A stunning inside look at the strategic world of Islamofascist terrorism from Iranian Amir Taheri in The New Post today Oct. 3, 2003). I think this article challenges the Doubting Thomas's of the world to rethink their scepticism of what the War on Terror is about, what with another AP story today on the fact that the US millitary's Northern American Command drills weekly in shooting down civilian airliners scenarios for future 9/11-style domestic terrorist attacks. For anyone requiring further information (and they know who they are, here!), I recommend : _In The Shadow of the Prohet: the struggle for The Soul of Islam_ by Milton Viorst, 2002 [1998] And explaining why the War will be long and slow, and why it's so damned confusing for anyone affected by (infected by?) PC (i.e., strong moral relativism), is: _Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Religion_ by Robert Spencer, 2002. (THE answer is: it IS the religion.) ------------------------------------------ "AL QAEDA'S NEW COURSE" By AMIR TAHERI "October 3, 2003 -- STILL smarting from the blows it has received in the past two years, the Islamist terror movement is debating a new strategy. Conducted in Islamist circles in Pakistan, the Middle East and Europe, and echoed in numerous Web sites and newssheets, the debate centers on a key question: Which should be our priority target - the United States and its Western allies, or the fragile Muslim states where we could come to power in a reasonable time frame? "Some argue that the 9/11 attack against the United States was 'premature.' They insist that the Islamist movement should have first seized power in several Muslim countries and dotted itself with nuclear weapons before taking on America, which is regarded as 'the last champion of unbelief in the world.' "Supporters of that view cite the position the Prophet took in the last year of his life, when he led a large Muslim army against the Byzantine Empire. On reaching the border between Arabia and Byzantium, the Prophet halted his army to have a good look at the forces of Emperor Heraclius (Hirqil in Arabic). "The Prophet was impressed: He saw that the Byzantine army would be no pushover. He ordered his own host to march back home without a single engagement. Although criticized by some Arab commanders at the time, the Prophet's decision to retreat was quickly endorsed by God Himself through a message relayed by Archangel Gabriel. "The lesson was that Muslims should not become involved in suicidal operations against a far stronger foe. "That was the position that Abdallah Azzam, the Palestinian ideologist of al Qaeda, took in the autumn of 1989. The question then was whether the Islamist movement, having helped drive out the Red Army from Afghanistan, should immediately move to attack the United States, whose support had been crucial for the Soviet defeat. "Azzam delivered his answer in a sermon in Peshawar, Pakistan. It was simple: The movement must consolidate its position in Afghanistan, seize control of Pakistan, capture the Arabian Peninsula and, having created a solid power base, liberate Kashmir and then-Soviet-held Central Asia before attacking the United States. "A few days after that sermon, Azzam was killed in a car bomb attack. At the time, the murder was blamed on Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian who later became al Qaeda's No. 2. "The two men had fought an ideological duel for months. Al-Zawahiri had accused Azzam of 'localism,' and dismissed the strategy of focusing on the region as 'cat's p-ss politics.' The Egyptian argued that the time had come for a frontal attack against the United States, that driving the Americans back into their neck of the woods would lead to the domino-like collapse of those Muslim states backed by Washington. "The al-Zawahiri-Azzam ideological duel was arbitrated by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire through whom funds for the movement were channeled from the oil-rich Arab states. Days after bin Laden had decided that al-Zawahiri was right, Azzam was dead. "Having won the argument, al-Zawahiri tested it with two attacks inside America, first in 1993, against the World Trade Center in New York, and then in September 2001. "Last week, however, al-Zawahiri, making an ideological U-turn, unveiled a new strategy that sounds like a rehash of that envisaged by Azzam. "In a taped message, played in Islamist cells all over the world and broadcast in part by two Arab satellite-TV channels, the Egyptian (believed to be hiding either in Pakistan or in Iran) presents the strategy in three segments." [These deep insights continued at http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/7130.htm] ----------------- This background is all consistent with biographies about Bin Laden and will not surprise their readers. The real news follows.... Why is there a US led War on Terror - because they are at war with us! --Orson
Is off-topic really way off-topic? It is my understanding that the off-topic forum is not for completely off-topic discussions. Most posts must somehow tangentially related to distance learning, education, etc. Since all of this person's posts seem to relate to politics, this doesn't seem to jive with what has been previously said. Perhaps I've misunderstood? Tom Nixon
Not to mention the fact that this post, like so many others, seems to be directed towards a minority that is not represented in this forum. The previous two political posts I saw from Orson attacked Muslim activists and French racists; this one goes after folks who presumably believe that all military action in response to terrorism is unjustifiable, a position to the left of nine of the ten Democratic presidential candidates and certainly quite far to the left of most folks here. If there is anybody here who actually disagrees with the Afghanistan War, it would be unfair to debate the matter with her/him here because s/he would be so horribly outnumbered. I'm the resident liberal, and even I supported the Afghanistan War. I have felt for a long time that Orson can be thoughtful and incisive, and might enjoy reading his blog from time to time. Since his political posts here do resemble blog entries--they're basically links and quoted text, with only short snippets representing his own views--I can't help but think that orson.blogspot.com would be a wonderful idea, and would give him the opportunity to reach a larger audience made up of folks who are more likely to appreciate this sort of thing. Perhaps he could then do a weekly post here with one-line summaries of what his blog has addressed during the previous week, with a URL. Cheers,
Re: Is off-topic really way off-topic? Chip mentioned this in a previous post, but I took it as more of a request than a requirement. It is, after all, the "Off-topic" section. However, if Chip decides to enforce the rule that all posts should be somewhat related to DL, I'll be glad to be the hatchet-man.
