Al-Qaida will do whatever it takes to assure Bush is re-elected

[Norbert]

Terrorists generally rant about their goals but stay silent about their strategies, so now we have to do a little work for ourselves. If the real goal is still revolutions that bring Islamist radicals to power, then how does attacking the West help? Well, the U.S. in particular may be goaded into retaliating by bombing or even invading various Muslim countries -- and in doing so, may drive enough aggrieved Muslims into the arms of the Islamist radicals that their long-stalled revolutions against local regimes finally get off the ground.
Most analysts outside the United States long ago concluded that that was the principal motive for the 9-11 attack. They would add that by giving the Bush administration a reason to attack Afghanistan, and at least a flimsy pretext for invading Iraq, al-Qaida's attacks have paid off handsomely. U.S. troops are now the unwelcome military rulers of more than 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people there and elsewhere are turning to the Islamist radicals as the only force in the Muslim world that is willing and able to defy American power.
It is astonishing how little this is understood in the United States. I know of no American analyst who has even made the obvious point that al-Qaida wants Bush to win next November's presidential election and continue his interventionist policies in the Middle East for another four years, and will act to save Bush from defeat if necessary.
It probably would not do so unless Bush's number were slipping badly, for any terrorist attack on U.S. soil carries the risk of stimulating resentment against the current administration for failing to prevent it.

It took much of the op/ed to get to the gist but the scenerio is a scary one. We may be one airplane hijack, one dirty bomb away from getting shrub reselected. We will get our "war hero*" frat boy, pretzel chocking pResident for another four years. al-Qaita will also get to do their part in the reselection process, get the leader of the worlds only super-power they want, and they can throw their own version of fear factor to boot.

*War hero, after all North Vietnam never invaded Texas or Alabama.

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jan/01212004/commenta/131003.asp

[AliceWonderland]

1. I find this

reasoning bizarre. Well, no I don't, since it isn't really reasoning. It consists of strung-together, unrelated/unproven sentences. It goes from terrorists ranting about goals (which is an interesting example, since no one has definitely claimed responsibility for 9/11 as a political act) to Islamic radicals to what these Islamic radicals want to how the West might possibly help get them get what they want to an organization labelled Al-Qaeda that wants Bush re-elected. I don't even know who is being discussed. It's just a big ol' lump of towel-head evil-doers. "Analysis" like that doesn't help anything.

[Charlls]

8. its not meant as a reasoning, but as a guessing of the strategy

played from the other side. And it looks VERY feasible as strategy.

This is not about logic, its about war my friend.

[Snappy]

2. Martial Law

The stated grievances of the bin Laden network fit a pattern familiar to students of Islamic activism over the past two centuries. In a fatwa released in February 1998 (and echoed last week by the Taliban), bin Laden and leaders of extremist groups in Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh specified that their war was a defensive struggle against Americans and their allies who had declared war "on God, his messenger, and Muslims." The "crimes and sins" perpetrated by the United States were threefold.

First, it had "stormed" the Arabian peninsula during the Gulf War and continued "occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places" (i.e., Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia); second, it continued a war of annihilation against Iraq; and third, it supported the state of Israel and its continued occupation of Jerusalem.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/oped/hashmi.shtml

Al Qaeda's main goals:
Remove Western influence from Islamic lands. In practice, this means eliminating American military, cultural, and political influence from predominantly Islamic countries in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Destroy governments in Islamic lands that are supported by and linked to the democracies of the U.S. and Western Europe and that have made peace with and recognize the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

Establish orthodox Islamic regimes throughout regions where Muslims are the majority of the population and put into practice the strict tenets of Shari'a law.


http://college.hmco.com/currentconflict/instructors/history/alqaeda.html


If Al Q. wants the Neo Fascists in power they will strike again in the US within the next 8 months or so. This will bring Martial Law, the postponment of elections, indefinetly and the suspension of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. The question is: does Al Q. want that?

The next attack by the US will be in Syria. Surgical air strikes. The pretext?

[AliceWonderland]

3. See,

this is where the whole thing breaks down for me. Instead of a rational analysis of, say, a group that has been proven using grown-up evidence to have committed a given terrorist act... or at LEAST claimed responsibility... what do we get? A centuries old scary Muslim conspiracy theory. Talk about your tin-foil hats. Who are we talking about here? "Al-Qaeda." "The Bin Laden network." "Islamic radicals." "Extremist groups in Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh." "Anyone who hates American foreign policy." How on earth can a state develop a policy with that kind of murky nonsense? Am I really supposed to be frightened of a scaaaaaary Muslim savage attacking me? If so, someone's going to have to give me a more coherent reason than all that.

This is why people are so easily managed. Yell "boo!," yell "scary Muslims coming!" and all rational thought flies out the window.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Alice, you get it...Snappy gets it, most of us here gets it.

It is insane to treat AQ as some very scary monster. But how else can Bush drain the treasury, steal the oil, do Pax Americana, and support the MIC?

They need an enemy. Who's Al Qaeda? We don't know. We're not supposed to know.

Who are the 2 groups that have profited most from the "War on Terror"? BFEE and Al Qaeda of course. Sorta like a mutually co-dependent, enabling couple.

Clinton treated AQ like criminals. Sure they bombed facilities, but they were tracked down, captured, tried and we conducted a real effective multi-national campaign. Maybe too effective.

If you haven't yet, I suggest reading Paul Thompson's essay at www.cooperativeresearch.com "Escape from Afghanistan" We had AQ bagged up in Kabul, but gave 3000 fighters safe passage to Pakistan.....why'd we do that?

Can't have a "war on Terror" if there ain't no terrorists!

[paulthompson]

5. Machiavellian logic

I agree completely with this columnist.

I keep a close eye on Indonesian politics. There's a guerrilla war going on in the province of Aceh. One rebel made a surprisingly honest comment a while back. He said we are glad every time the Indonesian army comes in and burns down a village. The next day we go to the village and pick up many new recruits for our rebel army.

Extremists on one side of a conflict often want the same thing as extremists on the other: more violence. They are both united in not wanting moderation and peace, so it benefits them when the other side's extremists win power or stay in power.

Here's another example. When Netenyahu (sp?) was running for Isaeli Prime Minister back in the 90's, he was losing. Then Hamas had some very prominent terror attacks just a few weeks before the election, and Netenyahu surged and won. Certainly Hamas must have known the effect their attacks would have, and WANTED the far right candidate to win.

Whenever there's an al-Qaeda terror attack, the popularity of both Bush AND al-Qaeda increases amongst their respective target audiences. That's a plain fact. Each side uses the other for their own purposes.

The American populace is the most deluded populace in the world. I have European friends who laugh, saying, why are Americans so naive, and refuse to see how nasty politics really works?

[library_max]

6. This is the same kind of "logic"

that linked Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They're both bad guys, they must be in cahoots, all that is needed is a torturous explaination of how they "benefit" from each other. Classic conspiracy theory.

[Old and In the Way]

7. Kick-

For all the moderate peace loving people in the world who realize the collective dream fades more each day as the RW fundie/religious zealots promote their goals of war without end.