|
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: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Bin Laden's Call to Kashmir's Militants |
 |
|
| Quote: |
India: Bin Laden's Call to Kashmir's Militants
April 25, 2006 20 54 GMT
Summary
In his latest audio broadcast, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden made specific mention of India and a grand Zionist-Hindu conspiracy against Islam. Bin Laden's call to arms in India is directed at existing militant outfits with stakes in the Kashmir dispute who have become increasingly displeased with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's handling of the situation. This provocation of the decades-long dispute could put India at greater risk of becoming a target for local militants tied to the jihadist movement.
Analysis
In an audiotape aired by Al Jazeera on April 23, Osama bin Laden for the first time spoke directly of India and the Kashmir dispute to support his claim that a Zionist-Hindu war is being waged against Muslims:
"�� a U.N. resolution passed more than half a century ago gave Muslim Kashmir the liberty of choosing independence from India. [U.S. President] George Bush, the leader of the crusaders' campaign, announced a few days ago that he will order his converted agent [Pakistani President Gen. Pervez] Musharraf to shut down the Kashmir mujahideen camps, thus affirming that it is a Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims."
He went on to say, "It is the duty for the Umma with all its categories, men, women and youths, to give away themselves, their money, experiences and all types of material support, enough to establish jihad particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kashmir and Chechnya."
Since al Qaeda's rise in the 1990s, its message has not taken hold in broad parts of the Muslim world. As bin Laden's latest communiqué reveals, al Qaeda's core leadership (bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, et al), has resorted to honing in on existing Muslim insurgencies to broaden its public appeal, rather than focusing its attention on targeting U.S. core interests.
The idea of a Crusader-Zionist-Hindu conspiracy has been thrown around for years in jihadist circles, with al-Zawahiri having developed most anti-India and anti-Hindu states. Bin Laden's mention of India in his audio recording is intended to gear up existing militant outfits linked to the Kashmir dispute such as Pakistani underground movements Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed that have successfully staged attacks within Kashmir and in major Indian cities. Inspiration derived from bin Laden's message could drive these groups to heighten terrorist activity in Kashmir and India proper.
The wording of bin Laden's statement is also designed to exploit growing disgruntlement between Kashmiri militant groups and Musharraf, whom they believe has essentially sold out the Kashmiri cause by becoming Washington's puppet in operations against al Qaeda. Musharraf's softened stance in dealing with India over the Kashmir issue is what has led a number of rogue groups to target Musharraf himself. Moreover, the United Mujahideen Council -- an umbrella group of Kashmir militant groups that have Pakistani backing and are still under Pakistan's control -- led by Syed Salahuddin has publicly expressed its displeasure with Islamabad's policy because while New Delhi is negotiating with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (an alliance of Kashmiri separatist parties), Islamabad is standing on the sidelines.
Bin Laden's message is unlikely to resonate deeply in Indian states with higher Muslim concentrations. Although the country has a long and bloody history of communal violence between Hindus and Muslims, the more radical segments of India's Muslim population have kept their conflict localized and have avoided taking part in the global jihadist movement. Instead, bin Laden's words of inspiration will likely spur greater militant activity by Kashmir-based militants, which could materialize as an attack within a major urban center in India. |
As I said the antiwar movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
Al Qaeda's objective is the Caliphate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
As I said the antiwar movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
Al Qaeda's objective is the Caliphate.
|
I think anyone who hasn't been comatose for the past five years would know that bin laden's agenda involves promoting political Islam. I realize that Christopher Hitchens et al push this idea that everyone in the anti-war camp thinks that OBL is some sort of funky world-beat social democrat, but as far as I can tell this belief is more often attributed to the Left than actually espoused by it.
Can you provide an example of someone in the anti-war camp who misunderstands what OBL is all about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Can you provide an example of someone in the anti-war camp who misunderstands what OBL is about? |
Virtually all of them. They seem to think that if the USA stop supporting Israel and got out of the Middle East, Islamic terrorism would cease. Clearly, this does not take into account Bin Laden's concern with Timor, Kashmir and almost anywhere where Muslims are in conflict with non-Muslims.
In fact, I specifically remember Nowhere Man questioning whether Bin Laden's goal was the destruction of Israel, as if the benevolent Sheikh was a 2 state solution kind of guy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
As I said the antiwar movement doesn't understand why Al Qaeda fights.
Al Qaeda's objective is the Caliphate.
|
I think anyone who hasn't been comatose for the past five years would know that bin laden's agenda involves promoting political Islam. I realize that Christopher Hitchens et al push this idea that everyone in the anti-war camp thinks that OBL is some sort of funky world-beat social democrat, but as far as I can tell this belief is more often attributed to the Left than actually espoused by it.
Can you provide an example of someone in the anti-war camp who misunderstands what OBL is all about? |
Lots of em. Antiwar.com for example.
keeps telling us that Bin Laden is just out to stop US policy.
Bush wasn't accurate when he said that Bin Laden hates our freedoms.
but the antiwar movement is just as wrong when they say that Bin Laden is a waging a defensive Jihad against US foreign policy.
Al Qaeda is fighting for the Caliphate and perhaps more than that.
appeasement isn't an answer, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Scheuer contests the view put forward by George W. Bush and Tony Blair: ��We in the United States and the West make a mistake when we argue, as has [New York Times columnist] Thomas L. Friedman, that bin Laden��s attacks are ��not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. foreign policy,�� or, as Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin did in Survival in early 2002, that bin Laden has ��no discrete set of negotiatiable political demands��.�� (Through Our Enemies�� Eyes, p. 256)
Scheuer argues that Osama bin Laden has ��clear, focused, limited and widely popular foreign policy goals��, including:
��the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world��s energy resources and their sale at higher prices.��
Scheuer observes that, ��Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon.�� (Imperial Hubris, p. xviii) |
http://vitw.org/archives/947
| Quote: |
| the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India |
?? 
How about the end of US support for the dry weather in the mideast ?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
Can you provide an example of someone in the anti-war camp who misunderstands what OBL is about?
Virtually all of them. They seem to think that if the USA stop supporting Israel and got out of the Middle East, Islamic terrorism would cease. Clearly, this does not take into account with Bin Laden's concern with Timor, Kashmir and almost anywhere where Muslims are in conflict with non-Muslims.
|
Saying that US foreign policy might help create an environment where a guy like OBL can come to the forefront isn't the same thing as saying that OBL's primary concern is US foreign policy.
If I say that inflation and unemployment in the Weimar Republic helped bring Hitler to power, does this mean I think that Hitler himself was a nice guy whose only concern was easing the economic hardships of the German people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
did you see the post above you?
| Quote: |
| Imperial Hubris argues that Osama bin Laden's war against the U.S. is a classical example of defensive jihad waged against an enemy occupier rather than an apocalyptic attack on "freedom |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Hubris
This is what the antiwar people still think :
See below
http://antiwar.com/henderson/
Well ask them about the Caliphate and well they have no answer.
How many Counterpunch articles can I find that say that Bin Laden is at war with the US because of US foreign policy and that the US ought to accept his truce offer?
What has Cindy Sheehan said about Bin Laden? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| did you see the post above you? |
No, not when I typed that.
Interesting that you didn't tell us who Scheur is.
| Quote: |
The Commission��s analysis may have drawn on the writings of Michael Scheuer, who served in the CIA for 22 years, and who headed the CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre��s bin Laden task force (1996-1999). Scheuer, who retired in Nov. 2004, wrote two recent books as ��Anonymous��: Through Our Enemies�� Eyes and Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. (He was unmasked in the Boston Phoenix.)
Scheuer contests the view put forward by George W. Bush and Tony Blair: ��We in the United States and the West make a mistake when we argue, as has [New York Times columnist] Thomas L. Friedman, that bin Laden��s attacks are ��not aimed at reversing any specific U.S. foreign policy,�� or, as Steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin did in Survival in early 2002, that bin Laden has ��no discrete set of negotiatiable political demands��.�� (Through Our Enemies�� Eyes, p. 256)
|
Okay, I'm not normally one to make an appeal to authority, but this guy was the CIA's main man responsible for catching bin laden. I think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine that he's fabricating things from whole cloth here. Most likely, he's studied the guy for a long time, read his communiques, listened in on the interrogation of his followers, etc. So, even if we disagree with his interpretation of bin laden, I'm not sure we can write him off as just some left-wing nutbar.
Anyway: I don't think there is a contradiction between saying(as Scheur does) that bin laden has a discrete and negotiable set of demands, and saying that his goals involve promoting religion. And Scheur himself says that bin laden has a religious agenda...
| Quote: |
Scheuer argues that Osama bin Laden has ��clear, focused, limited and widely popular foreign policy goals��, including:
��the end of U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state; the removal of U.S. and Western forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands; the end of U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India; the end of U.S. protection for repressive, apostate regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera; and the conservation of the Muslim world��s energy resources and their sale at higher prices.��
|
Scheuer says that bin laden is opposed to US support for apostate regimes. The word "apostate" has no meaning outside of a religious context, and while I'm not an expert on these things, if bin laden wants all the apostate regimes gone, that means he probably wants them replaced by more "theologically correct" regimes, which in turn probably comes close to saying that he wants the Caliphate back.
So Scheuer doesn't quite seem to fit the bill as your supposedly typical anti-war guy who doesn't understand that bin laden has a religious agenda. Scheuer's main point seems to be that bin laden wouldn't care what was going on in the USA if the USA wasn't involved in the Muslim world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I should point out, again, that I am not necessarily endorsing Scheuer's in its totality thesis. Just arguing that he doesn't quite seem to hold the views that Joo attributes to him.
On a side note: Scheuer really needs to drop at least one vowel from the spelling of his name.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
But Bin Laden would in fact be after the US. He wants much more than the mideast . And what would it take to make Bin Laden happy?
The guy is angry about Spain and Timor and about low oil prices. and about the US not giving money to Hamas.
and he says that the west owes 600 trillion dollars to the mideast for compensation
and about the US supporting Russia China's oppression of muslims?
and the guy wants the cartoonists sent to him for trial.
Al Qaeda wants the US out so Al Qaeda can conquer the mideast.
but as I said Al Qaeda wants more than the mideast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
But Bin Laden would in fact be after the US. He wants much more than the mideast . And what would it take to make Bin Laden happy?
The guy is angry about Spain and Timor and about low oil prices. and about the US not giving money to Hamas.
and about the US supporting Russia China's oppression of muslims?
and the guy wants the cartoonists sent to him for trial.
Al Qaeda wants the US so Al Qaeda can conquer the mideast. |
So, first Osama is gonna conquer the US, THEN he's gonna conquer the middle east? Uhh, okay.
I have to go to sleep. We'll continue this tomorrow, I hope.
EDIT: I just saw your correction. |
|
| 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
