility on islam. i’ve seen your hateful posts.
but i think i’ll lower myself and talk about this hadith using my limited knowledge to show how pitiful your ‘logic’ is. you just used the english translation that has the word terror ====> same word as terrorism ===> therefore islam promotes terror. ridiculous.
and yes, at times of war, islam is about ‘terrorizing’ the (armed) enemy (ie. instilling fear, not killing civilians). what is wrong with that?! and yes, islam is still peaceful; like it or not. islam includes politics; like it or not. and this means that inevitably muslims will have to deal with war. so, necessarily, islam will have ethics for that.
but i guess you don’t care about how muslims explain their religion. go ahead and feed off your “trusted” and “non-biased” sources.
if the the people of the muslim world today were atheists, do you still think they would sit around idly accepting whatever the West imposes? i guess that’s your definition of ‘peaceful’ people, people who just shut up and do as told. the world was at the brink of nuclear war, would you blame communism for that? democracy perhaps?
perhaps a simple concept will explain the cause violence for you: INJUSTICE.
January:02:2010 - 15:32
ME,
At least we agree on one point – that it’s only a propaganda of al-Saud that they are defenders of Islam and the world – especially the US – should not buy this propaganda. My entire argument on this theme began with this idea, which I proposed to John on another post.
Osama may have Yemenese origins, but he is a Saudi national, has his home in Riyadh and identifies himself as a Saudi.
ME and Sandy,
I never said Saudi government is funding Al-Qaeda; I always used the terms Saudi Royal family. Please note that Saudi royal family is not one single homogenous entity. There are scores of people in that family and they have different political-religious leanings. Some are very orthodox, some not so. Given the composition of this family, it is always a possibility that some of them are funding the Al-Qaeda, apart from other Saudi individuals and institutions. Unless a proper investigation is made in this direction, this possibility should not be rejected if this world seriously wants to end terrorism.
Please also note that Saudi state is a police-state. They monitor every move of their subjects, down to who goes to visit whose house – so much so that two youths going to an old woman’s house can invite lashings for all three of them. It is something worth considering how it is that a state which can monitor its subjects so closely, is not able to stop the funds being diverted from any source in Saudi Arabia to the Al-Qaeda operating from other countries. This casts aspersions on the intentions of Saudi government and the kind of partnership that exists between the US and the KSA – the US seems to be handling them too gently while the Saudi government is not very interested in helping the US in its anti-terrorist strategies. If they wanted, they could have definitely stopped the funds from going to Al-Qaeda. This portrays the Saudi government as a silent accomplice in the activities of Al-Qaeda. Exiling Osama and confiscating his property etc is just an eyewash to convince outsiders that they are not with him or with Al-Qaeda. They should expressively show they have a commitment towards fighting terrorism. If they are not doing it, I don’t see why the US should not suspect their involvement in terrorist activities.
January:02:2010 - 15:51
Chiara,
First, it seems we have different orientations of world geography. I include Afghanistan in South Asia, not in Central Asia and by the Arab world I mean exclusively West Asia, not North Africa. This means my criticism of Arab Islam does not include African Islamic versions. I know African countries have given very tolerant interpretations of Islam and their economies are different from those of West Asian countries, so I feel it’s rather unfair that North Africa is tagged on as an appendage to West Asia. I know you have a different view, and we should not try to convert each other on this point, but I wanted to clarify this so that the other readers don’t get confused.
In your first comment you only talked about the oil pipeline and I had the military and strategic features in my mind that’s why I said oil pipeline is not the only reason. Now you have added these aspects to oil pipeline. If you keep on changing your statement, no discussion can take place.
I myself have made the distinction between orthodoxy and terrorism in several earlier comments on other posts on this blog, so I know the distinction. What I am arguing is that Saudi Arabia is preaching terrorism, not orthodoxy.
Saudi Arabia is yet to prove its clear intentions to control terrorism. It has not done so, just shown half-hearted gestures to the US, which is not enough. The argument about sovereignty is just an excuse to not let the US know what exactly the Saudis are doing in matters of supporting terrorism. If other countries can be brought to scrutiny by the US on various issues, KSA should not be excluded from this on grounds of sovereignty. The policy should be the same for all countries, not based on how important is a country to the US.
January:02:2010 - 16:08
John,
Whenever you have time, please give your comments on the above points made by Chiara and me –
her reference to the American sale of arms to different countries and that the US is willing and happy to have wars in different parts of the world; whether the US will gain anything by attacking countries such as Yemen and Somalia; how important is the oil pipeline route in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the US, along with the strategic location of Afghanistan. Also, does it mean that the entire American war against terror is really about controlling strategic locations and oil pipelines?
I know you are busy and don’t want to disturb you. Will wait till you have time to respond to this. Thanks.
January:02:2010 - 17:44
@33 & 34
i find your rhetoric that countries should ‘report’ to the US very condescending. or that saudi arabia should “prove” that it’s fighting terror. already, i and others, have listed what saudi arabia has done to fight terror which has caused much inconvenience (and suffering!) to its people. short of invading other countries, i don’t know what more you expect.
and here is something you don’t know about US-saudi politics. US politicians can gain political points by bashing saudi arabia. but in private, they ‘admit’ that saudi arabia has done alot and is a ‘good’ partner.
in fact, it has done so much that now it has a new card to play with in its relations with the Western world: “fighting terrorism”. it is a card that Sultan played with the UK when he threatened to end anti-terrorism cooperation with the UK unless it threw out the corruption case of an arms deal.
but the muslim viewpoint, for the 1000th time to all you Western-oriented folk, the priority of muslims is not fighting terror but the injustices that cause it. and since muslims are in a weak position to fight injustice, the West can come in and assign ‘fighting terrorism’ as a priority.
terrorism is not something new. it did not begin on 11/9. it will not stop as long as there are disaffected people in the world. talking about ‘ending terrorism’ is like saying let’s ‘end’ crime! but i don’t see the same fear being played with crime since it doesn’t involve politicians.
and you still have misconceptions about saudi arabia:
- the gov *IS* the royal family! ..at least regarding anything that matters. consider that the highest non-royal institution is a non-binding “parliament”.
- given what is known about the royal family, that is their corruption of all kinds, it is very unlikely that an individual royal will fund alqaeda. sorry i’m not a member of this secretive clan. all i can argue with are speculative statistics. and similarly to what i’ve proposed before, any money that they have given to buy some political power may have ended up in the hands of terrorists. that’s not support and it was certainly unintended.
- any muslim of pan-islamic thought like usama bin ladin does not identify with any state defined by region, especially the arbitrarily defined saudi state. do you know how the borders were defined? do you know where the word Saudi comes from? how can he identify himself as a ‘saudi’ when he has a major issue with the saudi government (=royal family)?
January:02:2010 - 19:25
Ok, at least you acknowledge that the royal family IS the government in Saudi Arabia – people were out to slaughter me because they thought I said that, though I hadn’t said it. But you haven’t given a convincing reason why a few members of this royal government may not fund Al-Qaeda. There is every possibility they are doing it. And this should be investigated.
Yes, it is demeaning. It is much more demeaning to countries which do not have oil to blackmail the West and have to “report” to the US for various reasons as you say. Saudi Arabia better go through the demeaning process or stop giving funds to Al-Qaeda and start fighting them.
Perhaps you are not aware of the school of thought that Osama was well-linked with the Saudi royal family during his Riyadh days. But when the US attacked Iraq using Saudi air-space, Osama protested the use of his country – KSA – by the US. It is argued that was the reason for his falling out with the royal family, his exile and finally his creation of the Al-Qaeda to attack both Saudi Arabia and the US and its European allies because he thinks these two are working together to misuse his country – Saudi Arabia. I personally don’t believe in this, because I feel he would have created Al-Qaeda anyway, since Saudi Islam preaches terrorism, but this narrative makes it clear that Osama identifies with Saudi Arabia. there is no point in closing one’s eyes to the fact that he is a Saudi.
You are in a way acknowledging Saudi Arabia is in fact not worried about anti-terrorism campaign and even threatens the West not to help them in their anti-terror campaign if they don’t pamper its illegal activities. So far I had thought it was blackmailing the West only on oil business. The fact that KSA threatened UK shows that KSA by itself does not think terrorism should be fought – just what I have been arguing all along.
Going by your response, I think the US has every reason to attack and capture Saudi Arabia.
You should be happy I am not the president of USA! 8)
John, any comments?
January:02:2010 - 22:27
Daisy–you argue like an activist, not an intellectual, an academic, a scholar, researcher, or a scientist. There is no problem with that, except that I personally don’t find that type of argumentation compelling and prefer that people either use known and agreed on facts or provide references so that we may all examine the research underpinning their arguments. Activists are more compelled by convincing others of their position than sharing and advancing knowledge. As Me pointed out some basic facts about the history and geography of Saudi Arabia seem to escape you, or else don’t serve your political thesis, which I think everyone here understood clearly: you believe that Saudi Arabia ie its Royal Family who is its government is funding terrorism, including Osama and Al Qaeda and promoting intolerant versions of Islam, particularly in South Asia in which you include Afghanistan and Pakistan, thereby destroying the peaceable harmony of Muslims and adherents to Dharmic religions in those countries. You think the US should hold Saudi to account, and forcing it to stop this behaviour, using military force if necessary.
I do tend to use politico-geographical terminology in current usage, eg by the UN, UNESCO, the WHO, Amnesty International, etc. and while I realize the term Middle East is Eurocentric, MENA which is an established term suits the countries to which I often refer so well that I was delighted to find the acronym. You might want to check what countries established sources include in “West Asia”, or “Western Asia”, since the concept seems far broader that your usage.
I certainly do include North African countries as part of the Arab world, and of course they are Muslim majority countries. They are Arab primarily by cultural assimilation rather than genetics, or genealogy, as the human genome project is proving through haplotypes, but this is irrelevent to the discussion here, unless you are arguing a genetic basis of Arabness and the propensity to violence and its exportation, in which case you are on a “slippery slope” of ethnic, racial, and genetic determinism, which you don’t seem to want in other comments you make; and alas, for your Saudi argument, strictly south of the Najd and back to Yemen, as Me has pointed out, with the Qahtani Arabs.
I can’t imagine anyone thinking that referring to oil pipelines is in anyway excluding military power and strategy, or that such a common association everywhere from academia, to the Economist, and the Asian Times, should be claimed as any kind of innovative statement.
As much as I respect John’s intellect, experience, probity, and commentary, which is why I frequent his blog on Saudi Arabia, I cannot imagine how you could possibly need him to challenge anything I have said. Don’t you have any counterarguments or documentation of alternatives yourself? The facts about the sale of arms and the military-industrial complex are well known within the mainstream US itself, dates of entry into WWI and WWII are well known. What is the huge issue? This isn’t a class where one has to prove the other wrong, or ask teacher who is right. I am always happy to be enlightened by John’s readings and experiences, and corrected where I am wrong, but I find it surprising that you can’t handle such standard assertions of the role of the military arms makers in US foreign policy by yourself.
“If you keep on changing your statement, no discussion can take place.” Mindboggling. Repetition is not a discussion. This is not a debate, whereby one must adhere yeah or nay to the statement “This house holds that…” The final paragraph of your comment #34 is a collection of strawman arguments. Your summary in #35 of what I supposedly said is so far off the mark it is silly to bother pointing it out, as others, including John, can read that I wasn’t reductionistic in the manner you describe. What purpose is served by such an inaccurate summary of my words for a man totally capable of reading and understanding them himself?
Show some proofs, cite some sources, be exact in your terminology, and I am happy to discuss, share ideas, or learn, but I have no interest in perpetual restatements of your central thesis as paraphrased above, which I am sure everyone understood very early on.
# 36 Me–agreed!
Jay–thanks for the tip off about the Indian government version of history, since it clarifies a lot. All governments have one of course. Our current government is infusing our 20th and 21st century history with a lot more triumph and sacrifice in active combat than the Liberals/liberals are used to, according to whom we are a nation of peace keepers. We are both of course, depending on time, place, war, and how we are being used by whom.
January:02:2010 - 22:45
Just read a little bit, but I have to ask Chiara “right or wrong” what compels YOU to passionately (As an intellectual of course) defend Saudi Arabia when you have no links to it whatsoever based on my knowledge?
January:02:2010 - 22:51
@37
and why are you assuming they are funding? why is it that i have to defend them and have argued thoroughly that most likely they don’t! YOU didn’t convince ME …AT ALL! it’s your burden to prove now. unless, you just want to go around and accuse whoever you suspect and invade their countries ‘just in case’.
if you don’t want to believe me, your american masters have cleared the saudi gov in the 9/11 commission report back in 04. the activities detailed were before ksa took a more active role.
and cutting off antiterror cooperation with the uk doesn’t mean they stop their domestic efforts.
that’s why many muslims wish to replace al-saud so that people like you wouldn’t even dare to think of invading Arabia.
January:02:2010 - 22:53
And me @ 36 that card that you said Sultan played with the UK is MOtha Fu-in PROOF if anything that Saudis not only get high on the deen but high on the terrorism. That kind a manipulation doesn’t go down well on my set of books! That is passive aggressive support of Terrorism and F-that. FFFFFFF- ThAT WHAT I said F-THAT!
But here is the thing America will keep kissing Saudis ass until it needs to but when it doesn’t YA WAYLEKUM! So I would suggest playing nice and fair. American doesn’t plan on being nice forever.
January:02:2010 - 23:00
Furthermore we be suckin up all da oil for our intergalactic activities and stock piling the gold for our nanotechnologies. Yall see I knew gold had a higher purpose. We sitting on our oil BABY!
January:02:2010 - 23:11
I am going to blow this shit up now. Verbally of course F-intellectualism right this moment. If I consider someone a quote unquote friend I would NOT say to them, “If you plan to call me to accountability, I won’t tell you the next time one of my home grown and raised crazies plans to blow up and KILL your innocent people.” What does that shit say to the world?
I knew about what ME brought up before and that has helped shape some of my ill feelings towards the Saudi Royal Family’s way of dealing with terrorists!
Accountability is part of maturity as marriage is half of faith them to them.
January:03:2010 - 01:07
@39
it’s called seeking the truth. it’s also giving credit where due, no matter who its given to. it is related to justice, being impartial, and humbleness.
@41
again. jumping to conclusions. there are some steps b/w threatening to cut terrorism cooperation w/ the uk to actively supporting terrorism. if you want to generalize this specific case to the al-sauds support terrorism, go ahead. but it was simply sultan going after his interest disregarding anybody else’s. it’s a tactic he used to keep business as usual. nobody forced the uk to deal with sultan or with the saudi government in general. the uk is well aware of its corruption and will have to deal with it if wants to sell weapons to sultan. besides, the creation of saudi arabia was enabled by britain. no ‘friendship basis’ here. it’s pure interest.
again you fail to characterize the relationship b/w the usa and ksa. it is cooperative with the US having the upper hand.
al-saud is high on the /display/ of religion. it’s important to their legitimacy to its subjects and other muslims (pretty much ineffective now).
@42, 43
i see displays of logic set off your (illogical) emotional trigger. this is typical of the west’s attitude towards the muslim world where western lives are more valuable than muslim ones. you see with power comes responsibility (refer to all of human history). on the other hand, it’s the fault of muslims for not having representative political systems. but then again, the west does not want to see muslims gaining power. repress. repress. repress.
let’s see how the US (yes, the US specifically, as europe has shown willingness to follow law) reacts if a muslim country sent a drone on ‘suspected’ criminals and threatened more if it didn’t ‘shape up’. instead of islam being blamed, it will be ‘democracy and free society’ that allows for criminals and terrorists…passively of course! that is the same as far as they are concerned!
with all the chaos the US caused in the middle east, i’m glad that it was “being nice” and showed restraint. i’m thankful and grateful for that.
trust me, al-saud is your best (and only) choice for “fighting terrorism” as you see it. they will sell you oil with no strings. they will offer you bases. they will arrange fatwas that go to your favor. the cost? no freedoms. no representation. but who cares? your demands are more important. and then you have the gall to ask: why do they hate us? and i haven’t even touched the palestine issue here.
January:03:2010 - 02:39
Sparky–what Me said. I don’t see myself as passionately defending Saudi, just trying to understand in a reasonable manner.
Me–thank you, and yes the US has propped up the wrong people often. I am sure in hindsight Mossedah seems preferable to the end result, and Iran is only one example.
January:03:2010 - 03:58
Daisy, there is NO evidence that members of the royal family are supporting AlQaeda- if some individuals are- it it not in the name of the family, or the government. The burden of proof for that is on you.
To clarify, SOME members of the royal family also run the government- most have nothing to do with it, and no political power.
I would also be interested in ANY reason that the Saudi Government would want to support Al Qaeda. You seem to forget we have terrorism here too. As far as I can tell, they are very serious about catching and detering terrorists. Do they always do the most effective thing? No. Like the US they do not.
And no, I would not classify Saudi Arabia as a “police state”. Yes I am aware of the incidence you mention. And there are certainly more of those than one would like- but that does not make it a police state.
And please specify the “links” Osama had with the royal family and how they translate to current support for Al Qaeda? You seem to have described a falling out between them (stripping of citizenship and exile seems that way to me as well). So where is any evidence of support?
It seems to me you just want to blame your countries terrorism issues on Saudi- so you create this scenario, in much the same way some Saudi’s blame the west for creating their terrorism by unfair foriegn policy and meddling in the Middle East- in the same way the US blames everyone else for their disastrous and deadly foreign policy.
Everyone needs to recognize that though they influence the other they need to clean up their own mess first. And that includes India as well.
January:03:2010 - 04:29
@46 BRAVO!
i agree with everything except your denying of saudi arabia as a police state. please, you cannot read the definition of police state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state and not see how it doesn’t (triple negative, sorry!) apply to saudi arabia…in full!
it doesn’t really take away that much from your rebuttal but you want to cover yourself as much as possible.
January:03:2010 - 07:42
Thank you “me”. I’m still not convinced of the “police state” designation- and certainly not by Daisy’s definition in which she claims, “They monitor every move of their subjects, down to who goes to visit whose house –” that simply is not true. But I’ll keep thinking about it.
A patriarchal/tribal/mysogynistic state seems more accurate to me, though certainly some of the attributes of a police state are there.
January:03:2010 - 09:12
Police state is a very loose term and needs definition and then clear examples, and evidence that certain behaviours are wide spread to justify its usage. Switzerland, is a police state in that it monitors far more closely than others the comings and goings of non-Swiss citizens which I learned the first time I registered in an auberge there. They establish a police file immediately, as opposed to just handing over info if police ask about a guest. Also a friend did a nuclear medicine post-doc there and was required to have separate licence plates on his car identifying him as a foreigner.
This thread does remember Switzerland, I assume.
Sandy and Me–agreed. Police state issue as above! LOL
January:03:2010 - 09:31
Nothing in my posts here even implies that I belive Americans are more valuable than another regions lives. However, I would strongly suggest Islamic countries start valuing the lives of their own people so we may so superpowers may as well. With great power comes great responsiblity. I couldn’t agree more with you ME. That is something I have instilled into my children from an early age. In fact, it is a spiderman slogan that my son has in his room. He kinda outgrown it but I told him “Keep it there and remember that!”
I am not FIGHTING SH_T. K I am livng my life…living my life. I am conquering TERRORISM by practicing PEACE AND LOVE ON EARTH WITH A BOUQUET OF FLOWERS.
;;;;;
;;;
;
.
.
.
.
I am not against Islam Muslims or the Royal Family or America! I just wanna live my life like Rihanna said.
January:03:2010 - 09:55
Me @ 44 @ 39
What have you done for your country?
Ask not what America or even Saudi will do for you but what you will do for them. HAhHAah
What I am doing is for All Mankind!
Equality and Justice…what is the source of that???
If you are able to lead me to some greater truths I am willing to go there…
January:03:2010 - 10:46
Also, ME you said, “but it was simply sultan going after his interest disregarding anybody else’s.”
So is that cool in your set of books Nay or Yay?
I don’t know about you but i am tired of being dissed! I want a voice and America does try to do that and it does want people in the ME to have it too; HOWEVER, I am sure they (America and the WEST) will exercise caution as well when dealing with self inflated Interest driven princes who will spill blood in order to do business as usual. That is passive aggressive not active support. I never said active!
ANd Chiara you ARE Passionate about this issue but I must and I mean I must know WHY?
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” -John Stuart Mill
“If you call me to accountability, I won’t share knowledge that i have that the crazies plan to blow you away. I won’t help you. I will set my dogs loose on you.” I guess that keeps some people satisfied.
January:03:2010 - 13:29
i repeat that i’m not with any particular side in this debate. you might think given what i’ve said here that i’m on the ‘saudi’ side b/c i’m defending them, when my overall feelings towards them are very negative. fyi, no state in the world matches my views. albeit western countries are closer to my views. however, their despicable history in the middle east is regrettable. if you can’t admit your ‘side’ can make mistakes, no debate is possible. unfortunately, even if i did side, i feel like my ‘side’ will be attacked instead of addressing the issues at hand with the debate degenerating into ‘my side is better than your side’.
the fact that we are arguing about words and how each side can remove or affix a negative label means my job here is done.
January:03:2010 - 13:54
Sparky–gee what can I say to relieve your psychic pain, and have you ROFLMFAO?
“Set loose the hounds of war”? no that’s Daisy.
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion”? no that’s Jay.
“Say you, say me, say it together, naturally”? hmmm closer.
Give me a hint!
January:03:2010 - 14:04
Well to be honest, Chiara I think you are paid by someone to be here. Who? Maybe one of the Royals who you seem to like to never criticize while you have according to you never set foot in this country nor experienced life here as a woman. I could be wrong as I have been in the past…BUT…it is either that or something worse so I would much rather believe you have a BIG SELF INTEREST of being here. And again the BIG SELF is emphasized!
I think you add interestinan ignorance almost as encyclopedic as his erudition” (William James).g comments here and value that is when of course when you are not bullying other people or lecturing them about how inferior they are to YOUR SUPREME KNOWLEDGE and INTELLIGENTSIA. I can only dream of having such encyclopedic posts as you do! One day inshallah
I’ve caught up on your game!
January:03:2010 - 16:11
Sparky–you are wrong, as you were before.
January:03:2010 - 21:04
@ #16 – Me
I’m sorry that I had to duck out of the party. Here is my late response to your comment about terrorism resulting from Islam. So be prepared to be annoyed.
The leaders of al Qaeda have expressed in their own words a desire for Islam to have domination over their enemies. They hate what they believe Allah hates – the infidels, the apostates, the unbelievers, the blasphemers. They hate ratherdashing.
In order for them to gain favor with Allah, they wish to subjugate or kill those people. They divide the world into the two houses (dar al Islam and dar al Harb). Then they take with them this supremacist belief system and blend in with civil society to later take military actions against non-combatants (all while not wearing a uniform of a recognized state). That fits the definition of terrorism. Even worse, the attacks are more often Muslim on Muslim.
The “political” arguments they make are only mentioned for Western consumption. That’s the message they want America to hear. What they tell their followers is almost totally different. Their fellow travelers are told of their duty WITHIN ISLAM to persevere in jihad until ISLAMIC LAW rules the world.
So, I can’t ignore Islam’s role in all of this. Like I said, the terrorists’ interpretation of Islam (rightly or wrongly) is what motivates them. I feel it’s not my place, as a non-muslim, to correct their arguments. My knowledge of Islam is not strong enough to do that. It is the ummah at-large that has that job. If you think they have Islam all wrong and if you are Muslim then it’s up to you to correct what is happening. You can do this in many ways. Take up arms with the coalition forces, support the fight, preach it on the internet or find another way to get involved. But taking Islam out of the equation is not helpful.
January:03:2010 - 22:07
Thanks for the explanation Chiara but I am still not convinced or aware. Perhaps it is you are researching something and that is where the payment is coming in! There is still something compelling you. If anyone were to ask what compels me, it pretty much crystal clear.
As for you I do not believe you gave a satisfactory answer. Whoever reads can decide, but that is the vibe I get from you.
January:03:2010 - 22:15
ratherdashing you are soo cute…
I don’t think AQ likes Sparky either. I have never tried to win a popularity contest, yet I am always popular HAH!
January:04:2010 - 01:31
@57
i didn’t say aQ ideology isn’t problematic. but they speak to grievances many muslims have with the west. and so what if they have a side for western consumption? can’t you acknowledge truth even from your enemy?
i think both aQ and the West live in fantasy land if they think the whole world is going to be a talibanic islamic state by waging war. they simply won’t and don’t have the support. even the taliban didn’t let them have afghanistan. i find it funny that the USA keeps tripping over itself over aQ while china silently gains power (the real, sustainable way) and shows willingness to oppose the USA in much more damaging ways than than terrorist attacks.
again it’s priority of how to tackle the problem. again, i’ll point you to go see how aQ formed and you can’t just explain it as a result of extremist ideology.
here is a hypothetical dialogue b/w an extremist muslim and a moderate one:
mod muslim: brother, what you are doing is wrong. please stop. to prove it, the quran says this and this and the hadith says this and this about killing non-combatants.
extremist muslim: but they keep killing us, oppressing us, and install puppet leaders. the quran says we must fight our oppressors!
mm: ok. but that is not the way to do it.
em: so what is the alternative?
mm: uhh, dialogue?
em: yeah right. the west will not stop supporting israel, installs puppet governments, and will not remove its bases from our lands.
mm: i’m afraid that’s pretty firm for now.
em: alright then, get out of my face! let those who defend the faith work!
mm: but i may impose severe restrictions on you.
em: whose side are you on?!
mm: ummm
em: i will blow you up because you are a traitor to islam!
and here’s a dialogue with a westerner
westerner to mm: did you ‘neutralize’ the extremists so that they can’t speak in the name of your peaceful religion?
mm: no.
westerner: whose side are you on?!
mm: well, i’m not exactly on your side but i’m not an extremist either..can you first please..
westerner: hush! if you don’t neutralize them, we will do it ourselves! we will do whatever it takes! we will appoint someone who will and we will keep bases there!
you see if aQ was about smuggling drugs to other countries, then it wouldn’t be a problem for muslims to fight them. but since they are the only entity that speak to muslims’ political aspirations they gain with every failed muslim state, every civilian killed by a “smart” bomb, every invasion of a muslim country, every installed government, and every humiliation of muslims.
rest assured, extremist ideology has no /fundamental/ backing. it is simply a backup or alternative. moderate muslims are left powerless and are squeezed between two sides.
January:04:2010 - 02:20
Sparky–I don’t owe you an explanation for my commenting presence on John’s blog. I assume if he, the blog owner, wants to know my or anyone else’s motivations for being here, he knows how to use the email addresses he requires.
Your false accusations and innuendo denigrate you, and undermine the quality of the discussion.
January:04:2010 - 07:52
OOoooooo…Chiara….
I never said you OWE me anything. I tried to ask kindly. I was drilled here by a few people and I answered honestly. No one has since drilled me. If they were to drill me, I would simply answer and it isn’t because I owe anything to anyone but simply because I am a tranparent person not a shady character. LMFAO @ undermine’s the quality of my discussion!
January:04:2010 - 08:14
P.S. what I teach my students is this:
When someone asks you for information that you do NOT want to share, what do you say?
Answer: “I’d rather not say.”
Mrs. Shady
January:04:2010 - 08:22
Me in response to the mm and em conversation:
Does faith need a defender? Does Islam need a defender? Does Allah need a defender? Or are they just pretenders? Muslims can practice Islam in non-Muslim countries. Can non-muslims even bring in their Holy book to Saudi Arabia? Uh you might want to consider what a Christian extremist or any other person who actually PRACTICES their faith might think about that proposition and the possibility. What would think about that? Put yourself in their shoes for a bried moment in time. They might feel the same way the extremist Muslim feels.
I think the second conversation holds much more weight than the first. That is a matter where US foreign policy plays and they need to do better cause they are full of kadookiballs.
January:04:2010 - 09:17
#61 – The tenor of this dialogue has long since left the land of the civil…it’s too bad how poor manners and insults fly during these kind of discussions…We are all so brave hidden behind a keyboard…The topics & articles John brings up are often interesting & relevant, unfortunately the dialogue often devolves quickly…can we all start interacting as adults?
January:04:2010 - 09:43
ME,
You keep on saying you are not supporting anyone, but you keep on defending Saudi Arabia and what you think is the “Muslim world.” Why not openly say you are defending them? There are enough people defending them and it’s not a crime to defend any region or community in the world.
Well, again we agree on one point at least – I have been arguing all along that the passivity of the US is increasing terrorism in the world, though I am not saying the US is intentionally trying to increase terrorism in the world.
If Saudi Arabia threatens a country not to co-operate in anti-terror strategy if its illegal dealings are not allowed, it shows very well which way Saudi Arabia is oriented vis-a-vis terrorism – it just needs an excuse not to co-operate and definitely it does not think anti-terror strategy is all that important, otherwise it would not be making such a threat. If a country behaves like this, there is every reason to suspect its first family is engaged in supporting and funding terror and this shoud be investigated.
If Saudi state is a police-state, they should be able to stop the funds going to Al-Qaeda. If they are not stopping it, it casts aspersions on their intentions. That’s why they should be suspected.
Sandy,
There is no reason not to supect some members of Saudi family’s involvement in funding trrorism. Their handling of anti-terrorism strategy has not been above board. Please readmy response to ME.
It was ME who said Saudi Royal family IS the government, so you should argue this point with ME, not with me ie, not with Daisy.
I am sure you know the meaning of a police-state. I don’t credit you with less intelligence than that. If you want to turn a blind eye to the situation in KSA and say it’s not a police-state, it only shows a bias in you.
January:04:2010 - 10:30
Chiara,
In fact I have been feeling you have been arguing like an activist, but didn’t want to say it because I felt it would not be appropriate. Now I feel I should have said it. Activists also supply facts and references – only their interpretations of these facts and the way they use them are different from the academic discourse. Most activists in India would take a position similar to that of yours regarding Saudi Arabia. Most academics here would argue for a critique of Saudi activities, if not for its strict treatment by the US – that’s where I differ from them.
I said very clearly I understood we both have different geographical orientations and we shouldn’t try to convert each other. I was clarifying the difference only for the benefit of other visitors. After I said this, I don’t see why you should make this an issue for argument. I have every right to have my own viewoint and so do you. This is a democratic blog and I am sure there is space here for both of us to have different geographical perspectives. I don’t understand why you should make this an issue at all.
I don’t blindly accept facts and their interpretations by others as the ultimate and only truth. I try to rethink what has been interpreted before. Here, I have been trying to look at a situation from a different kind of lens. Many things I have touched upon have not ben researched or investigated yet. For example, no one has investigated the financial dealings of the Saudi royal family members. This data is not on a popular website so I can’t just produce it here. I am only arguing that there is a need to investigate this since their approach to terrorism is not above board. This data can be mde available only if people first acknowledge that there is a need to investigate whether the Saudi royal family members are diverting funds to Al-Qaeda.
Similarly, simply because Taliban styles itself Deoband, it has been assumed that Afghanistan-Pakistan terrorism is South Asian, since Deoband is an orthodox school in South Asia. I am arguing there is a need to rethink this because Deoband in India itself does not produce terrorists. This means the violence in Afghanistan-Pakistan branch is coming from somewhere else. Unless people acknowledge there is a need to reassess the nature of terrorism, this problem can’t be solved.
I am not advocating war on Saudi Arabia – I said earlier war is not a solution to any problem. I said the way ME argued his/her stand, it gave enough reasons to the US to attack Saudi Arabia. In contrast, what I myself am arguing is that the US takes an aggressive military stand regarding non-oil producing countries rather swiftly, but has not been able to see Saudi Arabia’s possible involvements in increase of terrorism and the money they are getting from the US as an important factor in funding this terrorism. This prduces an unequal and highly unfair set of international equations. Besides, it does not solve the problem of terrorism. Therefore, the US has to rethink its partnership equations with Saudi Arabia if they want to control terrorism.
I think John understands what I am trying to argue about US-Saudi partnership. It shows in his responses.
But many people here get emotional about Saudi Arabia and begin to give defensive arguments, which do not lead to any understanding of the problem.
John is an expert on this topic and I have only asked him for his viewpoint about what we are arguing. I don’t see what’s wrong in asking for an expert’s opinion.
January:04:2010 - 10:48
Daisy, Please don’t change what I say- and then disagree with it. I said that I don’t agree with YOUR discription of a Police state (where the govenment monitors everybody’s every movement) because that simply is not true.
Again you show confusion over the royal family and the rulers of the country. The ones “handling” as YOU say (not ME)the anti-terrorism situation are the same ones you think are funding Al Qaeda? You have shown NO evidence to support this. That one of the thousands of royal princes with no government connection is supplying Al Qaeda is equally as likely as any random citizen- and since Saudi is NOT a police state in the manner you describe- the RULING folks wouldn’t know.
The definition of police-state is not as clearly defined as you might think. I find it more useful labeling Saudi a Patriarchal/Tribal/Mysogynistic state. How you can conclude that shows bias on my part- or turning a bind eye is beyond me. Except perhaps you just label anyone who disagrees with you?
January:04:2010 - 13:13
@64
first and foremost, Allah is beyond needing his creation to defend Him.
i’m not talking about defending the ideology per se, but defending /muslims/ against injustice. muslims are a people like any other that deserve not to be exploited. is that too much to ask? is that ok with you? what are you trying to prove here?
the rest of your comment looks like very offtopic criticisms of what you think is my “side”.
@65
good. but it’s obvious who is making personal attacks and questioning motives instead of talking about the subject.
@66
see 44 (@39). on that note, why don’t you ask john why he defends the al-sauds (where he thinks it’s appropriate)? there are times when he has defended them while i was very opposed.
the rest of the comment is just a rehash..which was already responded to.
January:04:2010 - 19:17
@ 60 – Me,
Thanks for the quick response. I think your hypothetical dialogue between the EM and MM is probably accurate. I understand the MM wanting to survive and having to take the middle ground. But notice how the EM in your conversation threatens the MM with death by way of his belief in Islam. This is exactly my point. Islam provides him cover for this. It is his motivation for his actions.
This is why we cannot discount its place in the discussion.
January:04:2010 - 19:19
@ 59 – Sparky
Be careful! I just referred mrsdashing to this blog the other day. That kind of comment can get me in trouble.
January:04:2010 - 20:04
I would like to discuss this issue as Security Consultant with John and other sane people here.
First of all though I hate being profiled as a Muslim, and I would hate people touching my privates, (But however I never had such an experience thanks to my job J). I agree to this practice, but what I abhorred is that in the past Muslims traveling were always picked up in so called random checks but now that it has been openly declared that a few countries would be selected for checks is a good move forward, at least now we have rules defined unlike the past. BTW even North Korean diplomats have been checked in the past, in spite of their diplomatic immunity and so was the ex-president of India Abdul Kalam.
And to the second point about AQ gaining prominence in ME is not a big deal. Why do I say this?
Because:
1. AQ has no credibility and has low morale thanks to the Iraqi defeat, Afghan defeat and cold shouldering of AQ by Taliban.
2. Lack of hardcore trained and experienced cadre, the kind that passed out of the AQ Afghan Training bases from Jalalabad/ Kandahar. Most of these freaks have either been killed, sandwiched in NWFP Pakistan, in Guantanamo or dispersed sparsely in South East Asia (Jemaah Islamiya and Abu Sayyaf, which again is on the run), Northern Yemen which is now sandwiched by Saudi/Yemeni Forces, Africa and Somalia. I am actually worried about the Somalian AQ/Al Shabab group rather than the Yemeni AQ.}
And the fact that AQ has only sent Suicide Bombers with duds is a all the more hilarious, goes on to show that they lack sophisticated training.
3. Lack of Funds, as AQ became a decentralized organization, that also meant they had to also rely on other sources of funds other the top OBL/Zawahiri leadership and with the noose tightening around them the Yemeni branch has no way of getting significant funds or raising any. However the African AQ though may also face funds supply issues, but they can however raise funds by exploiting the local criminals (drug Smuggling http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-18-al-qaeda-arrests_N.htm, corrupt leadership and natural resources (blood diamonds)
4. The Yemeni cadre of AQ is primarily led by the few ex-Guantanamo jail birds who were just lower rung AQ when arrested. And after release they went to Yemen and instantly became leaders of the Yemeni branch, this alone goes on to show the caliber of the AQ Yemeni leadership and their men they command. Also most of the foot soldiers are the local tribesmen who don’t have actual loyalty to AQ cause rather only to their Tribal and Territorial ambitions.
So bottom line AQ in Yemen doesn’t seem to be much of a big deal as reported by the media.
AQ is just making a last stand in Middle East at Yemen, however the AQ in Africa specifically seems to be a more viable and potential threat. Also given the fact that the logistical and financial resources for the Xmas day bombing came from African AQ though the job was ordered by Yemeni AQ strikes a serious chord about the potential threat of the African AQ.
January:04:2010 - 20:43
Sparky–#62 and #63 you are deliberately distorting my words, both on the owing, and the denigration of THE discussion. This type of comment merely distracts from worthwhile discussion on the topic of the post.
Non-Participant–I agree. I too wish that those who engage in childish antics and high school level searches for approval would desist. Anything substantive to add on topic?
Daisy–thanks for repeating your position, but I understood on the first go around. Being a critical or innovative thinker doesn’t excuse failing to present the grounding for one’s ideas. As points of methodology asking someone to prove a negative is a poor idea, so is mis-interpreting their words and then shadow boxing with them, and idiosyncratic views of geography and historico-political facts undermine your argument. I am always happy to have John’s expertise or opinion on a topic, but I have never before seen anyone ask the blog owner overtly to tackle someone else’s argumentation before. I would still be happy to have references, or links from you to show that your suspicions are sufficiently well-founded to merit discussion, and that your interpretations are not strictly idiosyncratic.
Sandy #68 Agreed
Me #69 Agreed and thanks
Ratherdashing #70 Looking forward to meeting MrsDashing
Abu Abdullah–thanks for sharing your expertise on the topic addressed by John’s post. A cursory glance at the news leads me to believe that Obama is welcoming the Yemeni-Nigerian distractions from his Pakistani/Afghani quagmire, and the fact that he didn’t so much close Guantanamo but move it north to Illinois as a make work project for his home state. He is an improvement over Bush but…
January:04:2010 - 20:48
John as far as AQ is concerned they also seem to be loosing more top commanders than filling them up, so much so that they have also been recruiting cadre from other affiliated terror groups like Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’s Abu Yahya al-Libi. This again shows the shortage of senior cadres within AQ.
Just check this site http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/al-qaeda_leadership_losses.htm
So i strongly believe that AQ is a dying organization with the exception of African AQ. The problem of killing AQ is like killing roaches in a drain, if one dies the other pops up some where else.
@chiara:
Thanks for the comment, Obama needs to concentrate on terrorism coming out of Africa. And he doesn’t have the will, or the resources tackle Africa and is eventually gonna leave the dirty job to others just as the way he has made ISAF/ NATO to handle the Afghanistan Quagmire.
January:04:2010 - 21:28
@73 – Chiara
Oh, mrsdashing would never comment here. This whole discussion doesn’t interest her in the least bit. She only wanted to know where I was spending my time recently (online). So I told her. Play nice!
January:04:2010 - 22:10
ME,
If you felt John supported Al-Saud in response to your argument, you ask him why he did so. Why do you ask me to ask him about this? I have a right to decide what I want to check with him and what I don’t want to ask him. You should not try to tell me what I should ask whom.
Chiara,
Same goes for you – you should not try to tell me why I am asking John for his opinion. I have every right to ask him for his opinion and you have no right to tell me what I should ask whom. I really don’t see why the blog-owner should be cut off from the discussion if he happens to be the expert on this topic. I don’t need your permission to talk to John about this topic if I want to. You don’t rule my life.
I have not asked John to tackle my arguments as you say it, I have simply asked him for his opinion – he is free to give his opinion in any direction he likes and he knows it.
My view of geography is not idiosyncretic – there are many who believe in this geographical orientation. I am not going to give you a lecture here on why they believe like this, because this is not the place for that. In any case it shows a tendency in you not to give space to other people’s perceptions. It’s very much like the orthodox Saudi Islamic view – theirs is the only true religion. You seem to think in much the same way even in non-religious matters. It’s not a surprise you are in love with Saudi Arabia.
I would like to have links and references from Sandy and you that Saudi Arabia and its royal family are clearly above board in not funding terrorism and in support of why they should not be suspected. Simply because they hppen to be Saudi Arabia is not a valid reason.
January:04:2010 - 23:01
Abu Abdullah #74–thanks for the further info, analysis, and the link. I have a horrible feeling that Afghanistan is Obama’s Vietnam, and Pakistan his Cambodia–I really hope I am wrong on that.
Ratherdashing #75–so wonderful the Mrs loves you enough to wonder and check. I always play nice, and easy, and…you know the rest of “Proud Mary” I’m sure LOL
Except I don’t do rough…oops too much information, and my apologies to MrsDashing if there was any misunderstanding about that metaphor.
Daisy #76 to Me–over-reading and over-reacting;
to me/Chiara–over-reading and over-reacting; you consistently state that by “West Asia” you mean “Saudi Arabia” no one else/no official group does that in print or conversation, hence idiosyncratic; you left out Salafist; I am looking forward to Sandy speaking for herself, but I don’t waste my research time looking for evidence to disprove a negative, and especially for someone who has proven intransigent regarding her own views, and doesn’t back them up substantively–not to mention that the topic of the post is AQAP ie a modicum of relevence to the Arabian Peninsula would seem to be in order, not whether Saudi is exporting terrorism to pacifist peoples living in harmony everywhere. Also, Abu Abdullah has the training and experience to address the latter topic regarding Saudi and India if he so chooses, and in a much better informed manner than it has been addressed so far.
January:04:2010 - 23:17
Chiara,
I have never stated West Asia means Saudi Arabia – it means the Arab Peninsula. Since Saudi Arabia is the country being discussed in context of the issues being raised, I am focusing on Saudi Arabia, but technically speaking West Asia is the Arab Peninsula.
In a previous comment you said you are familiar with the term West Asia. It seems you have changed your mind again.
If you don’t waste your time in research supporting your argument then don’t question other people’s right to have a suspicion about Saudi Arabia’s motives. I am not under any obligation to toe your line of being in eternal love with Saudi Arabia. I can decide for myself what kind of stand I should take for any country in the world.
I think ME can respond to me on his/her own. There is no need for you to respond on ME’s behalf about whether I am over reading or over reacting. I think it’s high time you stop bossing around people as if everyone is your slave and must follow your directions. there is no obligation on any of us to follow your directions.
January:04:2010 - 23:19
John,
I apologise for losing my temper, but this has gone too far.
I hope you’ll accept my apologies.
January:04:2010 - 23:37
addition to # 78 – West Asia includes the Persian Peninsula as well.
ME,
Instead of giving only comment numbers, please also give the person’s name, so that we don’t have to go back and forth to see whose comment you are addressing.
Thanks
January:04:2010 - 23:50
Daisy,
You continue to be unclear about who you are accusing. Saudi Royals in gov’t? Or Saudi Royal private citizens. If you mean private citizens- I’ve already said it is possible that some of the thousands of private citizen royals, in the same way it is possible that any private citizen, is supporting terrorism.
Either way the burden of proof is on you- you are accusing someone of commiting criminal acts with no evidence or motivation. Like Chiara- I am not about to go waste my time proving a negative.
I am curious though- if you mean Saudi Royals- how does that square with the assasination attempt of the Prince?
January:04:2010 - 23:51
Abu Abdullah,
Your comment is very informative. I know you adressed both of your comments to John, so there is no obligation on you to respond to me. But there are some thoughts that come to my mind reading your comment.
One, Al-Qaeda may not have the sophisitication of an advanced military training but whatever resources or training they have are enough to cause enough havoc. It’s the end result that matters. So it’s not wise to underestimate them.
Considering that they are still active shows they are getting funds. It is absolutley essential to see what are their sources of funding – private or institutional and no country or individual, no matter how high and mighty or “holy” should be spared in this.
Two, you say African branch is more dangerous and they can get funds from the local resources. I don’t think local funding from criminal activities is enough for this kind of sustained attacks. One should not rule out the possibility of a systematic source of funding to them from any country or individual.
January:05:2010 - 03:39
@Daisy:
I agree they can cause considerable havoc but i am glad their scope is only confined to specific geographic regions. They have not been able to expand further. For example most of the havoc they are causing via the Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan is most of the time limited only to NWFP.
Also same as here in Yemen the AQ has not been able to spread their tentacle even within Yemen, they have not been able to do anything to economic targets like Aden, etc. They are confined only to northern yemen.
As long as we have confined AQ’s strength to a only a limited geographic scale, the war against them is winnable.
In the past i agree there was AQ funding private entities from Saudi Arabia, but even that was just a fall out of the US sponsored Anti-Soviet Afghan resistance. Once upon a time all of us (including US) broke bread with AQ, remember at that time they were fighting the our bad folks “the commies”. Any way, after OBL fell out of favor for his Anti-American activities in the kingdom the noose is being tightened on AQ and all AQ Financiers have been sent to dissolved and imprisoned. The Kingdom is very keen on weeding out any kinda sources so much so that now most of the financial organizations, etc. have been asked to go compliant with Sarbanes and Oxley Act.
Remember AQ wants to destabilize the KSA and make it a another Iraq or Afghanistan by eliminating all the Royals, so it is entirely ridiculous to believe that Royals are involved with AQ.
For any but past involvement with AQ, the blame falls on the entire International Community for having tolerated the Anti-Soviet Afghan mujahideen, but it was a necessity at that point of time and we didn’t wrap up the work properly. Once the soviets were defeated, the Americans, Middle East and others simply packed up and left the region allowing them to run amock and turn back to bite us when we were sleeping. We used a monster to kill a another big monster and now the monster we played with had grown much bigger than before, so its also our collective fault.
And about the African Fund Raising, the AQ there is not involved in some petty local crime, they are involved in the Billion Dollar Trans Africa-Europe Drug smuggling. Thats a billion dollar industry. Annually 2 Billion$ worth of drugs is smuggled across Africa catering to over 27% European Demand, so this is significantly a big money source for AQ. And for the Xmas attack i guess they did not spend more than 10k $ so do the math and it is skewed on AQ’s side.
Having said that, even if AQ in Yemen is defeated the African AQ can spill over to Middle East and Europe easily. Remember the logistics and finances for Madrid train bombings (spain) came from North Africa.
With the fact that US has placed Nigeria on the TSA watch list, inspite of hardly any incidences involving Nigerians (except the Xmas) is to attest the fact that African AQ is a significant threat.
With Billion dollar finances and a pool of recruits available Africa is indeed gonna be the new theater of operations for AQ. What everybody lacks is the political will and the resources to engage AQ in Africa. African Operations by non-africans have always been a messy business and gives every military commander jitters.
January:05:2010 - 03:55
@Daisy,
On a Side note you must be remembering that once upon time India was the main supporter in Training and Financing LTTE to check the growing Pakistani Influence in Sri Lanka until LTTE grew up to be a monster. So we did a complete U turn at the expense of a Prime Minister being assassinated.
So the bottom line, if you play with monsters you end up being bitten by them.
January:05:2010 - 04:14
@daisy,
One of the many initiatives taken by KSA to curb terror funding http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=130729&d=5&m=1&y=2010
January:05:2010 - 05:33
ME @ 69 concerning see 44 (@39) I understand why John might defend them because he is transparent in his motives and who he is and I believe he believes to an extent (because he has disagreed with it here before) in what the US foreign policy has to say about Saudi Arabia. Thus, I can understand where his is coming from.
I would post with my real name and have done so many times not just here on controversial topics. I have signed my REAL NAME on government petitions etc. I am not part of some convert operation. I have barked my name here for a while and John can attest to that. A lot of people who read here and post know who I am. I am not afraid to post my name. The worst I fear is that a potential employer will start reading my posts and make judgements about it, but other than that I don’t give a sh_t. And I plan on owning my own company soon so it shouldn’t matter. Thus if someone were to post my real name right now I would be like Yeah so what that is who I am! No big deal.
I don’t want the US to drop bombs on Saudi. I want the US to call Saudi Arabia to more accountability and I do believe Saudi is responsible to a lot the extremist views that exist today in other countries as well as its own.
January:05:2010 - 05:38
AND I would still say “kadookiballs” with my REAL NAME LMFAO! Chiara I have told John several times, if you want me to leave this blog I will. I mean it. I really will. He knows that. He has scolded me a few times not many though as I am sure he has scolded others. I respect him and ultimately he HAS THE POWER OF DELETE!
This blog is therapeutic for me. I think I add value as I think you do Chiara too, but I would like to know why are so passionate and what your motives are…I realize you don’t owe me anything. Your shadiness at least for me makes your arguments well shady In My Humble Opinion!
January:05:2010 - 06:08
I sense some people trying to divert traffic here in another direction. Insane in the membrane is nothing but honey drops falling on the tip of my tongue.
I want to engage with a security expert. I say bombard the brains of the operation. Don’t you KNOW IM LOCO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAlNrtcPCLw
January:05:2010 - 06:09
Sparky,
You truly sparkle with a Golden Light – hence Sparky is an ideal name for you, you should keep it! And there is no need for you to reveal your real name on a public blog – this blog does not demand it, John the blog-owner doesn’t demand it and I don’t see why any commentator should ask you to reveal your name for whatever reasons. They are supposed to respond to your comments, not try to identify you.
In fact, Daisy is only my nickname – some of my relatives call me that, but my official name is something else and I don’t think any visitor here should be concerned with that, unless I want to reveal it myself. I like my nickname more than my official name and that’s why I use it and I have every right to do so.
You do add value to this blog and please don’t leave and go away – that will be a disaster!
January:05:2010 - 06:43
Ahh thank you Daisy
Yep I like the name Sparky. It was weird how it was revealed to me. It was something I didn’t even think of…I came upon John’s blog at the time of the Qatif girl and a voice said to me, “YOU ARE SPARKY”
I am Boxer dog named Sparky, but it is good that Sparky is more than a dog.
January:05:2010 - 07:12
Abu Abdullah,
Again, thanks for all that detail. Reading them, I get the following thoughts –
Currently, they may be restricted region-wise, but as you said, some of them have merged with South-East Asian organisations and may be on the run. I suspect they are also spreading across South Asia from its North-Western borders east and southwards. They can create fresh organisations mushrooming in different parts of the world, not only in South-East Asia. They already have this 2 Billion Dollars drug-smuggling business to support them. Of course, that’s the African branch, but it’s not as if there is no co-ordination between various branches.
So, there is a need to 1) track them, 2) stop them from spreading their ideology either directly or through another channel like a country or its institutions sending so-called “preachers” in different parts of the world and 3) cut off their funds.
As you can see, all of these are monumental tasks. I have doubts it’s within the power of the US to achieve this on its own. For # 1, co-operation of the whole world is needed, for #2, co-operation of ALL the Muslim world is needed – please note the stress on ALL (and please don’t get emotional about it) and for #3, co-operation of at least Europe and North Africa is needed, if not also of other countries.
I read the link you gave me of the Saudi government signing an MOU with different countries for tracking diverting of funds to various terrorist organisations in or outside Saudi Arabia (I hope I’ve got that right, please correct me if I haven’t).
While it is certainly a welcome move, I feel more needs to be done in this line. Following are the reasons – this move will track the individuals and the institutions, but it’s not going to track the individual members of the Royal family. Yes, we come back to the original argument. You said they are targeting Saudi Arabia, so why should the royal family support it? That’s a valid question. I said here before that Saudi royal family is not one entity. there are different factions in it and some of them are very fundamentalists. The king and his supporters are less orthodox and I believe are against terrorism, but we all know that in every royal family there are always counter-currents flowing contrary to the ruling faction. We don’t have any reason to believe that Saudi Royals are any different. you never know for what purpose a group of the Saudi royals may want to exploit the Al-Qaeda for its own selfish interests – bringing the monster in as you say it. That’s why I feel there should be a mechanism to check where the royal family members are diverting their funds. Unless that is done, this may well become the channel which AQ may exploit at some point. At that moment we will be only able to say we all ignored this possibility, just like you are saying now about the Taleban – the international community ignored its potential to become a malady. At that stage it looked as if they were fighting the Soviets so it was a good thing and why should they turn against other people, isn’t it so? So even if it appears like an improbability, this gap should not be left open.
I believe the information you have given here may be classified information, not accessible to general public. Even then, is there some material giving details about all this which I can read? May be after going through it I’ll ask you more questions.
I saw the photographs of your daughter. I don’t know why people say she doesn’t look Indian. She looks very much like a Tamilian!
January:05:2010 - 07:31
ME @69 concerning tackling the topic at hand. Here goes: It is all about toppling AQ and its ideology. What created it or how it came about is another topic of discussion but for now we are dealing with how to wipe it into oblivion. You said @60 “rest assured, extremist ideology has no /fundamental/ backing. it is simply a backup or alternative. moderate muslims are left powerless and are squeezed between two sides.”
That sentence is full of foolish despair. Do you believe in the statement that you made that that is that the only alternative moderate Muslim people are presented with? If so then Islam is being disempowered by that very notion and the pretenders ARE NOT the DEFENDERS. Peaceful Political pressure on our own governments or governments of residence might be a starting point for moderate muslims! There are other ways I assure you of defending Muslims but one needs reassurance of exactly what is being defended -the innocent person- or -the opportunistic ideology-. Until that clear distinction can be made we will not be able to F-bomb Al-Q.
January:05:2010 - 08:31
Abu Abdullah @ post 72 you said, “First of all though I hate being profiled as a Muslim, and I would hate people touching my privates, (But however I never had such an experience thanks to my job J).”
NOTE: PEOPLE HE NEVER HAD THAT EXPERIENCE! NOW IS NEVER TOO LATE TOO START! Don’t be so trusting of those who claim they are about to do one thing and end up doing another.
“Afghan bomber kills seven CIA agents after attacking base”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6972266.ece
The orginal report I read on MSN homepage on Jan 1st said he wasn’t searched…wasn’t searched…wasn’t searched. I was correct when I said the TSA and the likes are more concerned about taking away my deordorant and patting down my ass than checking would be or already existing terrorists or infilatrators!
“When you ponder the verses and hadiths that speak about jihad and its graciousness, and then you let your imagination run wild to fly with what Allah has prepared for martyrs, your life become cheap for its purpose, and the extravagant houses and expensive cars and all the decoration of life become very distasteful in your eyes,” he told the interviewer.”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34687312/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
All such thought sounds very familiar to what I have been indoctrinated with the past 14 years of my life in the KSA.
January:05:2010 - 08:39
@ Sandy the terrorists attacked Prince Mohammad because he took his job seriously and is crushing the terrorists. Did you notice how they didn’t go after his Dad Prince Naif?
Different factions within the Royal family that is TRUTH and REVELATION. Daisy @ post 91. That is revelation!
January:05:2010 - 08:47
I leave you all for a small vacation like John did with these closing thoughts. Tell me Chiara are my priorities now straight too?
Laura Comstock’s Bag Punching Dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rr7CG9kAnA
January:05:2010 - 08:56
@daisy:
Of course more needs to be done and there is always scope for improvements. Criminals and Anti-Social elements always invent loop holes to bypass the security mechanisms in place and we have to be just ahead of them. To catch these people in their act and collect evidence, we rely on developing better process, technology, resources and sometimes just plain luck. And so far comparing to pre-9/11 scenario we have progressed in leaps and bounds. The very fact that no major incident has happened sparing some in Europe and India everything is so far good, atleast i hope so.
When it comes to security issues one thing i can vouch is that in GCC every one (I mean every one living here no matter who they are) are treated equally and vetted through. Though the prosecution that follows may vary but still it is very much effective in preventing any untoward incidents. Post 9/11 Saudi Arabia had trouble trouble between 2003-05 and after that things have improved and security has been ensured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_militant_incidents_in_Saudi_Arabia
And BTW i have only discussed openly available on the public domain but just that usually they are filled with jargons and not often on peoples reading lists, nothing i said is confidential data.
Thanks for the complements about my daughter, yes she does look like Tamilian very much and is nothing short of being a Sweet apple of my eye
I guess its just perception of people of an Indian marrying a mixed Afro-Caribbean.
January:05:2010 - 10:10
@Sparky @93
I also said “I would like to discuss this issue as Security Consultant with John and other “sane people” here.”
So Case closed, and feel free to chase your tail LOL
January:05:2010 - 10:18
Abu Abdullah…Yeah I do chase my tail at times when I am bored and guess what you are it!
And a smart and SANE security consultant wouldn’t brag how he isn’t searched! I doubt you are anything you say you are
January:05:2010 - 10:53
The Secret Files of the Spy Dogs…please enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo1JjefGp-s
I bet you are dreaming of John coming back. You have the power of ignore. John has the power of delete and other things and I have the power of well my powers are secret.
January:05:2010 - 10:58
Abu Abdullah,
If they are in public domain, please give me the links so that I can go through them. Don’t worry about the jargons, I think I’ll be able to manage them.
Think about having a second name for your daughter – a less common and more exotic name. I can suggest if you like.
Sparky,
Happy holidays! Enjoy and come back fresh and shining more than ever before!!
About your secret powers – you remind me of Sabrina the benign and kind witch of Archie comics!
January:05:2010 - 11:15
There ARE different faction in the royal family. Again…the royal family who also participate in gov’t or the royal family in general??? I generally refer to Prince Naif as the dark lord (every country has one)- but how would it possibly benefit him to support Al Qaeda??? It doesn’t make sense. ANY EVIDENCE?? ANYONE???
January:05:2010 - 12:26
Sparky and Daisy addressed to Chiara–I never asked for anyone’s identity, or motivations, nor suggested anyone is not entitled to comment here, least of all John. Your distortions do undermine your comments, and the off topic recriminations do undermine the on topic discussion.
Abu Abdullah–thanks for the great and detailed, insightful comments, and the links you provided. This is the type of analysis that really expands knowledge and the discussion on this particular thread.
Back to a comment you made about Obama concentrating on terrorism coming out of Africa, I think for a number of self-interested reasons he will avoid that like the (re-election) plague: his own claims to an African identity, his own tenuous hold on the African American vote ,and the disaster that was the US involvement in Somalia (and the Canadian one too but that is out of his range of concerns).
Sandy #81 and #101–nicely put: information, knowledge, and commonsense.
Anyone who is interested–West Asia or Western Asia includes, according to the UN: the Arabian peninsula, Anatolia (Turkey), the Causcasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia), the Levant (including Cyprus); others sometimes include Iran, Afghanistan (which can also be considered Central Asia by some, and South Asia by others) and Egypt(because of the Sinai) ie rather more than Arabs, Muslims, or Saudi Arab Muslims, or even the Arabian Peninsula.
January:05:2010 - 13:06
Chiara,
Whatever you said or didn’t say, is all here on this public space for everyone to read and to understand your thought process very well.
January:05:2010 - 13:52
@70 (who happens to be ratherdashing)
as can said about ANY belief system, ideology, religion, political system, and social animal that is for defending one’s self and punishing traitors. this is not islam-specific.
@76 (who happens to be daisy)
it was a rhetorical question. no answer needed.
@82 (who happens to be daisy)
most of the ‘havoc’ was created in the /response/ to attacks which are statistically insignificant events. please read the linked article from cnn here. please, i don’t want to argue about the best response to terrorism.
in any case, you cannot reduce terrorism to zero.
January:05:2010 - 14:21
Daisy #103–of course, and yours as well. I have great faith in the majority of those who frequent John’s blog.
All interesting in the month old, beautiful daughter of Abu Abdullah, and the full name he and Umm Abdullah chose with loving care, blending tradition and Ameena’s own multicultural roots and future, are welcome to read (and of course comment on):
From the International Ummah to Marriage in Saudi Arabia: Colour, Conversion, and Complications–Part III Baby A is Here!
http://www.chezchiara.com/2010/01/from-international-ummah-to-married-in.html
January:05:2010 - 16:19
Abu Abdullah, I definitely agree that things are getting squeezed. In SA, they quickly found the political will when attacks escalated there in 2003-4. My understanding is that with ‘consultants’ of unspecified origins they have succeeded in killing or capturing, mostly killing, about 85% of their 25 most wanted list. However, I don’t think they have won over the ‘hearts of the people.’
Imam University, Grand Mufti & co, are still pumping out those given to an extremist bent. They bring students from all over the 3rd world on scholarship, send them back 4 years later as Salafist preachers with a handful of money to build mosques & fund evangelization efforts. Africans have told me that until Wahabbi / Salafism spread there Muslims & Christians lived in peace, intermarried, celebrated each others holidays, etc.
My understanding, from yemenis, is that until about 50 years ago women didn’t wear the black abeyya or cover their faces, the wahhabi doctrine didn’t dominate the mosques, and tribal, etc. allegiances were much more important than the Ikhwan crap fomenting there today. Except for the Shia influences & the belief that Iran is meddling I don’t hear much concern that AQ is spreading, just a ‘not in my backyard’ attitude. The average Saudi believes that the world would be better off under Sharia law and the end goals of AQ are appropriate. Their methods are often disagreed with, but many private parties support them, believe in their religious ideology, donate money, and give lip service to their devotion.
Easily over 15% believe the CIA or Mossad was behind the WTC attacks. Many did, and still celebrate that event. I have heard that Dick Cheney & the CIA were behind the Christmas day attack…to make Obama look bad. Most believe what the US call Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel are legitimate counter attacks against an occupying force. There are no ‘civilians’ because all have been trained in the military or will be.
I say again, the heads of the AQ Medusa may be getting cut off but not the body. The rubric worldview is not changing in Saudi due to the misinformation in a closed society.
The best weapons in the ‘fight against terrorism’ today maybe growing materialism in the AP, Internet, cable tv, & Bush / Abdullah’s study abroad programs for thousands of Saudis.
Unfortunately, Obama’s new Saudi groping policy may hinder the US study abroad attractiveness.
RD
January:05:2010 - 17:11
@daisy, thanks for the offer for help. We had the best resources and time at our disposal to go across all the name choices. And me and wife gave more importance to the actual meaning of her name and also the acceptability across different cultures, so we fixed on the name Ameena which also means “Peace”. And thanks to Dr. Chiara who is also a linguist she helped us choose the right spellings and also suggested the ordering of first and middle names.
Thanks any way and your gesture is appreciated.
January:05:2010 - 21:14
Abu Abdullah,
You still have to give me the links you said were in the public domain. I would really like to read this material, so can you please give the links?
January:05:2010 - 21:24
RD/Now Participating,
Largely you are right. Add to this list also the notion of “wounded Muslims” as what ME has been talking about here, which builds the popular Muslim support for terrorism not only in Saudi Arabia but in the Muslim population everywhere. I am quite familiar with that theory in my country as well – the US has been attacking and killing Muslims, so it’s right for the terrorists to respond. This makes Osama bin Laden a hero of some sorts.
I personally feel that the popular belief that CIA could be behind these attacks could be a result of the brainwashing campaign being done in the popular media by the authorities in Saudi Arabia. But I could be wrong, do let me know if I am.
January:05:2010 - 23:11
The BBC had a good profile on AQAP recently. See the link and story below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8437724.stm
BBC NEWS
Profile: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was formed in January 2009 by a merger between two regional offshoots of the international Islamist militant network in neighbouring Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Led by a former aide to
, the group has vowed to attack oil facilities, foreigners and security forces as it seeks to topple the Saudi monarchy and Yemeni government, and establish an Islamic caliphate.
It has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks in the two countries over the past 12 months, and has been
for attempting to blow up a US passenger jet as it flew into Detroit on Christmas Day.
A Nigerian man charged in relation to the incident,
, has allegedly told investigators that AQAP operatives trained him in Yemen, equipped him with a powerful explosive device and told him what to do.
He also warned there were others like him who would strike soon.
Beheading
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula first came to prominence in Saudi Arabia in May 2003, when it claimed responsibility for
, which left 29 dead.
Despite a subsequent crackdown on Islamist militants and radicals by the Saudi security forces, the group was able to mount an attack on the Muhayyah residential compound in the capital that November, killing 17 people.
In 2004, it suffered a major blow when its leader, Khaled Ali Hajj – a Yemeni and former bodyguard of Bin Laden – was ambushed and killed by Saudi troops.
However, the group soon recovered under the guidance of a veteran Saudi militant,
, and launched a series of spectacular attacks.
On 1 May 2004, militants shot dead five Western workers at a petrochemical complex in the north-western Red Sea city of Yanbu. On 29 May, more than 20 foreign and Saudi nationals were killed in attacks on three sites in the city of al-Khobar, increasing fears of political instability and pushing up global oil prices.
The following month, members of AQAP abducted and beheaded a 49-year old American aerospace worker named
.
AL-QAEDA OFFSHOOT
# Formed in January 2009 by a merger between al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia and Yemen
# Based in eastern Yemen
# Led by Nasser al-Wuhayshi, a Yemeni former aide to Osama Bin Laden. Deputy leader is Saudi ex-Guantanamo inmate Said al-Shihri
# Aims to topple Saudi monarchy and Yemeni government, and establish an Islamic caliphate
# Came to prominence with Riyadh bombings in 2003, and 2008 attack on US embassy in Sanaa
# Blamed for attempt to blow up US passenger jet in December 2009
The triumph was short-lived, however, as when security forces stormed a hideout in Riyadh looking for Johnson’s murderers Muqrin was shot dead.
Although militants killed at least nine people in a raid on the US consulate in Jeddah in December 2004, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula enjoyed notably less success under Muqrin’s successor,
.
The Saudi security services gradually gained the upper hand, and succeed in preventing any major attacks the following year, when Awfi was himself killed during a police raid in the holy city of Medina.
In spite of the large numbers of Saudis who then travelled to militant training camps and gained experience fighting in places such as Iraq, the group found it increasingly difficult to organise operational cells inside the kingdom. Its last attempt a significant attack was at the
.
Prison escape
Meanwhile in Yemen – the ancestral home of Bin Laden – Sunni militants took advantage of the weak central government, whose authority does not extend far outside the capital Sanaa, and established strongholds in its largely autonomous tribal regions.
Although al-Qaeda cells were held responsible for several attacks inside Yemen since the
near the port of Aden in 2000 that killed 17 US sailors, it was not until the second half of the decade that a fully-functioning affiliated group was formed.
According to Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University, between 2002 and 2003 the Yemeni government co-operated closely with the US to fight al-Qaeda. By the end of that period – which included one leader being killed in a controversial strike by a CIA drone aircraft – al-Qaeda appeared to be substantially weakened and so both countries shifted focus.
The policy appeared to have worked until February 2006, Mr Johnsen says, when
, including Jamal al-Badawi, the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing.
Most were eventually either recaptured or killed, but two of the lesser-known escapees eluded the authorities, including Nasser Abdul Karim al-Wuhayshi, a former personal assistant to Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and Qasim al-Raymi.
A 33-year-old from the southern governorate of al-Baida, Wuhayshi spent time in religious institutions in Yemen before travelling to Afghanistan in the late 1990s. He fought at the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, before escaping over the border into Iran, where he was eventually arrested. He was extradited to Yemen in 2003.
After escaping from prison, Wuhayshi and Raymi are said to have overseen the formation of al-Qaeda in Yemen, which took in both
and experienced Arab fighters returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Protected by tribes who were wary of government interference, the group established bases from which to launch fresh attacks.
The group claimed responsibility for two suicide bomb attacks that killed six Western tourists before being linked to the
, in which militants detonated bombs and fired rocket-propelled grenades. Ten Yemeni guards and four civilians were killed, along with six assailants.
Four months later, Wuhayshi announced in a video the merger of the al-Qaeda offshoots in Yemen and Saudi Arabia to form “al-Qaeda of Jihad Organisation in the Arabian Peninsula”.
Analysts say the move was designed to bring Saudi al-Qaeda members who had fled their country and Yemeni militants together under one umbrella as a first step towards launching attacks throughout the region.
Next to Wuhayshi and Raymi in the same video sat the new group’s deputy leader, Said Ali al-Shihri, a Saudi national who was released from the US military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in November 2007.
Another former detainee, Mohammed Atiq al-Harbi, also known as Mohammed al-Awfi, appeared alongside them and was described as a field commander.
Embarrassingly for both Riyadh and Washington, both men had been released from Guantanamo into the custody of the Saudi government’s “deradicalisation” programme for militants, which includes art therapy. They both left the facility within weeks.
The group’s
was carried out in Saudi Arabia in August 2009 against the kingdom’s security chief, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, though he survived. The bomber concealed a device containing the high-explosive PETN (pentaerythritol) in his underwear, much like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is alleged to have done.
After news of the failed attempt to destroy the Northwest Airlines Airbus A330 emerged, AQAP
, in which dozens of militants are reported to have died.
“We tell the American people that since you support the leaders who kill our women and children… we have come to slaughter you [and] will strike you with no previous [warning], our vengeance is near,” the group said.
“We call on all Muslims… to throw out all unbelievers from the Arabian Peninsula by killing crusaders who work in embassies or elsewhere… [in] a total war on all crusaders in the Peninsula of Muhammad.”
Reports on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s membership vary wildly – some experts say there are fewer than 50 fighters, while others believe there may be 200 to 300 – but most agree that if it is left unmolested it will soon become a major threat.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8437724.stm
Published: 2010/01/03 08:00:30 GMT
© BBC MMX
Print Sponsor
January:05:2010 - 23:12
^^ wow. That was longer than what I thought. Sorry. ^^
January:06:2010 - 07:30
Ratherdashing–thanks for the articles and links. A few things stand out:
“Meanwhile in Yemen – the ancestral home of Bin Laden – Sunni militants took advantage of the weak central government, whose authority does not extend far outside the capital Sanaa, and established strongholds in its largely autonomous tribal regions.”
Except for Yemen, Sanaa and “ancestral home of Bin Laden” that describes Pakistan extremely well, and Afghanistan, as well as Sudan. Hmmm…
“Embarrassingly for both Riyadh and Washington, both men had been released from Guantanamo into the custody of the Saudi government’s “deradicalisation” programme for militants, which includes art therapy. They both left the facility within weeks.”
Well put, BBC! “includes art therapy” as an adjunct to a full and lengthy, successful rehab program (better numbers than most rehab programs) which they left early ie escaped from early. “within weeks” is a pittance in rehab time.
“Reports on Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s membership vary wildly – some experts say there are fewer than 50 fighters, while others believe there may be 200 to 300 – but most agree that if it is left unmolested it will soon become a major threat.”
Ay, there’s the rub. Experts disagree, and certainly non-experts and the terrorized have mental images of much higher numbers. Part of terrorism’s modus operandi, in fact.
YES!!!!! my first ever successful italicization in a comment!!!! What next, bolding? YES!!!!
January:06:2010 - 11:16
Regarding their MO, these guys are pretty unoriginal in their thinking. Let’s see … kill crusaders … topple governments and establish the caliphate … bomb civilian passenger jets. You’d think after years of this BS they’d come up with a different set of objectives. Cookie Cutter Terrorism at its finest. The only new idea to come out of AQAP is the fruit-of-the-booms underwear bomb! It would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.
January:06:2010 - 18:46
Ratherdashing–yes pretty much Terrorism 101, but it works, with the complicity of the terrorized.