|
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 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Firstly, I believe you are underestimating the power of European-grown radical Islamism. |
That's possible. Very possible.
But what I had in mind when I wrote my previous post was this: For the last half century the US has used the military as an experiment in racial integration. While it hasn't always gone smoothly, it has had a number of shining successes. Colin Powell probably most visibly. I'm saying that the idea of actively bringing ethnic minorities into mainstream society through the military door can be part of a successful solution to several problems.
| Quote: |
| The problem is Europe is weak. |
Yes, and it's (largely) by choice. Their ancestors were quite happy to fund militaries when the policy was to go out and plant flags in other people's front yards and take away their freedom along with their natural resources. I fully agree with you on this:
| Quote: |
| Sorry, Europe, but ideals of fairness and due process mean little on an international stage like this one, you actually have to speak softly and carry a big stick. |
To get back to the theme of this thread, I wasn't arguing that they should have been involved 3 years ago. Heck, I didn't want the US involved three years ago. I am arguing that they need to get involved now because a stable Middle East is in their interest every bit as much as it is in ours and everyone else's.
There are better ways to bring democracy to a country than invading it. Look at Egypt. It's moving in the right direction. The two billion dollars a day spent in Iraq could more productively be spent in Egypt on building schools.
In my opinion, if Bush declared the Iraqi government had made enough progress in establishing itself and was ready to fully take over its responsibilities and that US and allied troops would begin withdrawing, attacks on US troops would decrease immediately. The Shia'a/Sunni attacks would continue until Iraqis themselves found the solution to that centuries old problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Firstly, I believe you are underestimating the power of European-grown radical Islamism. Even if you do not underestimate their numbers, French intelligence estimates 35k trained operatives of Al Qaeda trained as an armed militia, 20-25k in Germany, and 10k in the UK (I'll provide a link for this later) |
Please do provide that link. I'd be very curious to know what definitions of "trained" and "armed militia" are being used here. Like, 35 000 people in France have all been to AQ training camps and are armed and ready to fight as a single unit? Or 35 000 people in France have said nice things about AQ and know how to use a weapon? |
I don't have a link but I've read in a number of places that what the general public has been calling 'terrrorist camps' around the world for the last year should more accurately be called 'militia camps' or perhaps 'insurgency camps'.
The argument goes like this:
(Ah crap, I don't have time right now but I'll get back to it as soon as I can in this thread). |
Sorry, that should have said "last ten years".
I'm going to try to pick up my train of thought (bearing in mind that I have yet to read Kuros' link)- "Terrorist camps" should actually be considered to be insurgency camps or militia camps, because that's what they've been doing, giving young Muslim men from around the world miltary training. It's been going on since the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Aside from PE, military discipline, and indoctrinatation, they're getting weapons training, squad tactics training, and insurgency training.
You don't need to give that sort of training to somebody who is going to strap on a belt of explosives and push a button at the right time. Obviously to spend time and money to train somebody who is going end up doing that is incredibly wasteful.
And for advanced terrorists like Mohammed Atta and the other 9/11 terrorists, you don't need and don't want to train them in these camps. Sure they probably had initial training there in the past but once they were on the fast track to being serious al Qaeda terrorists they're steering clear of camps- advanced stuff wouldn't be exposed in a camp. Stuff like advanced bomb-making classes, how to control hostages, how not to attract attention, etc. can be done in a house, in a basement etc. these would be very small classes.
So the thousands of Muslim men going in and out of these camps have received not 'terrorist' training but military, or paramilitary/militia training, take your pick. Sort of a 'boys scouts with AK47s'. Okay, maybe that's being a little too flippant about them, but anyway.
35,000 of these guys in France, who have been to a training camp at some point for some indefinite period of time (e.g. like as little as 2 weeks when they were 15)?
Not too hard to imagine... but does that mean there are 35,000 armed guerrillas ready to carry out insurrection against France?
Then why the hell are they just setting fire to their neighbours' cars in the burbs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Firstly, I believe you are underestimating the power of European-grown radical Islamism. Even if you do not underestimate their numbers, French intelligence estimates 35k trained operatives of Al Qaeda trained as an armed militia, 20-25k in Germany, and 10k in the UK (I'll provide a link for this later), you need to understand that the presence of many more moderate Muslims won't help against attacks or movements by radical elements. I won't rehash this much done discussion, except I have to implore that you make a distinction even between European radical Islam and traditional but still extreme Wahhibism. |
What I don't get about the claims over these training camps is that the impression given is of AQ as a top-down, heirarchical terrist organisation. Which we now know it isn't.
Your point about differentiating between different flavours of radicals / extremists is well taken.
| Quote: |
| Now, Europe isn't insane. They joined America in the Afghanistan endeavour and even submitted to American operational control. They still realize strong support of America is integral to their own interests as members of the West, even though their politicians have gotten elected declaring things logically contrary to this (does this political characterization of Europe seem familiar to another government?). |
This smells suspiciously of "America is always right" 
Sometimes strong support for America is in their own interests. Sometimes it's really not - and sometimes America seems to treat them with utter contempt (c.f. the current arguments over the CIA torture flights, with Condi refusing to give straight answers...)
Everyone, worldwide, is fully aware that America is the most powerful nation, economically and militarily, on the planet. But that doesn't mean it deserves fawning acceptance of whatever madcap scheme it comes up with.
| Quote: |
| The problem is Europe is weak. They have other problems. Their demographics are screwed up. The birthrate in Spain is under 1.5 children per household. In 30 years Germany will have 50% of their population as elderly. Meanwhile, the economy is still bleak (although European defense manufacturers are getting a huge boost from pentagon investments). |
The demographics are an issue, although often overplayed (and the issue would be much reduced simply by evening up, and raising, retirement ages). And the economies, though hurt rather more by high oil prices than the US, are finally turning the corner. I wouldn't call it 'bleak', though there's still some way to go. As for the US, that economy is rather on the brink right now. Not many economists are filled with confidence about the US economy right now, and war spending hardly helps.
| Quote: |
| Europe can't even elect strong parties into power, Chirac is regarded as much weaker for the 'non' vote France defiantly made, and how many challenges does Merkel have to face while having a coaltion government. Much less can Europe decide on an appropriate constitution for a united Europe. |
I don't understand what you mean by 'strong' parties here. Chirac has been a lame duck for a little while (not unlike your very own president). Merkel has a tightrope to walk, but her election had little to do with German desire for weak government and a lot to do with disagreement within the country over the correct direction. In Germany such disagreement means a coalition - in America, it appears to mean a thumping win for the Republicans.
| Quote: |
| Personally, I think demanding France and Germany's participation in this fiasco is too much. Frankly, in some ways Mongolia is in a better position to send 100 of its troops rather than these two sending 1000 of theirs. But Europe is exhausted, not just politically and financially, but also existentially, as evidenced by their demographic problems above as well as some of the things their academics are saying (I'm thinking particularly of post-modernism). |
This doesn't at all match reality on the ground (at least where France is concerned - there are constitutional considerations for Germany, much like Japan). That said, perhaps it's worth considering that countries choosing to participate in such fiascos (including my own) are acting far more ridiculously than those who stay out of them.
| Quote: |
| Only Great Britain was ever healthy enough to lend a hand. And as an aside, let me note that by practicing different tactics than the US they made a great difference, but France and Germany never would have had great influence in Iraq anyway due to neo-con overconfidence in solo American power. |
It's also worth noting that the Brits are hopping mad at some of the operational decisions made by the US (probably due to that self-same neo-con overconfidence which somehow became neo-con bunker mentality). I believe there are leaked-but-hushed-up memos saying just this.
| Quote: |
| However, the Big 3 are now trying to continue their multilateralism in dealing with Iran, and they are finding that the non-aligned movement thinks even now of France and Germany as biased towards the US. Indeed, the only kind of persuasion that has worked in convincing anyone of Iran's non-compliance has come via the US's private deals with India. Sorry, Europe, but ideals of fairness and due process mean little on an international stage like this one, you actually have to speak softly and carry a big stick. And it's a shame that the US is only carrying a big stick nowadays, while Europe knows only how to speak softly. |
The US's private deals with India are making it easier for Iran to ride roughshod over the NPT - if the US can't be bothered to stick to it, what business do they have demanding others do?
The US doesn't speak softly and, as the world can see over its dealings with the Norks, it only brings out its big stick against piddly little countries with tiny, out-dated armies. In the end, fairness and due process are the only ways to uphold international treaties and bodies. You guys might like the idea of "America rules the world" but it's not (just) envy that stops Europe signing up wholeheartedly for such a world order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hypnotist wrote: |
| What I don't get about the claims over these training camps is that the impression given is of AQ as a top-down, heirarchical terrist organisation. Which we now know it isn't. |
?
From the link, bolds are mine:
| Quote: |
Recruitment across Europe continues apace and in greater secrecy than ever as a result of a switch to new recruiting techniques and appeal to fresh target-populations for building the Euro army. According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly��s counter-terrorism sources, the authors of the interim report found that al Qaeda, intent on beating surveillance and penetration by intelligence services, no longer selects combatants at its usual hunting grounds in mosques, Islamic culture centers and Muslim immigrant neighborhoods. Instead, native Europeans freshly converted to Islam are targeted.
The new campaign is styled ��the white recruitment drive�� or ��coffee shop conscription��. Operational cells and recruiting agents patronize ordinary cafes on the high streets of Europe��s major cities where they blend into the crowds. The new conscripts defy identification by European intelligence services because their Islamic lives are lived completely underground. There is therefore no way of finding their addresses telephone numbers. Unit-level meetings or training sessions, attended by 30 or 40 men, may take place under cover of social activity such as a holiday camp in a remote part of Europe. Tracking them down is getting harder as bin Laden��s new Euro army expands at the rate of tens of thousands and when ��white�� recruits may already form some 25 percent of the total. |
I find the point about white recruits just a tad prescient.
| hypnotist wrote: |
Quote:
The problem is Europe is weak. They have other problems. Their demographics are screwed up. The birthrate in Spain is under 1.5 children per household. In 30 years Germany will have 50% of their population as elderly. Meanwhile, the economy is still bleak (although European defense manufacturers are getting a huge boost from pentagon investments).
The demographics are an issue, although often overplayed (and the issue would be much reduced simply by evening up, and raising, retirement ages). And the economies, though hurt rather more by high oil prices than the US, are finally turning the corner. I wouldn't call it 'bleak', though there's still some way to go. As for the US, that economy is rather on the brink right now. Not many economists are filled with confidence about the US economy right now, and war spending hardly helps. |
I would call it bleak, but point taken about the American economy.
| hypnotist wrote: |
Quote:
However, the Big 3 are now trying to continue their multilateralism in dealing with Iran, and they are finding that the non-aligned movement thinks even now of France and Germany as biased towards the US. Indeed, the only kind of persuasion that has worked in convincing anyone of Iran's non-compliance has come via the US's private deals with India. Sorry, Europe, but ideals of fairness and due process mean little on an international stage like this one, you actually have to speak softly and carry a big stick. And it's a shame that the US is only carrying a big stick nowadays, while Europe knows only how to speak softly.
The US's private deals with India are making it easier for Iran to ride roughshod over the NPT - if the US can't be bothered to stick to it, what business do they have demanding others do?
The US doesn't speak softly and, as the world can see over its dealings with the Norks, it only brings out its big stick against piddly little countries with tiny, out-dated armies. In the end, fairness and due process are the only ways to uphold international treaties and bodies. |
Well, as you can see above, I was critiquing the US for not speaking softly. I agree that fairness and even often due process (although the case for treating countries just as one would individuals in a Western society is very problematic) are usually preferable, and often necessary, but that doesn't mean I have to applaud the decisions of the court. The other problem is enforcability. Europe has quite a bit of credibility, but they haven't the military power to allow themselves from being cheated.
| hypnotist wrote: |
| This smells suspiciously of "America is always right" |
Maybe we shouldn't be relying too much on our sense of smell, then.
| Quote: |
| You guys might like the idea of "America rules the world" but it's not (just) envy that stops Europe signing up wholeheartedly for such a world order. |
Envy and ressentiment are a little different. I'm pretty confident Europe is not envious about a good deal of what America has. That doesn't mean they aren't full of reactive sentiments (just one example, Chirac's argument to the French to accept the EU to fend off 'Anglo-Saxon' market systems). Now, I've never made the argument that France, Germany, or Canada should sign on for Iraq. I was addressing Ya-Ta's points. Indeed, I'm trying to persuade Ya-Ta that the defense of Europe is more important right now.
Despite what your nose may tell you, I really do want Europe to be more powerful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| hypnotist wrote: |
| What I don't get about the claims over these training camps is that the impression given is of AQ as a top-down, heirarchical terrist organisation. Which we now know it isn't. |
?
From the link, bolds are mine: |
I know, I know, and yet the impression given is still that said cells are being overseen by some central organisation. It talks of "unit-level meetings" but the whole point of AQ appears to be that there simply aren't any meetings above this level! Yes, there may well be training camps of 30-40 people but the evidence is that these camps are not ongoing. As we'd seen, the London bombers 'trained' at a 'holiday camp' in Wales - and yet it was very diificult to find any link from them to a wider AQ network.
| Quote: |
| hypnotist wrote: |
The US's private deals with India are making it easier for Iran to ride roughshod over the NPT - if the US can't be bothered to stick to it, what business do they have demanding others do?
The US doesn't speak softly and, as the world can see over its dealings with the Norks, it only brings out its big stick against piddly little countries with tiny, out-dated armies. In the end, fairness and due process are the only ways to uphold international treaties and bodies. |
Well, as you can see above, I was critiquing the US for not speaking softly. I agree that fairness and even often due process (although the case for treating countries just as one would individuals in a Western society is very problematic) are usually preferable, and often necessary, but that doesn't mean I have to applaud the decisions of the court. The other problem is enforcability. Europe has quite a bit of credibility, but they haven't the military power to allow themselves from being cheated. |
Ok. I agree to a degree. The problem was, it wasn't clear what you were prepared to do rather than applaud the decisions. Many in the current US administration prefer to ignore decisions they don't like - whilst continuing to try to use the same courts to hold others to account. Now, if you're going to ignore these courts and just use that big stick - go ahead and be straight with the world. The issue is that, whilst Europe's military power is bound in historical treaties and constitutional points (and a deep love of multilateralism - I don't think many Americans realise just how deeply ingrained this became after WW2), America's military power is also bound - not as tightly but still bound - by the need to minimise US losses and score quick victories. As International Gulf War One showed, many European governments can still contribute if needed. However, I don't share your opinion that it's (at all often) a question of military power to back up multilateral action (or action that should be multilateral - like IGW1). I believe the gap between where America can act and where Europe can (as opposed to 'will') act, realistically, is very small indeed. Should the US nuke Iran I'll eat my words, however...
| Quote: |
| hypnotist wrote: |
| This smells suspiciously of "America is always right" |
Maybe we shouldn't be relying too much on our sense of smell, then. |
*grin* Given your comments elsewhere on the board, I was confused. It's just that your list of reasons Europe might or might not choose to follow the USA's lead didn't include "America is completely wrong and Europe feel it would be madness to follow" - you did note the case where Europe would be mad not to follow.
| Quote: |
Envy and ressentiment are a little different. I'm pretty confident Europe is not envious about a good deal of what America has. That doesn't mean they aren't full of reactive sentiments (just one example, Chirac's argument to the French to accept the EU to fend off 'Anglo-Saxon' market systems). Now, I've never made the argument that France, Germany, or Canada should sign on for Iraq. I was addressing Ya-Ta's points. Indeed, I'm trying to persuade Ya-Ta that the defense of Europe is more important right now.
Despite what your nose may tell you, I really do want Europe to be more powerful. |
We are mostly singing from the same song-sheet, I think. I just found your characterisation of Europe and the reasons for her decisions to follow or not to follow America somewhat... American in focus, shall we say. 
Indeed, the more pig-headed, unilateralist and downright Republican this US administration gets, the less likely Europe is to follow - and not just in order to spite the US, but more because the Governments of these democratic nations couldn't stomach to follow policies the majority of their peoples (not just the Muslims) find utterly abhorrent.
It's come to something where statements like this...
"When it comes to human rights, there is no greater leader than the United States of America, and we show that by holding people accountable when they break the law or violate human rights," Scott McClellan said.
... are considered laughable. Maybe because of things like this...
In response to [...] media reports of possible violations of international law Britain formally wrote to the US, on behalf the EU, to ask for "clarification".
"It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this,'' a European diplomat, who has been speaking to the US officials drafting Ms Rice's response, told the New York Times. "They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| America's military power is also bound - not as tightly but still bound - by the need to minimise US losses and score quick victories. As International Gulf War One showed, many European governments can still contribute if needed. However, I don't share your opinion that it's (at all often) a question of military power to back up multilateral action (or action that should be multilateral - like IGW1). I believe the gap between where America can act and where Europe can (as opposed to 'will') act, realistically, is very small indeed. |
Since I pretty much agree with what else you've said, I want to address this point as a way to keep continuity while winding our way back to the original point of the thread.
Why America should or should not stay in Iraq.
Now, I've mentioned before on this thread that the war in Iraq is slowly grinding down the American military. Hypnotist is right that the gap between where America can act and where Europe can act is not that great. Well, in terms of ultimate destructive power the United States has put a lot more money into it and is probably at least that much more destructive. However, in terms of the power to influence and change a place militarily, yes, absolutely, the gap is small.
| Sun Tzu in the Art of War part 02.008 wrote: |
| Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare. |
The longer America stays the more worse for wear it will be for future campaigns. I am not advocating that America abandon Iraq, but I am advocating that America begin to drawdown its conventional occupation of Iraq and conduct the war there on a more unconventional footing. I would argue that the penetration of the Iraqi Army by partisan militias is a portent of the future of Iraq, which is a civil war. An Iraqi civil war will be terrible, protracted, the stuff Al Qaeda dreams are made of, and will threaten oil interests from Baku to Ghawar.
I understand the case of those who want America to stay in Iraq. It is a strong one. But I disagree out of tactical considerations rather than strategic ones. It is time America used its intelligent assets and admits what it has done, it has destroyed a murderous Tito and replaced him with the Balkans. Luckily, one of these states will stand by America ever firmer even as the chaos grows greater. Especially since the Kurds were never keen for a unified Iraq anyway. So what is left is to play the Shi'a and the Sunnis off each other while stunting Iranian influence in the former and hitting at Al Qaeda agents in the latter.
This scenario is an unpleasent one, and is not preferable to peace in the region. However, I would only give the Iraqi government a small chance, another year to train the army, to survive, and then pull out rather rapidly from there. If the Iraqi Feds cannot hack it from there, we can spend the rest of history arguing over whether another year or two would have been enough, but what America cannot do is keep up with force commitments past that time.
In the meantime, start the terribly slow Pentagon machine working towards the worst-case scenario, and a scenario for which they should have been geared up already for anyway. America needs to prepare for a massive and chaotic civil war in which terror-driven NGOs look for bases to sabotage Western governments and allied states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
Recruitment across Europe continues apace and in greater secrecy than ever as a result of a switch to new recruiting techniques and appeal to fresh target-populations for building the Euro army. According to DEBKA-Net-Weekly��s counter-terrorism sources, the authors of the interim report found that al Qaeda, intent on beating surveillance and penetration by intelligence services, no longer selects combatants at its usual hunting grounds in mosques, Islamic culture centers and Muslim immigrant neighborhoods. Instead, native Europeans freshly converted to Islam are targeted.
The new campaign is styled ��the white recruitment drive�� or ��coffee shop conscription��. Operational cells and recruiting agents patronize ordinary cafes on the high streets of Europe��s major cities where they blend into the crowds. The new conscripts defy identification by European intelligence services because their Islamic lives are lived completely underground. There is therefore no way of finding their addresses telephone numbers. Unit-level meetings or training sessions, attended by 30 or 40 men, may take place under cover of social activity such as a holiday camp in a remote part of Europe. Tracking them down is getting harder as bin Laden��s new Euro army expands at the rate of tens of thousands and when ��white�� recruits may already form some 25 percent of the total.
|
Okay, I usually try to be open-minded about these things, but this just strikes me as off-the-wall. Consider:
1. The recrutiment is taking place "in greater secrecy than ever before".
2. Recruiters are hanging around coffee shops etc. scouting out recent converts to Islam.
3. These potential recruits are people who "live their Islamic lives completely underground".
Now, I have to assume that if a guy is living his Islamic life "completely underground", he's gonna have no distinctive outward markings(clothing, etc) to distinguish him from a non-Muslim. So, like, these AQ recruiters are just hanging around the coffee shops, approaching random strangers to inquire if they've recently converted to Islam? And if so, would they also be interested in joining the Number 1 criminal organization in the world?(Yeah, that's really "blending into the crowd"). And this method of recruiment accounts for 25% of an "army" that supposedly numbers in the tens of thousands?
Sorry, but I think someone has been feeding DEPKA a serious load of bs. Or DEPKA is feeding it to us, or whatever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| he's gonna have no distinctive outward markings(clothing, etc) to distinguish him from a non-Muslim. |
Perhaps they watch how guys walk into the coffee shop...with the ginger, bow-legged straddle of the recently circumcized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Indeed, I'm trying to persuade Ya-Ta that the defense of Europe is more important right now.
Despite what your nose may tell you, I really do want Europe to be more powerful.
|
I don't see that our positions on Iraq are very far apart at all. You say a year, I say 6 months. Either way, get out and get out soon.
I fully agree that Europe (and South Korea for that matter) should be working on strengthening themselves. It doesn't make sense to me for us to pay to protect people who can afford to protect themselves. Help those who help themselves, yes. If they won't, they are a liability, not an asset. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Indeed, I'm trying to persuade Ya-Ta that the defense of Europe is more important right now.
Despite what your nose may tell you, I really do want Europe to be more powerful.
|
I don't see that our positions on Iraq are very far apart at all. You say a year, I say 6 months. Either way, get out and get out soon.
I fully agree that Europe (and South Korea for that matter) should be working on strengthening themselves. It doesn't make sense to me for us to pay to protect people who can afford to protect themselves. Help those who help themselves, yes. If they won't, they are a liability, not an asset. |
Yes, odds are our positions on Iraq are probably closer than that of any two Democratic politicians selected at random.
| OTOH wrote: |
Okay, I usually try to be open-minded about these things, but this just strikes me as off-the-wall. Consider:
1. The recrutiment is taking place "in greater secrecy than ever before".
2. Recruiters are hanging around coffee shops etc. scouting out recent converts to Islam.
3. These potential recruits are people who "live their Islamic lives completely underground".
Now, I have to assume that if a guy is living his Islamic life "completely underground", he's gonna have no distinctive outward markings(clothing, etc) to distinguish him from a non-Muslim. So, like, these AQ recruiters are just hanging around the coffee shops, approaching random strangers to inquire if they've recently converted to Islam? And if so, would they also be interested in joining the Number 1 criminal organization in the world?(Yeah, that's really "blending into the crowd"). And this method of recruiment accounts for 25% of an "army" that supposedly numbers in the tens of thousands?
Sorry, but I think someone has been feeding DEPKA a serious load of bs. Or DEPKA is feeding it to us, or whatever. |
Yeah, if I understood it that way I would be a little skeptical, too. But, my understanding of the passage is that living your life "completely underground" is what happens after you are recruited. Actually, this is the kind of behavior one of the London bombers (the former school teacher) exhibited, a severe withdrawal from contacts, friends, and even family, before he detonated himself.
Anyway, even understanding the passage in this way, there is still room for some skepticism. After all, it is one link and it relies on sources it can't reveal. So, I took a look for trends corresponding to the massively organized but cellular recruitment of prospective Islamic militants in Europe on the web.
MSNBC
The Observer
I decided to limit my search and not to post excerpts. I don't think Bulsajo would be happy if this turned into one of those threads. But, while I think one might dispute the numbers, I don't think my position is unreasonable. Namely, militant Islam is very organized and growing in Europe on a rapid scale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
OTOH wrote:
Okay, I usually try to be open-minded about these things, but this just strikes me as off-the-wall. Consider:
1. The recrutiment is taking place "in greater secrecy than ever before".
2. Recruiters are hanging around coffee shops etc. scouting out recent converts to Islam.
3. These potential recruits are people who "live their Islamic lives completely underground".
Now, I have to assume that if a guy is living his Islamic life "completely underground", he's gonna have no distinctive outward markings(clothing, etc) to distinguish him from a non-Muslim. So, like, these AQ recruiters are just hanging around the coffee shops, approaching random strangers to inquire if they've recently converted to Islam? And if so, would they also be interested in joining the Number 1 criminal organization in the world?(Yeah, that's really "blending into the crowd"). And this method of recruiment accounts for 25% of an "army" that supposedly numbers in the tens of thousands?
Sorry, but I think someone has been feeding DEPKA a serious load of bs. Or DEPKA is feeding it to us, or whatever.
Yeah, if I understood it that way I would be a little skeptical, too. But, my understanding of the passage is that living your life "completely underground" is what happens after you are recruited. Actually, this is the kind of behavior one of the London bombers (the former school teacher) exhibited, a severe withdrawal from contacts, friends, and even family, before he detonated himself.
|
If that's what the passage meant(and upon re-reading it seems a plausible interpretation), then, yeah, it isn't as off-the-wall as I originally thought.
Still, I remain skeptical that any significant amount of recruiting is taking place using the "coffee shop" methods described. Approaching random individuals, even if you know what to look for, seems like a rather uneconomical, not to mention extrememly risky, way to find enlistees for violent criminal activity. I mean, you've still got to scout them out as being Muslim(if I'm not mistaken not all Muslims wear distinctive clothing), strike up a chat with them, and eventually get around to bringing up the subject of AQ membership Can you imagine drug gangs recruiting this way? Hey man, I can't help noticing the marijuana leaf on your t-shirt. Wanna gun down a few DEA agents for me?
Plus, if they're recruiting recent "white" converts, it seems to me that the sales pitch would likely be taking place in the common language of whatever country they're in. Even if they don't explicitly mention AQ, I still don't think a coffee shop would be the ideal place for those type of conversations.
The Observer and MSNBC links were interesting, insofar as AQ's ties to Europe go. They didn't seem to say much about actual numbers, either total membership or new recruits. |
|
| 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
