<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/E_ZG_ODyXaM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> This is a video of Al Qaeda that they posted just the other day. Here's a translation courtesy of @saudiwoman on twitter: Notice, the letter is addressed to America, and, there's no "let's destroy America" anywhere on the list. Regardless of what their religion is, they essentially want to invade Saudi Arabia, enforce Shariah, put into place a law which allows them to deport all "polytheists". They want what independent courts in KSA, but by the mere mention of "which can also try princes" is an early indication that they, in fact, want to control the courts. Oh, let's not forget the request to be able to "change immorality" whatever the heck that means, in the kingdom. To free political prisoners in KSA who are "only in prison for supporting Islam". Who the heck cares, they want to control the courts anyhow, this is just a by-product of that. But what's important is that, again, it's in Saudi Arabia. Sheikhs be granted full freedom of speech. No one else. Just sheikhs. Btw in this context, Sheikh = cleric (a sheikh of Islam), rather than the political use of the word such as Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai (who is not a cleric, rather he is a sheikh of tribes). Once again, in KSA. Allow people to go and help Palestinians and Iraqis and not be an obstacle. Awwwwwwww, how nice? That's of course if we weren't certain they are going to facilitate suicide bombing, source soldiers and in fact encourage people to go cause havoc. But once again, this is a proposal for KSA. Not for the US. For KSA. IF they capture the kingdom, they will do this stuff. My point: Al Qaeda doesn't give a damn about the US. Some of you really need to wake up and smell the coffee. Al Qaeda is purely interested in the mythical fantasy of re-capturing the HOLY KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA and reinstating the Khilafa (i.e. the same system which was used to determine the leader of pos-Muhammad era). They believe that the royal family has invaded the holy kingdom, and that they shouldn't be the "guardians" of the Kaaba. Only people who watch the Al Qaeda chanel and read the Al Qaeda magazine agree with all these things. Now here's the America part: Since America has tons of bases surrounding Saudi Arabia, and America supports the Kingdom of the Al Sauds, which keeps religious people on a tight leash while also keeping people on a tight leash via what it calls Islam. They see the royal family as Americans, and they see Saudi Arabia as fundamentally invaded by the US. America helped to create, grow and sustain Israel and has only allowed Israel to keep nuclear weapons in the Middle East, and has not even pushed them to declare the weapons. There are many, even on this board, who agree with everything in this paragraph. Summary of their view: the war is between Saudi Arabians. America is just getting in the way for no reason other than protection of what you guys call "interests" (interests which cost lots of human blood btw) and because a self-determined Saudi Arabia would be far more conservative in the drilling, selling and re-investment of profits from oil given that it's their only resource. There are many, even on this board, who agree with everything in this paragraph. Personally I think they're on a mythical quest. I prefer Saudi now over their Saudi. I think the US should simply leave this country alone unless they are asked by a true representative of the people to intervene, then they should consider if it's in their interests.
Do you actually think they would stop if their "demands" were met? These morons make up new demands all the time, on a global scale. Why do you re-publish their "demands"? Should we go ahead and publish the demands of neo-nazis as well?
No they've never changed their goals, you are just predicting things without any basis for those predictions. As you can see from the references in the 7th point, these demands have been around for a long long long time now. I'd be interested in seeing why you think they would suddenly change directions. Again, I think their goal is somewhat of a fantasy, but that is their goal.
So, there are two sides fighting in a war, and we like one side a lot more, even if they suck. Consequently, we should stay out of it. Especially given that neither side is democratic, I don't know why we have to wait for a "true representative of the people." The monarchy likes us there. They technically represent the people. That's good enough for me.
I doubt that peace will ever exist with people around who follow Abrahamic religious doctrine to its most violent of ends. They're hell-bent on taking the world backwards, their beliefs and values are retrograde and toxic, and I'm in no hurry to appease these people or empower them.
I cant believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you here. US foreign policy should be determined on the basis of its own strategic interests. For example, whether or not the US supports Israel should have nothing to do with al-Qaeda's demands. I personally think its come time for us to adopt a more balanced policy with Israel, but it has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda's complaints. Same thing with posting troops in and around Saudi- what are they accomplishing, and can those goals be accomplished by other means? There are many logical ways to argue that defense spending needs to be reduced, or that the number of military bases globally can be scaled down, but I hardly find al-Qaeda's promise of peace a serious one. Al-Qaeda's org structure is a series of disconnected cells. People are frequently encouraged to conduct vigilante operations on their own, and even then its pretty clear that they're struggling tremendously to stay afloat. Their narrative is a failing one, especially now. The extent to which Al-Qaeda concerns itself with America is debatable. Depending on the video, you'll find explicit condemnations of America and calls to violence against Americans. More often than not, they justify those calls by condemning US foreign policy, so I agree with Mathloom that, for the most part, their motivations are driven by foreign policy. I just doubt that acquiescing to their demands actually results in the supposed 'peace' that they claim to be offering and question whether or not our foreign policy decisions should be built on those promises.
I can agree that the US really shouldn't be propping up the House of Saud but even if the US withdrew all direct and indirect support to KSA I doubt this will mean peace between the US and Al Qaeda. For one Al Qaeda is more of a brand name now than a singular organization with many groups that don't have the exact same interests operating under the Al Qaeda name. Even if Al Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula says they are fine with the US I don't think that means other Al Qaeda groups would just go along with it. For that matter why would the premier franchise of Al Qaeda just give up the fight against the US and potentially lose the support of other Al Qaeda groups who want to keep on the fighting the US for reasons unrelated to the house of Saud. Also within the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is there the organizational discipline to enforce a peace treaty? For example even though the IRA made peace with the UK there are still IRA groups that didn't turn in their arms and want to fight. That is one of the problems with a loosely organized guerillla movements is that while they are very difficult to defeat because they lack a strong organization structure it is also very difficult for them to make changes organizationally.
Tough luck, that's 2-3 billion people, including many of those you have entrusted with not appeasing or empowering them.
Of course there won't be peace between US and Al Qaeda, because there is no war between Al Qaeda and the US. Al Qaeda is at war with Saudi Arabia, and the US is attacking Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda, at this point, is attempting to attack Saudi Arabia and defend itself from the US, which presumably is looking to cement the Kingdom of Saud and also Israel. Obviously, since Al Qaeda see the royal family as corrupt, and the US as corrupter, they would relish the chance of attacking US interests in hopes of making the US reconsider its support of the royal family. What would happen subsequent to these demands most likely is another mythical quest to free all "Muslim lands" from polytheists, and since 90% of foreign bases are US/UK, that probably equates to the US leaving the Middle East to them. Obviously, being Al Qaeda, they don't intend to give the Middle East back to the people, they intend to say that victory in evacuating the Middle East from polytheists is proof that God is on their side and Shariah should rule the "Muslim lands". I just wonder if that includes half of spain or not. It certainly includes Iran and Iraq, Shiites are quite hated in the Salafi belief system. Remember, not all Muslims believe in the same Shariah, so they would effectively be imposing THEIR shariah on people. I think a lot of times when outsiders hear Middle Easterners sympathize with Al Qaeda, it's usually isolated to the fact that everyone wants the US/UK/Russia to leave the Middle East and take with it whatever it brought here. With the rapid increase in information sharing, Middle Easterners are completely aware of the distorted news that American news/media outlets broadcast, which systematically breeds paranoia that if the US left the Middle East, Iran would go nuclear in 10 days, attack Israel, Muslims and/or Arabs would suddenly become united and wipe Jews off the planet, invade Jerusalem, Jesus won't return, Al Qaeda will take control and start flying planes into buildings left and right, cartoonists will be hung at every corner, Muslims/Arabs will dance and give away sweets to celebrate mass execution of Jews/cartoonists/exMuslims/Quran burners, bla bla bla bla bla. Frankly it used to be tiring. But now it's insulting because it's just plainly obvious that the news/media outlets are willing to send the message out to people that those things are likely/possible even if the people in the Middle East had sovereignty and the right to self-determination without external non-independent influences. That is a dangerous line for the media to cross IMO and it will come back to bite us all. However, the huge majority of people all over the world, including the Middle East, don't want Al Qaeda's Shariah to rule neither the people of the Middle East nor the drive towards self-determination in the Middle East. That's the bottom line. The problem is that there are three different interests in this argument. Those of the American people, those of the American/MiddleEastern governments, and those of the Middle Eastern people. Middle Eastern people and American people want almost exactly the same things, they are just in different circumstances, and their respective governments give them distorted images of what they had, have and can have. The Middle Eastern people have 0% interest in invading America if they believe that the American people have no interest in invading them or taking away their freedoms, and the American people have 0% interest in invading the Middle East if they believe that the Middle Eastern people have no interest in invading them or taking away their freedoms. How is it that we have people who want the same thing but their representatives can't agree, and in fact see the world in a very different way - is the solution really that the American people have to continue to support the drainage of the Middle East from natural resources via blocking Middle Easterners out of self-determination and keeping friends in place? The time is coming, in the next 100 or so years, where either the US lifestyle has to adjust or the Middle Eastern people are going to have to be denied of the remaining rights that have been held hostage, there won't be enough money or privacy for both of those to continue happening. I've learned from economists never to bet on anyone voluntarily reducing their standard of living, and that's my fear really: That an imaginary conflict between American people and Middle Eastern people will precipitate a continuous deterioration in the relationship between them and give birth to that imaginary conflict hence making it real. I guess some would say that has happened already. Anyway, at this point I'm just pondering to myself more than responding to you. Sorry for the long rant.
Look at demand #7. They are not even offering peace. They just want, in addition to their 6 other demands, for the US to switch sides in Iraq and Israel. So instead of fighting disorganized terrorist cells we could be fighting disorganized terrorist cells and a modern army with nuclear weapons.
The US economy is dependent on world-wide oil producers using US dollars for selling oil. Anyone not sticking to this rule is a threat. Venezuela thought of Euros and there was a 'coup attempt': Iran started some Euro oil sales and there is much attention in the media labeling them as dangerously seeking "nuclear weapon". Underneath all is the reality that US over-extension of world influence (military bases) is dependent on a US dollar value dependent on oil sales in US dollars! http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul303.html
