PDA

View Full Version : Christian Science Monitor: Al Qaeda to West: It's about Policies



DLR'sCock
08-06-2005, 12:55 PM
Al Qaeda to West: It's about Policies
By Dan Murphy
The Christian Science Monitor

Friday 05 August 2005

In a broadcast Thursday, al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri blamed Tony Blair for the 7/7 attacks.
Baghdad - With an AK-47 at his side, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, appeared in a videotape broadcast Thursday and claimed that the 7/7 bombings were payback for British participation in America's "policy of aggression against Muslims."

The video is another al Qaeda message apparently intended to turn Western democracies against their leaders by explaining acts of terrorism as rational decisions from a group with specific political goals. It challenges the position of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Bush administration officials, who have insisted that the London attacks have nothing to do with Iraq and that terror attacks will continue regardless of policy.

"By linking the bombings to Iraq, he basically sent the message that no matter what Blair says, Iraq is the reason," says Bob Ayers, a counterterrorism expert at Chatham House, a think tank in London. "He's calling Blair a liar."

This latest tape was released on a day when an unprecedented police security operation was under way in London.

While Mr. Zawahiri didn't directly take credit for the London attacks, he promised more attacks on Britain, the US, and other allies, saying "tens of thousands" more American troops will be killed in Iraq if there isn't an immediate withdrawal.

It was one of three taped statements, all aired on Al Jazeera, that Zawahiri has made since the end of February, a pattern of rising communication from the al Qaeda leaders that appears to belie statements from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that Osama bin Laden and his aides are on the run.

Zawahiri, an Egyptian exile whose terrorist career began at home and who hates the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak, did not mention the terrorist attack on Egypt's resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on July 23. The omission, analysts speculate, suggests the tape was made before the Sharm attacks, and the second subway attacks in London.

While some of his audio and video tapes seem generally targeted at mobilizing al Qaeda's "base," filled with Islamic illusions and glorification of martyrs designed to reassure adherents and draw new members, this communication from al Qaeda's chief ideologue falls into a category of tapes that targets primarily a Western audience.

Rather than casting his jihad as an inevitable clash of civilizations, he frames acts of terrorism as justified by the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and offers to end attacks on the West if a full withdrawal is made from "Muslim lands."

"Blair has brought to you destruction in central London, and he will bring you more destruction, God willing," Zawahiri said, addressing the British people.

"As for you Americans, what you have seen in New York and Washington, what losses you see in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite the media blackout, are merely the losses of the initial clashes," he said. "If you go on with the same policy of aggression against Muslims, you will see, God willing, things that will make you forget the horrors of Vietnam and Afghanistan."

"To the people of the crusader coalition ... our blessed Sheikh Osama has offered you a truce so that you leave Muslim land. As he said you will not dream of security until we live it as a reality in Palestine," he said. "Our message to you is clear, strong and final: There will be no salvation until you withdraw from our land, stop stealing our oil and resources and end support for infidel [Arab] rulers."

Analysts cautioned that Zawahiri's statement is not evidence of direct al Qaeda knowledge of the London attacks, and said it probably fits into al Qaeda's evolution into an ideological motivator, rather than organizer, of attacks.

"Such messages are usually a call-to-arms, sort of top-down guidance to go forth and do your thing," says Ayers. He says while al Qaeda was "tightly organized" before the invasion of Afghanistan, the dispersal of members since has left a "confederation of groups that adhere to the same fundamental principles.... essentially they are functionally autonomous groups."

Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at St. Andrews University in Scotland, agrees. "This is more of him rallying the troops - giving the green light to carry out attacks.... Here we have a clarion call to action. It is serving as an inspiration for like-minded extremists."

Some analysts, though, see it as an oblique claim of responsibility. "In many ways, this videotape can almost be seen as a claim of responsibility, bin Laden style," says Evan Kohlmann, a terrorism expert and author in New York. "When al Qaeda is responsible for a big operation like the embassy bombings, 9/11, or London, it is much more characteristic for them to issue a statement such as this one, hinting at al Qaeda involvement without removing that shadowy mystical aura that al Qaeda leaders love to propagate."

Both Messrs. Kohlmann and Ranstorp point out that Zawahiri tapes are frequently followed by new attacks. "Zawahiri's latest ode may once again herald renewed terrorist violence. Even beyond the West, countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Pakistan are steeling themselves for possible future strikes," says Kohlmann.

The coordinated bombings of Madrid's train system in March 2004, which killed more than 200 people, came just days before elections in Spain that brought to power Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who had vowed to pull Spanish troops from the US coalition in Iraq. Though it's not clear whether that attack swayed voters enough to alter the result of the election, it's seen that way on jihadi websites.

US intelligence analysts say it's likely that bin Laden and Zawahiri are living in the mountains along the lawless border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, something that President Musharraf appeared to confirm at a press conference last month. He said Pakistani troops in the Waziristan region had obliterated al Qaeda's "command and communications" infrastructure, and said the group is now relying on couriers who take "months" to carry messages out of the region.

But this video was recorded since the first London attack, less than a month ago. It shows Zawahiri sitting on the ground, outside, with a brown backdrop. "It is also a reminder that the US has failed in its mission to bring the ultimate mastermind to justice," says Ranstorp.

Ranstorp notes that Zawahiri has made repeated threats against Pakistan. "There is a duality to the message," he says. "There's the focus of making Iraq like Vietnam for the Americans, but there's also a threat to Pakistan. It could accelerate the confrontation between Musharraf and the the extremist religious elements."

-------

NathanRay
08-09-2005, 12:29 AM
Damn them towel heads

NathanRay
08-09-2005, 12:37 AM
Fight the Root of Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread
Monday, July 25, 2005
By: Alex Epstein

America should redouble and refocus its military action, not increase its foreign aid, if it wants to attack the "root cause" of terrorism.

In light of the recent suicide bombings in London, and the general inability of the West to prevent terrorist attacks, there is much talk about fighting the "root cause" of terrorism. The most popular argument is that terrorism is caused by poverty. The United Nations and our European and Arab "allies" repeatedly tell us to minimize our military operations and instead dole out more foreign aid to poor countries--to put down our guns and pick up our checkbook. Only by fighting poverty, the refrain goes, can we address the "root cause" of terrorism.

The pernicious idea that poverty causes terrorism has been a popular claim since the attacks of September 11. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has repeatedly asked wealthy nations to double their foreign aid, naming as a cause of terrorism "that far too many people are condemned to lives of extreme poverty and degradation." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees: "We have to put hope back in the hearts of people. We have to show people who might move in the direction of terrorism that there is a better way." Businessman Ted Turner also concurs: "The reason that the World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better life."



Indeed, the argument that poverty causes terrorism has been central to America’s botched war in Iraq--which has focused, not on quickly ending any threat the country posed and moving on to other crucial targets, but on bringing the good life to the Iraqi people.



Eliminating the root of terrorism is indeed a valid goal--but properly targeted military action, not welfare handouts, is the means of doing so.



Terrorism is not caused by poverty. The terrorists of September 11 did not attack America in order to make the Middle East richer. To the contrary, their stated goal was to repel any penetration of the prosperous culture of the industrialized "infidels" into their world. The wealthy Osama bin Laden was not using his millions to build electric power plants or irrigation canals. If he and his terrorist minions wanted prosperity, they would seek to emulate the United States--not to destroy it.



More fundamental, poverty as such cannot determine anyone's code of morality. It is the ideas that individuals choose to adopt which make them pursue certain goals and values. A desire to destroy wealth and to slaughter innocent, productive human beings cannot be explained by a lack of money or a poor quality of life--only by anti-wealth, anti-life ideas. These terrorists are motivated by the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. This other-worldly, authoritarian doctrine views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity. Its adherents resent America's success, along with the appeal its culture has to many Middle Eastern youths. To the fundamentalists, Americans are "infidels" who should be killed. As a former Taliban official said, "The Americans are fighting so they can live and enjoy the material things in life. But we are fighting so we can die in the cause of God."



The terrorists hate us because of their ideology--a fact that filling up the coffers of Third World governments will do nothing to change. What then, can our government do? It cannot directly eradicate the deepest, philosophical roots of terrorism; but by using military force, it can eliminate the only "root cause" relevant in a political context: state sponsorship of terrorism. The fundamentalists' hostility toward America can translate into international terrorism only via the governments that employ, finance, train, and provide refuge to terrorist networks. Such assistance is the cause of the terrorist threat--and America has the military might to remove that cause.



It is precisely in the name of fighting terrorism at its root that America must extend its fist, not its hand. Whatever other areas of the world may require U.S. troops to stop terrorist operations, we must above all go after the single main source of the threat--Iran. This theocratic nation is both the birthplace of the Islamic Fundamentalist revolution and, as a consequence, a leading sponsor of terrorism. Removing that government from power would be a potent blow against Islamic terrorism. It would destroy the political embodiment of the terrorists' cause. It would declare America's intolerance of support for terrorists. It would be an unequivocal lesson, showing what will happen to other countries if they fail to crack down on terrorists within their borders. And it would acknowledge the fact that dropping bombs, not food packages, is the only way for our government to attack terrorism at its root.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--

FORD
08-09-2005, 01:18 AM
If I was going to start bombing"terrorists", my first stop would be the "Rand Institute". Second would be PNAC's headquarters.

In the meantime I expect to see Mr Epstein put his money where his mouth is and join either one army or another. And the same goes for whoever else agrees with this horseshit.

BigBadBrian
08-09-2005, 01:26 PM
Here's where I would start bombing the U.S. if I were a terrorist:


http://www.evergreen.edu/images/homepageimages/greenlogo.gif (http://www.evergreen.edu/images/homepageimages/greenlogo.gif)

FORD
08-09-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Here's where I would start bombing the U.S. if I were a terrorist:


http://www.evergreen.edu/images/homepageimages/greenlogo.gif (http://www.evergreen.edu/images/homepageimages/greenlogo.gif)

So you really DO hate freedom then?

NathanRay
08-13-2005, 02:40 AM
More HorseShit:

End Social Security
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
By: Alex Epstein

Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable.

Throughout the nation, a fierce debate rages over Social Security. One side, led by President Bush, says the system is in crisis and must be saved via "partial privatization." The other side says the system is basically sound and can be saved with a little tinkering.

Both sides, however, agree on one absolute: Social Security should be saved. While it may have financial problems, they believe, some form of mandatory government-run retirement program is morally necessary.

But is it?

Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.

This is a fraud.

Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their income--approximately 12%--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.

Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.

If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12% of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12% to retirement. He might choose to work far past the age of 65. He might choose to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.

How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirements, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves.

And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?

The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a recent New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.

Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.

Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.

-thanks for smelling