Written for and pinched from this CiF thread.
It's true that while Al Quaeda may not be able to be defeated militarily, neither can they - at present - win militarily. Their hope is that we fall from within - a process in which the Guardian is their ally - that we simply no longer have the will, the stomach for the fight. "We love death while you love life", as someone said - and the calculation is that encouraging Westerners who think they can opt out - who think that getting rid of Bush'n'Blair and bringing home the troops is a recipe for a quiet life - is one half of the PR strategy.
The other half is of course the appeal to the faithful. The first Bin Laden communiques, aimed at a Muslim audience, made no sense at all to a secular Westerner. The tragedy of Al-Andalus ? Who does he play for ? Eighty years of humility ? What happened in 1921, someone ?
But somewhere along the way, after the fall of the Taleban, the destruction of the secure Afghan bases and the fall of Saddam, AQ realised that it was as easy, if not easier, to fight US troops in Washington than in Kandahar - and more to the point, that he had (objective) allies there whose influence could perhaps be leveraged. The 2004 Bin Laden 'election address' hit all the right buttons for the Daily Kos/Guardian audience. Bush stole the election. Sweden doesn't get bombed. America starts wars to keep its corporations busy. It's all about oil. Halliburton. Robert Fisk is neutral (I didn't say Bin Laden wasn't sometimes correct).
The latest communique is even more polished in terms of its targeting. So much so that lefty Michael Dickinson at 'alternative' site Counterpunch writes
"it's unlikely that many, if any, American TV channels or popular newspapers will present their listeners and readers with the most urgent part of Bin Laden's message. God forbid! It might make sense to them. It might make even them think.
After examining the transcribed text of Osama's address, I found much of what he said made sense to me."
Somewhere in London, in Germany, maybe in an ISI office in Pakistan, people are reading that and shouting 'Yay ! He broke the code !'
So we have military action and the appeal to the faithful via jihadi video etc - designed to galvanise the young men.
We have the appeal to the 'it's all our/America's fault' crowd - designed to weaken resolve with all that implies for military action or lack of.
And there's a third leg, not so dangerous to the States but of great importance to us. The Muslim population of England is rising fast, while the natives who aren't emigrating are having children at below replacement rates. The figures as of 2001 are as follows :
white 1.8
Afro-Caribbean 1.8
Indian 2.3
Pakistani 4.0
Bangladeshi 4.7
For example, the Muslim population of Bradford, a town which wasn't exactly short of Muslims in 1981, will have tripled between then and 2011. The tripling is a result of a high birth rate, chain migration and a severe shortage of radical feminists.
"Following initial migration and settlement in the 1960's, Bradford has, over the last three decades, established a significant Pakistani population: in 1981 this community numbered 34,116 persons, in 1991, 38,059 persons and it is estimated that in the year 2011 this population will number 104,000 persons or approximately a quarter of the city's population."
As the minarets and domes rise above our cities, so will the political self-confidence of British Muslims. I can't see Blair's new Muslim faith schools doing anything other than accelerating this trend.
At the same time Islam is attracting increasing numbers of native converts. Traditionally the convert is more zealous than one born to the faith and are over-represented in the exploding or wannabe exploding ranks. I imagine the appearance at the Old Bailey of one Nicholas Roddis of Rotherham, a white Muslim convert, on a charge of preparing acts of terrorism, may have passed by most Guardian readers - especially as his religion was something the BBC report failed to mention. The recent arrests in Germany were of native German converts.
Interesting times.
Local Council Efficiency
8 hours ago
18 comments:
So to understand your montage of comments correctly you're saying the troops are being pulled out of Iraq in order to fight the war where it ultimately must be fought which is in towns like Bradford?
Islamization of Britain is not a problem for "the States"? You are still a nuclear power aren't you?
No John, no John, no John, no. I didn't say anything about troop withdrawal other than that OBL would be extremely pleased about it.
Nor did I predict a war. You must be confusing me with Jeanette Winterson.
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2007/05/civil-war.html
Via
MajorityRights is an interview at CityPages of Michael Scheuer, formerly the creator and chief analyst of the CIA's bin Laden unit.
CP: Getting back to what you said a moment ago about the importance to bin Laden of offering the U.S. a warning, didn’t he in fact get in trouble in a lot of Islamic circles after 9/11 for failing to provide a warning?
Scheuer: Yes—that is, for failing to provide enough of a warning. The prophet’s guidance is that you go the extra mile to warn your enemy. Bin Laden was called on the carpet by his peers in the Islamic militant movement for three things. One was that he didn’t give us enough warning. He’s now addressed the American people on five separate occasions since 2002. So he’s taken care of that one. He was also called on the carpet for not offering us a chance to convert to Islam. He’s now done that three separate times, and Zawahiri has done it once. So they’ve covered that angle. The other thing they were taken to task for was that they didn’t have the religious authority to kill as many Americans as they did. In the summer of 2003, he got a religious judgment from a very reputable Saudi cleric that he could use weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons, to kill up to 10 million Americans.
After 9/11, he had several very important loose ends to tie up, in religious terms, before he could attack us again. He’s done all of those things. It’s interesting, because he spoke on the eve of our presidential election, and he said, This is the last time I’m going to warn you. In his speech last week, he said, I was not going to talk to you again, but your president is lying to you. I wanted to give you one more opportunity to hear the truth.
"As the minarets and domes rise above our cities, so will the political self-confidence of British Muslims."
Can it get any higher...?
"The 2004 Bin Laden 'election address' hit all the right buttons for the Daily Kos/Guardian audience."
Yes, the man knows his audience all right....
Jason Burke's wisdom over the years:
"Al-Qaeda, conceived of as a traditional terrorist group with cadres and a capability everywhere, simply does not exist."
"[Bin Laden] and his kind will have been consigned to the history books."
"[Al-Qaeda's] central hardcore element has made a comeback."
Inciteful and powerful post, Laban. A more coherent analysis of what it is the West must tackle if it wishes to survive as we know than much in the MSM.
"A more coherent analysis of what it is the West must tackle if it wishes to survive as we know than much in the MSM."
Given a lot of the comments on the associated CiF thread about where people were when they heard about 9/11, I have to say I think there are certain elements that don't wish the West to survive...
What worries me most about bin Laden is this: he tends to use terminology that used to be used by cold war Russians. Terms like "military industrial complex". It is no wonder that the radical left like him so much - they all went to the same "schools".
Now there was a theory that bin Laden is a KGB/FSB proxy who can be relied upon by Putin to attack the West with all means possible. If bin Laden has got his hands on a nuclear weapon, where did he get it from? Pakistan? - possibly. But it is also possible he got it from Russia. So bin Laden detonates a (Russian) nuclear bomb in Washington and who gets the blame? Islam gets the blame. Now the US has already sent out a powerful message to bin Laden - for everyone killed in 9/11 the US has killed well over 100 Islamists. So if bin Laden were to kill 10million Americans - how many followers of Islam be killed in retaliation (and would anyone in the West really care)? Meanwhile the real perpetrators in Russia.
We could be living in very dangerous times. We have a mad psychotic murderer in the Kremlin and another mad psychotic murderer somewhere in the lands of Islam. Meanwhile the old 5th columnists, the cold-war KGB stooges like Kate Hudson and many others, seem to have taken new heart recently, as Russian Bear bombers fly overhead. Is it impossible that the KGB/FSB have infiltrated British institutions just like they did during the 70s? Old habits die hard.
Laurence Auster has an interesting report on a USA court case:
... The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a “Civilization-Jihadist” process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack. ...
"What worries me most about bin Laden is this: he tends to use terminology that used to be used by cold war Russians. Terms like "military industrial complex". It is no wonder that the radical left like him so much - they all went to the same "schools". "
Actually that phrase was coined (to describe the way American industry shilled for war so as to get more demand) by that well known hero of the radical left, Pres. Eisenhower. He of course meant it to apply just as much to the USSR, and indeed to any other globalist power, as to the West.
OBL has clearly stated that the 9/11 attacks and all subsequent terrorism *were motivated by the presence of heathen forces in the ME*. This makes his position atleast superficially supportive of national sovereignity. Whether or not he is sincere in this is a moot question.
"Now there was a theory that bin Laden is a KGB/FSB proxy who can be relied upon by Putin to attack the West with all means possible. If bin Laden has got his hands on a nuclear weapon, where did he get it from? Pakistan? - possibly. But it is also possible he got it from Russia. So bin Laden detonates a (Russian) nuclear bomb in Washington and who gets the blame? Islam gets the blame. Now the US has already sent out a powerful message to bin Laden - for everyone killed in 9/11 the US has killed well over 100 Islamists. So if bin Laden were to kill 10million Americans - how many followers of Islam be killed in retaliation (and would anyone in the West really care)? Meanwhile the real perpetrators in Russia."
There is also a theory that the moon landings were faked. Why assume that he got it from either Pakistan or Russia when the region is awash with unreliable nuclear-armed states? Why assume he's got a nuke in the first place?
"We could be living in very dangerous times. We have a mad psychotic murderer in the Kremlin and another mad psychotic murderer somewhere in the lands of Islam. Meanwhile the old 5th columnists, the cold-war KGB stooges like Kate Hudson and many others, seem to have taken new heart recently, as Russian Bear bombers fly overhead. Is it impossible that the KGB/FSB have infiltrated British institutions just like they did during the 70s? Old habits die hard. "
Yep, it is *possible*. Alot of things are possible. That Putin decides to plunge the world into chaos for no tangeable gain is, I suppose, one of them.
So, whats your point alex zeka?
Speak briefly please.
So what are you all going to do about it - huh?
"Yep, it is *possible*. Alot of things are possible. That Putin decides to plunge the world into chaos for no tangeable gain is, I suppose, one of them. "
Do you know a lot about Alex Litvinenko? About what happened to him and why? And who did it? And what happened to a lot of other people in the same position as Litvinenko? He couldn't possibly do Putin any harm as he had no outlet for his comments in the Russian media, now that the Russian media is under the control of the state. Nevertheless, he is dead, and killed in a way that was bound to point to the nature of the killers and act as a warning to others. It should be a warning to all of us of the nature of the curent Russain government. It seems many of us are still sleeping.
Russia, meanwhile, continues to fly into our airspace and tests MOABs in its deserts.
"All things are possible"
True, but don't you think that, given similarity of objectives, the West and Russia could learn to cooperate.
Litvinenko was a renegade, who very tangibly was a threat to Putin, despite lack of media.
I get the impression that the west would work with Putin, given the opportunity.
Putin, however, seems intent, for no logical reason that can't be worked around, to increase the costs to the west in terms of blood and treasure, of the wests existence.
State, and Putin held egos have to be assuaged, but these are not the actions of a logical man.
Japan was beaten soundly by the US.
They acknowledged that defeat.
US helped rebuild.
US and Japans interests are now aligned.
Putins actions defy long term strategic logic.
At some point he will have to make major imports of young foreign workers to maintain society. We will then have a common enemy.
That a voracious common enemy exists at present is not in doubt, and how Putin can afford not to engage the west, is incomprehensible.
His energy resource are definitely finite, and no-one is an economic stand alone.
Arms sales are temporary, as customers learn to manufacture their own. What then? His leverage on ME trouble mongering ceases.
If Putin were to examine the entrails of his antagonism carefully, he would see the advantages of working with the west.
Maybe it's not Putin.
Maybe it's the Politburo.
Or the State Duma.
Unlikely, but.............
Putin is ex-KGB and therefore nationalist to the core. He resents losing the Warsaw Pact countries to NATO and is paranoid about their intentions. I suspect he also fears China's increasing closeness to the capitalist world.
It will be interesting to see what happens next Spring. If Putin really stands down he will in any case be replaced by another KGB man, but given that Putin has taken the trouble of bumping off all of his detractors, it is also quite likely that he will forget to do as the Russian constitution demands.
"So, whats your point alex zeka?
Speak briefly please."
I invite readers to take a look at my last post, and compare the amount I'd written myself to how much I'd quoted. The point is that the previous anon.'s post was a long series of extravagant speculations with nothing but "possibility" to back them up.
"Do you know a lot about Alex Litvinenko? About what happened to him and why? And who did it? And what happened to a lot of other people in the same position as Litvinenko? He couldn't possibly do Putin any harm as he had no outlet for his comments in the Russian media, now that the Russian media is under the control of the state. Nevertheless, he is dead, and killed in a way that was bound to point to the nature of the killers and act as a warning to others. It should be a warning to all of us of the nature of the curent Russain government. It seems many of us are still sleeping. "
If Litvinenko was actually poisoned by the KGB, his case would become the least covert covert operation the world had ever seen. Plutonium, for gods' sake! Would the KGB make it quite so obvious that an assassination had taken place? Isn't the point of the secret service to be, um, secret? Doesn't this look like the killer's intentions were to make an ostentacious incident?
Quite apart from all that, Litvinenko was a low level bureaucrat who had defected so long ago he wouldn't know any secrets of current importance.
Post a Comment