|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| bigverne wrote: |
If they were being honest they would have labelled it correctly. Exactly what type of extremism are we fighting?
What do Bin Laden, Abu Zarkawi, Jemaah Islamiya, Islamic Jihad, the Madrid bombers, the London bombers....etc, etc all have in common?
Recognising what we are dealing with may help us go some way in winning this conflict. |
They all fight to gain the Caliphate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| bigverne wrote: |
If they were being honest they would have labelled it correctly. Exactly what type of extremism are we fighting?
What do Bin Laden, Abu Zarkawi, Jemaah Islamiya, Islamic Jihad, the Madrid bombers, the London bombers....etc, etc all have in common?
Recognising what we are dealing with may help us go some way in winning this conflict. |
They all fight to gain the Caliphate. |
What do Islamist terrorists want? The answer should be obvious, but it is not.
A generation ago, terrorists did make clear their wishes. Upon hijacking three airliners in September 1970, for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded, with success, the release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Britain, Switzerland, and West Germany. Upon attacking the B'nai B'rith headquarters and two other Washington, D.C. buildings in 1977, a Hanafi Muslim group demanded the canceling of a feature movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God," $750 (as reimbursement for a fine), the turning over of the five men who had massacred the Hanafi leader's family, plus the killer of Malcolm X.
Such "non-negotiable demands" led to wrenching hostage dramas and attendant policy dilemmas. "We will never negotiate with terrorists," the policymakers declared "Give them Hawaii but get my husband back," pleaded the hostages' wives.
Those days are so remote and their terminology so forgotten that even President Bush now speaks of "non-negotiable demands" (in his case, concerning human dignity), forgetting the deadly origins of this phrase.
Most anti-Western terrorist attacks these days are perpetrated without demands being enunciated. Bombs go off, planes get hijacked and crashed into buildings, hotels collapse. The dead are counted. Detectives trace back the perpetrators' identities. Shadowy websites make post-hoc unauthenticated claims.
But the reasons for the violence go unexplained. Analysts, including myself, are left speculating about motives. These can relate to terrorists' personal grievances based in poverty, prejudice, or cultural alienation. Alternately, an intention to change international policy can be seen as a motive: pulling "a Madrid" and getting governments to withdraw their troops from Iraq; convincing Americans to leave Saudi Arabia; ending American support for Israel; pressuring New Delhi to cede control of all Kashmir.
Any of these motives could have contributed to the violence; as London's Daily Telegraph puts it, problems in Iraq and Afghanistan each added "a new pebble to the mountain of grievances that militant fanatics have erected." Yet neither is decisive to giving up one's life for the sake of killing others.
In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ��caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."
Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.
Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." His chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, also dreamed of re-establishing the caliphate, for then, he wrote, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Another Al-Qaeda leader, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.
Or, as Mohammed Bouyeri wrote in the note he attached to the corpse of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker he had just assassinated, "Islam will be victorious through the blood of martyrs who spread its light in every dark corner of this earth."
Interestingly, van Gogh's murderer was frustrated by the mistaken motives attributed to him, insisting at his trial: "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted."
Although terrorists state their jihadi motives loudly and clearly, Westerners and Muslims alike too often fail to hear them. Islamic organizations, Canadian author Irshad Manji observes, pretend that "Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism."
What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jy decideoo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
"homicide bombers " is more accurate. |
No it's not.
Homocide is redundant as it is implied in the word bomber and thus adds no new detail.
Every bomber is a homocide bomber, unless they are smoke bombers, or stink bombers or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
What if a B-52 bombs a military faculity where there are no people?
How about someone who bombs a building but calls in a warning and so everyone is evacuated and no one is killed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
In both cases the normal results of the bomb (i.e. homicide) have been deflected/diverted.
It's a silly term, but it's even sillier to argue about it so if you and Fox want to use it then be my guest, I won't say anything further against it.
So Joo, back to the OP: what's your take on the switch from "War on Terror" to "Struggle against Extremism"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is
1) A way to include those who fight for those who fight for the same stuff as Al Qaida but might not be directly connected to Al Qaida.
2) A way to include war against Khomenism and Bathism into the war on terror.
If Bush said he was going to war against "Islamic fascism" then it would be offensive to many muslims who are sitting on the sidelines because the word Islam was included.
It gives the way president a way to explain the war on Iraq. Which in fact was an attempt for the US to change the strategic situation of the mideast because the US felt that the current reality of the mideast is what creates terrorists. Sort of like this this , the US after 9-11 saw the mideast and concluded that the way to stop terror was to change the mideast. if the US got rid of the governments and elites that hate the US then the terror would stop, that was the ultimate goal.
The more modest goal was to scare mideast nations into using their security services to kill off Al Qaida and to stop teaching hate.
The US could have invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq , but there were as many if not more problems doing in doing that than invading Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let's consult an astute Professor of Semantics on this issue. Noam Chomski's office phone # (at MIT) is 1-617-253-7819. You can also email him at [email protected] He precisely labels himself a "conservative." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
