of the legislative representation in all State & Federal governing bodies."
This Fortune city site is under re construction http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/statue/1032/index.htm
Middle East peace process is finished
The Middle East peace process is finished, It did not die: it was killed.
Mahmoud Abbas was undermined by the President of the Palestinian
Authority and humiliated by the Prime Minister of Israel. His successor
awaits a similar fate. Israel continues to mock its American patron,
building illegal settlements in cynical disregard of the "road map."
The President of the United States of America has been reduced to
a ventriloquist's dummy, pitifully reciting the Israeli cabinet line: "It's
all Arafat's fault." Israelis themselves grimly await the next bomber.
Palestinian Arabs, corralled into shrinking Bantustans, subsist on EU
handouts. On the corpse-strewn landscape of the Fertile Crescent,
Arid Sharon, Yasser Arafat, and a handful of terrorists can all claim
victory, and they do. Have we reached the end of the road? What is
to be done?
At the dawn of the twentieth century, in the twilight of the continental
empires, Europe's subject peoples dreamed of forming "nation-states,"
territorial homelands where Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Armenians, and
others might live free, masters of their own fate. When the Hapsburg
and Roman empires collapsed after World War I, their leaders seized
the opportunity. A flurry of new states emerged; and the first thing
they did was set about privileging their national "ethnic" majority-
defined by language, or religion, or antiquity, or all three-at the expense
of inconvenient local minorities, who were consigned to second-class
status: permanently resident strangers in their own home.
But one nationalist movement, Zionism, was frustrated in its ambitions.
The dream of an appropriately sited Jewish national home in the middle
of the defunct Turkish Empire had to wait upon the retreat of imperial
Britain: a process that took three more decades and a second world
war. And thus it was only in 1948 that a Jewish nation-state was
established in formerly Ottoman Palestine. But the founders of the Jewish
state had been influenced by the same concepts and categories as their
fin-dc-siècle contemporaries back in Warsaw, or Odessa, or Bucharest;
not surprisingly, Israel's ethno-religious self-definition, and its
discrimination against internal "foreigners," has always had more in
common with, say, the practices of post-Hapsburg Romania than either
party might care to acknowledge.
The problem with Israel, in short, is not-as is sometimes suggested-that
it is a European "enclave" in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived to
late. It has inspired a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist
project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights,
open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state-a
state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from
which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded- is rooted in another
time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.
In one vital attribute, however, Israel is quite different from previous
insecure, defensive microstates born of imperial collapse: it is a
democracy. Hence its present dilemma. Thanks to its occupation of
the lands conquered in 1967, Israel today faces three unattractive
choices. It can dismantle the Jewish settlements in the territories,
return to the 1967 state borders within which Jews constitute a clear
majority, and thus remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, albeit
one with a constitutionally anomalous community of second-class
Alternatively, Israel can continue to occupy "Samaria," "Judea," and
Gaza, whose Arab population-added to that of present-day Israel-wilt
become the demographic majority within five to eight years: in which
case Israel will be either a Jewish state (with an ever-larger majority of
unenfranchised non-Jews) or it will be a democracy. But logically it
cannot be both.
Or else Israel can keep control of the Occupied Territories but get rid
of the overwhelming majority of the Arab population: either by forcible
expulsion or else by starving them of land and livelihood, leaving them
no option but to go into exile. In this way Israel could indeed remain
both Jewish and at least formally democratic: but at the cost of
becoming the first modern democracy to conduct full-scale ethnic
cleansing as a state project, something which would condemn Israel
forever to the status of an outlaw state, an international pariah.
Anyone who supposes that this third option is unthinkable above all
for a Jewish state has not been watching the steady accretion of
settlements and land seizures in the West Bank over the past quarter-
century, or listening to generals and politicians on the Israeli right,
some of them currently in government. The middle ground of Israeli
politics today is occupied by the Likud. Its major component is the
late Menachem Begins's Herut Party.
Herut is the successor to Vladimir Jabontinsky's interwar Revisionist
Zionists, whose uncompromising indifference to legal and territorial
niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the epithet "fascists."
When territorial niceties once attracted from left-leaning Zionists the
epithet "fascist." When one hears Israel's deputy prime minister,
Ehud Olmert, proudly insist that his country has not excluded the
option of assassinating the elected president of the Palestinian
Authority, it is clear that the label fits better than ever. Political murder
is what fascists do.
The situation of Israel isn't desperate, but it may be close to hopeless.
Suicide bombers will never bring down the Israeli state, and the
Palestinians have no other weapons. There are indeed Arab radicals
who will not rest until every Jew is pushed into the Mediterranean,
but they represent no strategic threat to Israel, and the Israeli military
knows it. What sensible Israelis fear much more than Hamas or the
al-Aqsa Brigade is the steady emergence of an Arab majority in
"Greater Israel," and above all the erosion of the political culture and
civic morale of their society. As the prominent Labor politician
Avrahamn Burg recently wrote, "After two thousand years of struggle
for survival, the reality of Israel is a colonial state, run by a corrupt
clique which scorns and mocks law and civic morality.
"1"Unless something changes, Israel its half a decade will be neither
Jewish nor democratic.
This is where the US enters the picture. Israel's behavior has been a
disaster for American foreign policy. With American support,
Jerusalem has consistently and blatantly flouted UN resolutions
requiring it to withdraw from land seized and occupied in war.
Israel is the only Middle Eastern state known to possess genuine
and lethal weapons of mass destruction. By turning a blind eye, the
US has effectively scuttled its own increasingly frantic efforts to
prevent such weapons from falling into the hands of other small
and potentially belligerent states. Washington's unconditional
support for Israel even in spite of (silent) misgivings is the main
reason why most of the rest of the world no longer credits our
It is now tacitly conceded by those in a position so know that
America's reasons for going to war in Iraq were not necessarily
those advertised at the time.2 For many in the current US
administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to
destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought
favorable to Israel. This story continues. We are now making
belligerent noises toward Syria be cause Israeli intelligence has
assured us that Iraqi weapons have been moved there-a claim for
which there is no corroborating evidence from any other source.
Syria backs Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad: sworn foes of Israel,
to be sure, but hardly a significant international threat. However,
Damascus has hitherto been providing the US with critical data
on al-Qaeda. Like Iran, another long standing target of Israeli wrath
whom we are actively alienating, Syria is more use to the United
States as a friend than an enemy. Which war are we fighting?
On September 16, 2003, the US vetoed a UN Security Council
resolution asking Israel to desist from its threat to deport Yasser
Arafat. Even American officials themselves recognize, off the
record, that the resolution was reasonable and prudent, and that
the increasingly wild pronouncements of Israel's present leadership,
by restoring Arafat's standing in the Arab world, are a major
impediment to peace. But the US blocked the resolution all the
same, further undermining our credibility as an honest broker in
the region. America's friends and allies around the world are no
longer surprised at such actions, but they are saddened and
disappointed all the same.
Israeli politicians have been actively contributing to their own
difficulties fur many years; why do we continue to aid and abet
them in their mistakes? The US has tentatively sought in the past
to pressure Israel by threatening to withhold from its annual aid
package some of the money that goes to subsidizing West Bank
settlers. But the last time this was attempted, during the Clinton
administration, Jerusalem gut around it by taking the money as
"security expenditure." Washington went along with the subterfuge,
and of $10 billion of American aid over four years, between 1993
and 1997, less than $775 million was kept back. The settlement
program went ahead unimpeded. Now we don't even try to stop it.
This reluctance to speak or act does no one any favors. It has also
corroded American domestic debate. Rather than think straight about
the Middle East, American politicians and pundits slander our
European allies when they dissent, speak glibly and irresponsibly
of resurgent anti-Semitism when Israel is criticized, and censoriously
rebuke any public figure at home who tries to break from the consensus.
But the crisis in the Middle East won't go away. President Bush will
probably be conspicuous by his absence from the fray for the coming
year, having said just enough about the "road map" in June to placate
But sooner or later an American statesman is going to have to tell
the truth to an Israeli prime minister and find a way to make him listen.
Israeli liberals and moderate Palestinians have for two decades been
thanklessly insisting that the only hope was for Israel to dismantle
nearly all the settlements and return to the 1967 borders, in exchange
for real Arab recognition of those frontiers and a stable, terrorist-free
Palestinian state underwritten (and constrained) by Western and
international agencies. This is still the conventional consensus, and it
was once a just and possible solution.
But I suspect that we are already too late for that. There are too many
settlements, too many Jewish settlers, and too many Palestinians, and
they all live together, albeit separated by barbed wire and pass laws.
Whatever the "road map" says, the real map is the one on the ground,
and that, as Israelis say, reflects facts. It maybe that over a quarter of
a million heavily armed and subsidized Jewish settlers would leave
Arab Palestine voluntarily; but no one I know believes it will happen.
Many of those settlers will die-and kill-rather than move. The last
Israeli politician to shoot Jews in pursuit of state policy was David
Ben-Gurion, who forcibly disarmed Begin's illegal Irgun militia in
1948 and integrated it into the new Israel Defense Forces.
Ariel Sharon is not Ben-Gurion.3
The time has come to think the unthinkable. The two-state solution-
the core of the Oslo process and the present "road map"-is probably
already doomed. With every passing year we are postponing an
inevitable, harder choice that only the far right and far left have so
far acknowledged, each for its own reasons. The true alternative facing
the Middle East in coming years will be between an ethnically cleansed
Greater Israel and a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and
Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians. That is indeed how the hard-liners
in Sharon's cabinet see the choice; and that is why they anticipate
the removal of the Arabs as the ineluctable condition for the survival
of a Jewish state.
But what if there were no place in the world today for a "Jewish state"?
What if the binational solution were not just increasingly likely, but
actually a desirable outcome? It is not such a very odd thought. Most
of the readers of this essay live in pluralist states which have long
since become multiethnic and multicultural. "Christian Europe,"
pace M. Valery Giseard d'Estaing, is a dead letter; Western civilization
today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages, of
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, and many others-as any
visitor to London or Paris or Geneva will know.
4Israel itself is a multicultural society in all but name; yet it remains
distinctive among democratic slates in its resort to ethno-religious
criteria with which to denominate and rank its citizens. It is an oddity
among modern nations not-as its more paranoid supporters assert-
because it is a Jewish state and no one wants the Jews to have a state;
but because it is a Jewish state in which one community-Jews-is set
above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place.
For many years, Israel had a special meaning for the Jewish people.
After 1948 it took in hundreds of thousands of helpless survivors who
had nowhere else to go; without Israel their condition would have
been desperate in the extreme. Israel needed Jews, and Jews needed
Israel. The circumstances of its birth have thus found Israel's identity
inextricably to the Shoah the German project to exterminate the Jews
As a result, all criticism of Israel is drawn ineluctably back to the
memory of that project, something that Israel's American apologists
are shamefully quick to exploit. To find fault with the Jewish state is
to think ill of Jews; even to imagine an alternative configuration
in the Middle East is to indulge the moral equivalent of genocide.
In the years after World War II, those many millions of Jews who did
not live in Israel were often reassured by its very existence-whether
they thought of it as an insurance policy against renascent anti-
Semitism or simply a reminder to the world that Jews could and would
fight back. Before there was a Jewish state, Jewish minorities in
Christian societies would peer anxiously over their shoulders and keep
a low profile; since 1948, they could walk tall. But in recent years, the
situation has tragically reversed.
Today, non-Israeli Jews feel themselves once again exposed to
criticism and vulnerable to attack for things they didn't do. But this
time it is a Jewish state, not a Christian one, which is holding them
hostage for its own actions, Diaspora Jews cannot influence Israeli
policies, but they are implicitly identified with them, not least by
Israel's own insistent claims upon their allegiance. The behavior of
a self-described Jewish state affects the way everyone else looks at
Jews. The increased incidence of attacks on Jews in Europe and
elsewhere is primarily attributable to misdirected efforts, often by
young Muslims, to get back at Israel. The depressing truth is that
Israel's current behavior is not just bad for America, though it surely
is. It is not even just bad for Israel itself, as many Israelis silently
acknowledge. The depressing truth is that Israel today is bad for the
In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and
intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to
communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us
have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if
we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly
an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional
one. In today's "clash of cultures" between open, pluralist democracies
and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually
risks falling into the wrong camp.
To convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would not
he easy, though not quite as impossible as it sounds: the process has
already begun de facto. But it would cause far less disruption to most
Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will clams. In
any case, no one I know of has a better idea: any one who genuinely
supposes that the controversial electronic fence now being built will
resolve matters has missed the last fifty years of history. The fence-
actually an armored zone of ditches, fences, sensors, dirt roads
(for tracking footprints), and a wall up to twenty-eight feet tall in
places-occupies, divides, and steals Arab farmland; it will destroy
villages, livelihoods, and whatever remains of Arab-Jewish community.
It costs approximately $1 million per mile and will bring nothing but
humiliation and discomfort to both sides. Like the Berlin Wall, it
confirms the moral and institutional bankruptcy of the regime it is
intended to protect.
A binational state in the Middle East would require a brave and
relentlessly engaged American leadership. The security of Jews and
Arabs alike would need to be guaranteed by international force-though
a legitimately constituted binational state would find it much easier
policing militants of all kinds inside its borders than when they are free
to infiltrate them from outside and can appeal to an angry, excluded
constituency on both sides of the border.5 A binational state in the
Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs
alike,of a new political class. The very idea is an unpromising mix
of realism and utopia, hardly an auspicious place to begin. But the
alternatives are far, far worse. -September 25, 2003
1 See Burg's essay, "La révolution sion-iste est mort," Le Monde,
September 11, 2003. A former head of the Jewish Agency, the
writer was speaker of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, between
1999 and 2003 and is currently a Labor Party member of the
Knesset. His essay first appeared in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot;
it has been widely published, notably in the Forward (August 29,
2003) and the London Guardian (September 15, 2003).
2 See the interview with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
in the July 2003 issue of Vanity Fair.
3 In 1979, following the peace agreement with Anwar Sadat, Prime
Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon did indeed instruct the
army to close down Jewish settlements in the territory belonging to
Egypt. The angry resistance of some of the settlers was overcome
with force, though no one was killed. But then the army was facing
three thousand extremists, not a quarter of a million, and the land in
question was the Sinai Desert, not "biblical Samaria and Judea."
4 Albanians in Italy, Arabs and black Africans in France, Asians in
England all continue to encounter hostility.
A minority of voters in France, or Belgium, or even Denmark and
Norway, support political parties whose hostility to "immigration"
is sometimes their only platform. But compared with thirty years ago,
Europe is a multicolored patchwork of equal citizens, and that,
without question, is the shape of its future.
5 As Burg notes, Israel's current policies are the terrorists' best
recruiting tool: "We are indifferent to the fate of Palestinian children,
hungry and humiliated; so why are we surprised when they blow us
up in our restaurants? Even if we killed 1000 terrorists a day it would
change nothing." See Burg, "La révolution sion-iste est morte."
Israel: The Alternative
By Tony Judt, New York Review of Books, 10/23/03
Israel: The Alternative by Tony Judt, New York Review of Books, 10/23/03 7 of 7
[Anatomy of the mind of the Islamic militant, and
western perceptions Xavier Raufer - November 2002]
Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have been
subjected to massive amounts of information on Islamic militants,
especially Osama ben Laden and his followers and supporters, the
salafists or wahhabi.
Is this information flood part of the solution or part of the problem ?
I will address this question later on in my discussion.
However, let me begin with my major concern - how the West
misunderstands the Islamic militant mindset.
In the last fifteen years or so, from Lebanon to Algeria, from, the
Arabian peninsula to Sudan, I've met and held discussions with
quite a lot of these Islamic fanatics. But when I compare the picture
of these fanatics as painted by Western officials and media, and some
academicians, to what I have seen and heard in my discussions with
these militants, I do not recognize the picture.
[Who the fuck are you hanging out with Unkel Ben him self other wise
There is a major disconnect between how the West perceives militant
Islam and the reality of the situation. Some of my French and Arab
colleagues who have long conversed with these Islamic militants share
I want to emphasize that this is a crucial point. If you want to determine
what their targets and tactics will be, you must identify and understand
the inner logic and mindset of these militants and comprehend the core
elements of their motivations and objectives.
Since ancient Greece, ? know your ennemy ? has been a cardinal rule
So what was the point
Since befor ancient Greece.
[Since ancient Egypt, China, Etruscan, Sparta,Carthage, Greece, Rome,
It was the Roman practiced of bring the war to the enemy attach on the
home front show no quarter swift and certain retribution they exacted
Decamation even among there own ranks to create fleer and promote
discipline also this practice has been implemented in the western training
provided by the CIA to especially Osama ben Laden who is a 5 star
General or Supreme commander placed above his rank and file by US
Tax dollars again provided by the spawn of Prescott Hitler loving butt
suck Nazi scum conniving for personal power at the expenses of American
It should be axiomatic to box in the enemy hey you watch the back door !
Oups! he slipped out like a flaccid wanker he is because You so called experts
let him so you can continue your photo Oop's!
What the Fuckover!ED]
But to truly understand ben Laden, it is not enough to just collect and
process facts about his finances, tactics, communications, and
organizational skills. One has to try and understand his vision and
worldview. In this way, we might be able to hazard a guess as to what
his reactions would be to certain events, developments, or incidents.
This vision and worldview comes from the subtle interaction of an
individual psychology with a very specific culture. They cannot be
easily programmed, or captured and wrapped up in a computer's hard
Three examples :
? Dates ? one year after 9/11, precisely the 11th of September 2002,
the western world became hysterical.
Commercial flights were empty. Each and every western police force,
army, navy or air force was on high alert. Whereas, for a salafi Muslim
of the Arabic peninsula, dates simply don't matter, are meaningless. In
the mindset, in the culture of a desert Bedouin, anniversaries, birthdays
You don't celebrate your children's, your mother's birthday. Salafists
even consider commemorating the prophet's anniversary a major sin.
Calendar obsession is a westerner's disease. Not so for a fundamentalist
desert Arab. After 9/11, in ben Laden's propaganda, that day became
Yom al-moubarak (the Holy Day) and that's it. Which precise calendar
day it was, is absolutely devoid of interest. Anyone here, having had an
appointment with a desert Arab (moreover with a Cheikh) will
understand what I mean.
What is important is that all the islamic militants I've met are absolute
literalists, obsessed by the Coran's literal meaning, by the Prophet`s
They do something only if it's in the Coran, they act and dress as the
The prophet used to squat before drinking water ?
So they do.
The prophet advised a true believer to enter a mosque right foot first ?
So they do.
And so on.
90% of their exchanges (verbal, internet, telephones : as the major
french anti-terrorist judges teach in my research center, I know this
as a fact) are about what is licit or illicit, what would the prophet do,
If it's not in the Coran, if the prophet didn't do it, its worse than haram
(unlawful) , it's bida (innovation) the biggest sin for a salafi, deserving
swift death penalty.
9/11 has been accepted by ben Laden's shura council because it's in
the Coran : what happened that day is a GHAZWAH, a raid. As an emir
(military leader), the prophet conducted many raids, for territory
conquest, loot or revenge. He even said in the Coran A raid on the
path of God is better than this world and what's in it ?.
So OK, Ghazwah is Halal (lawful).
? Biological or nuclear terrorism ? This is even more important. Among
the serious, proven facts we have on 9/11 (not so many, actually) there
is this five-pages document found by the FBI in Mohammad Atta's
luggage, in a car left outside Dulles international airport ; also found in
several other shahids (martyrs) bags, and finally, in the wreckage of the
plane that crashed in Pennsylvania
Most probably, this hand-written document was in the possession of all
the hijackers. It was certainly written by the (unknown) organizer of the
attacks. This text is a spiritual guide for the 19 terrorists' last day of life.
It's not a technical or practical document, but a religious, even mystical
one - it could have been written in the Prophet's times. This document
helps the future martyr achieve body and spirit unity, in the last day of his
mission. It contains a list of rituals to be performed, starting with ?
The last night ?.
[Bullshit they were getting BJ's and hanging out with hookers not praying
don't you watch TV? ED]
The last paragraph is terrible : ?
When the moment of truth comes near, and zero hour is upon you, open
your chest, welcoming death in the path of God. Always remember to
conclude with the prayer, if possible, starting it seconds before the target,
or let your last words be : ? there is none worthy of worship but God,
Muhammad is the messenger of God ?. After that, God willing, the
meeting is in the highest paradise, in the company of God ?.
Among many problems mentioned in this text : why kill, and how to kill,
the pilots or resisting passengers
Here, a word is pointedly chosen DHABAHA (slit, rip something open)
and not QATALA (any way of killing).
Dhabaha means slit the jugular vein of an animal or human being.
It's what Abraham was about to do to his son : sacrifice him on God's
order. It is a ritual slaughter. It is a physically close act, commited with a
blade : the blood must actually flow. It's impossible to perform Dhabaha
from afar, with any other type of weapon.
Now, let's go back to year 2002 : we've seen Ghazwah is Halal.
With explosives, at a close distance and with a lot of blood flowing,
shahadat (martyrdom) is acceptable to the Hamas shura council.
Spreading poison in a public place should also be Halal: poison is
known in the islamic tradition. 10 out of 12 shi'a imams died from
Saladin ordered the crusader's wells, in their fortresses,
to be poisoned.
[And under the auspices of President Andrew Jackson a Slave holder
and rabid "exterminationist" who believed his god wanted him to kill
all of the native population General Armstrong Custer murdered Native
Americans with Small Pox infected blankets an act of Genocide against
unsuspecting civilians women and children hole villages wiped out so
looks like as far as Salidin in Africa goes he was attempting to harm
militant combatants, invaders. At what point would you feel that an
invasion of the USA should not be resisted with all means possible? ED]
But biological or nuclear weapons You spread a substance, and
people die maybe months later from a disease, or radiations
Experimenting it, at the militant level, why not ? But ben Laden's
shura council, some very old and reactionary bigots, having spent
their live commenting the only book they know by heart (the Coran),
would they accept an attack with such weapons I doubt it.
[AMERICA & GERMANY founded on poisoning civilians!
Custer murdered Native Americans with Small Pox infected blankets
an act of Genocide against unsuspecting civilians women and children
hole villages wiped out...
There homes destroyed like the Nazis and Israelis did stealing lands.
Then whining fowl when the population fought back .ED]
Al-Qaeda Since the August 1998 attacks on the two US embassies
in Nairobi and Dar es-Salaam, and even more so since 9/11, a vast
coalition of US officials and media have pointedly and consistently
insisted on the fact that there exists an organization, or at least a
network, named al-Qaida, with a chief named Oussama ben Laden.
Of course, there is an entity of some sort, or an islamic nebula,
working with ben Laden, and responsible for, among other, the 9/11
attacks. But is there really an al-Qaida organization or even network.
Using a word creates a representation in the human mind. When you
present as a fact that there actually exists an al-Qaida organization -
an islamic equivalent of the IRA, or of the Red brigades - you create
a common perception of a mechanical structure, as is a motor car,
or a clock.
You press on a button, and you honk the horn. You touch another
button, and the windscreen wiper works. This mechanical model is
the West's terrorism model : pyramidal, hierarchical. The strategic
leadership ? issues an order, then an attack occurs. Finally, the act
is claimed on the organization's letterhead.
But al-Qaida Is al-Qaida an islamic Komintern Has anyone seen
an al-Qaida letterhead or any authentic document using the word
al-Qaida as a brand, like IRA or RAF .
Has Oussama ben Laden ever publicly used, on an authentic
document, the word al Qaida (again, as a brand) himself No.:
ben Laden always speaks for himself : he encourages Muslims
to revolt, he's happy
to see infidels punished, etc. Because even if he's not a first class
mufti himself, he knows very well what any decent Muslim knows :
jihad is an individual act, nothing else. You may act as a model ;
you may preach jihad fi sabil'Allah, you can't force any one to join
it. You don't give orders.
I've talked with several gentlemen form various special forces unit
who rushed into Kabul Kandahar or Tora Bora, after the Taliban's
collapse, to grab as many documents as they could.
Will any of these documents be declassified some day, to prove as
a fact that al-Qaida exists under the name al-Qaida, as,for example,
the Hamas exists, with its own letterhead, logo, internal regulations
and even a constitution ?
Asking these questions is not academic finessing. Because what
American justice calls al-Qaida may well differ greatly from the
West's concept of an organization. Thus, I was very happy to read,
in an Asia-pacific Foundation analysis, an October text on Jemaa
Islamiya - Indonesia, quote : ?
it is important to understand that what is referred to as the
al-Qaida network is in reality a conglomerate of a number of terror groups
and their cells,of varying autonomy but who share a common ideology and
who cooperate with each other .
Another analyst says :
Ben laden has operated as a venture capitalist : soliciting ideas from
below,encouraging creative approaches and
out of the box
thinking, and providing funding to those proposals he thinks promising .
This looks more like it, when you even remotely know how things
work in the fundamentalist-Muslim world : local groups of islamic
radicals find a terrorist attack idea of their own, and then attempt to find :
. First, religious sanction,
. And then, funding for it.
Funding from whom ?
From some jihadi philanthropy ,or terrorist philanthropy
Active in Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Chechnya, Philippines, Bosnia,
Kashmir, Algeria, etc. A philanthropy in which Oussama Ben Laden
plays, of course, a major role.
This is no mechanical model. This is a biological model.
These islamic cells appear like mushrooms after rain.
They grow on the same ground. Their roots are mingled
underground. All mushrooms look more or less the same
But there is a huge difference with a mechanical model. If a
car is damaged, it needs external help to get repaired.
A watch or a car are dead. A mechanism is not alive.
Of course, a biological entity is alive.
When your skin is scratched, it usually cicatrizes alone.
Lizards even grow a second tail, if the first one is broken.
[So now there lizards oh brouther are you in koo ko land
with David Ickey the General makes more points than you...ED]
Trying to destroy a biological entity - and of course, al-Qaida
should be destroyed - while simultaneously thinking it, and
describing it, as a mechanical one, looks to me as a rather big
Now, finally, the Southasian islamic-terrorist problem. Again,
collecting information on a problem, and thoroughly thinking
this problem are two different things.
Basically, the western intelligence services have been collecting
information since 9/11. But doing so without accessing the reality,
the essence of the enemy ; without reaching a solid ground and
eliminating any initial false or dubious conceptions, leads one to
risk drowning in a rising tide of misunderstood facts.
It is a common perception now that the main danger comes from
rogue states. Following the 9/11 events,the United States reacted
to terrorism by a strong military operation against Afghanistan, as
a rogue state.
The plan - a state to state issue -
was to find and punish culprit states behind 9/11.
First of all, with a military reply to the Taliban regime .
But if you look at the maps I'm now showing, you clearly see the
problem arising from spaces where no nation-state exerts a firm
control ; from anarchic areas where the islamic terrorists actually
prosper, and from where they launch their attacks.
The real danger is not in terrorist states, as in the cold war, but in
terribly weak, if not phantom or virtual, states.
1 On this point, read Manual for a raid , Kanan Makiya & Hassan
Mneimneh, in Striking terror ,New York Review of Books, 2002.
2 Most of the jihadi are between 25-50, wahhabi, middle-class, well
educated, trained in Afghanistan or Pakistan, etc.
What about his Grandpa Prescott wake the bleep up!
Read up & quit apologizing & start criticizing &
agitating these mooks!
Zionism in the age of the Dictator
+++++++++++++ZIAD Google SEARCH+++++++++++++++++
GERMAN ZIONISM OFFERS TO COLLABORATE WITH NAZISM
AAARGH. Next Previous Index Lenni BRENNER ZIONISM IN THE
AGE OF DICTATORCHAPTER 5. GERMAN ZIONISM OFFERS
TO COLLABORATE WITH NAZISM...
hunting bin Laden
By David Rennie
The general leading the hunt for Osama bin Laden and
Saddam Hussein has publicly declared that the Christian
God is "bigger" than Allah, who is a false "idol", and
believes the war on terrorism is a fight with Satan, it
Investigative reporters from the Los Angeles Times and
NBC television have dug up two years' worth of seemingly
incendiary comments from Lt Gen William "Jerry" Boykin,
the newly promoted deputy undersecretary of state of
defence for intelligence.
Gen Boykin has repeatedly told Christian groups and
prayer meetings that President George W Bush was
chosen by God to lead the global fight against Satan.
He told one gathering: "Why is this man in the White
House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him.
He's in the White House because God put him there for a
time such as this."
In January, he told Baptists in Florida about a victory over
a Muslim warlord in Somalia, who had boasted that Allah
would protect him from American capture. "I knew my
God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real
god and his was an idol," Gen Boykin said.
He also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of
the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark
mark. He has said this showed "the principalities of
darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God
revealed to me as the enemy".
On the Middle East, Gen Boykin told an Oregon church in
June that America could not ignore its Judaeo-Christian
roots. "Our religion came from Judaism and therefore
[Islamic] radicals will hate us forever."
In the same month, Gen Boykin told an Oklahoma
congregation that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein
were not the enemy.
"Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation
of believers. . . His name is Satan."
The disclosures will doubtless be seized on by Muslim
critics as proof that the US-led war on terrorism is a
crusade against Islam. It is a charge that Mr Bush has
worked hard to refute.
Though careful to respect minority religions within its
ranks, the US military is strikingly devout from top to
bottom. Mr Bush and several key figures in his
administration are staunch Christian conservatives.
Few outside the Pentagon noticed when Gen Boykin, a
13-year member of Delta Force, the top-secret
commando unit modeled on the SAS, was promoted this
summer, with responsibility for speeding the flow of
top-secret intelligence to commandos hunting bin Laden
and other high-value targets.
At a routine press conference yesterday, Donald
Rumsfeld, the normally confident defense secretary,
appeared wrong-footed by the controversy. He hailed the
general's "outstanding record" and said his comments
were made "in his private capacity".
However, Mr Rumsfeld was careful to cite Mr Bush's
injunctions against viewing Islam as the enemy.
curtailing his speeches to religious groups.
"I don't want to come across as a Right-wing radical," he said.
23 September 2003: Reagan and Thatcher: 'linked by the Lord'
4 May 2003: Campbell interrupted Blair as he spoke of his faith:
'We don't do God'
22 February 2003: Williams worried by leaders' religious rhetoric
[16 Oct '03] - The New
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2003.