Khalid Almihdhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaf Alhazmi, Salem Alhazm, Hani Hanjour, Satam M.A. Al Suqami, Waleed M. Alshehri, Wail M. Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari, Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hamza Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi, Ahmed Alnami and Ziad Samir Jarrah. and gwayneco, that was uncalled for.
What do you mean? This is a theory that has gained some traction in the Arab world. Of course, it's loony, but that's what we're dealing in that part of the world.
well... from SANA (The Syrian Arab News Agency) From the Pakistan Observer It may be uncalled for, but it's not exactly something that originated with gwayneco.
Enough talk about OBL. Coffee in Baghdad is where it is at. O’Reilly: The truth of the matter is our correspondents at Fox News can’t go out for a cup of coffee in Baghdad.... Rice: Bill, that’s tough. It’s tough. But what — would they have wanted to have gone out for a cup of coffee when Saddam Hussein was in power? Bill: No, no-but after three years you expect a little security in the country... Condi: ...there is security... Bill: They can't get coffee...
Actually, the FBI WAS investigating a group of Israelis seen taking pictures of the WTC building before the planes hit, I know that for a fact, not a 'myth' reported by Middle Eastern media. Anyways, it doesn't matter, Al-Qaida exists as an ideological movement that hopes to inspire a global 'backlash' against the United States, they are not even that interested in Europe, except those who support the U.S. (i.e. Britain and Spain). But yes Azadre, they do exist, and except for the name change they used to be US allied groups that carried out 'jihad' against the Soviets. In fact, the US didn't mind at all dealing with Islamists during the Cold War because the Islamists were hardcore anti-communists, and that was enough to overlook their negatives. It's that whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
Again, they do not exist. The Mujahadeen is a disbanded entity. The actual soldiers either returned to their families or they went to Bosnia to fight against the active genocide. They did not stick around into the late 90s to just hang around Osama. And do not refer to the Mujahadeen as Islamists as a majority of the fighters were not hell bent on killing civilians but people who felt it was their duty to protect Afghanis. The taliban is a result of the anarchy that ensued following the Soviet withdraw, not the mujaheen presence. Finally, I find the term Islamist in your context to be overgeneralized and offensive. Islam is my religion, not Islamist. A person who follows Islam is no different than any other person. A follower of Islam is a Muslim, not an Islamist. Please as a kind act do not use it anymore. Also, I do not refer to Eric Rudolph and his kin as Christianityists so you can get the idea.
Azadre, You do know that I am...actually, never mind, it's more fun this way. Let me explain why I used the terms 'Islamists' and 'jihadists' in the context I did... Azadre, I don't know if you are an American or if you're familiar with the 'terminology' used by Americans/Western politicians or political scientists to refer to Muslim extremists. 'Islamist' is a term used by most Americans to refer to a 'Taliban-type' government of extremists ruling under 'Shari'ah law', which most Americans have no idea what it's to begin with; it's also used at times to refer to any type of 'political Islam', meaning any government that claims to be ruling according to Shari'ah law (The old Caliphates would qualify under this definition as 'Islamist', and countries such as Iran and Saudi and other theocracies). 'Jihad' or 'Jihadist' has a very negative connotation here in America, which again is due more so to the general ignorance of what the term actually means/refers to (its different meanings, its historical meaning, it's religious deminsion, etc.). All this is part of a culture that has been systmatically 'built up' in the imagination of the American public not overnight, but over the past three or four decades, especially since the 1970s (due to world events, media coverage, Hollywood movie portrayals, etc). Anyways, it's really a loooooooooong story with lots of history around it which I have studied extensively and done some research on. One good book that I suggest you read (not long at all, about 200 pages or so, but informative) is by Edward Said, called "Covering Islam", it chronicles how the media (including movie industry) covered the stories around the world that had to do with Islam or Muslims, including a critical examination of work by some 'establishment' political scientists. Anyways, the point here is really simple: I am using these key words in a manner that is appropriate in a forum frequented by non-Muslim Americans, most of whom have a certain 'reaction' or understanding of these words when used in a familiar manner, and therefore I am trying not to confuse them. In other words, I am trying to address this issue from an 'American's perspective', and therefore I am using American terms such as 'jihadists' and 'Islamists' in a manner an average American would, which I am hoping you understand why. So again, not meaning to be offensive to you or Islam, just trying not to complicate things too much. I know, it's wrong and I should be more proactive in trying to eradicate ignorance and all that good stuff, but I don't really have time to do so through posting on the BBS, although I HAVE tried in the past, although often in vain. Sorry for prolonging, just wanted to explain myself
Now back to the issue at hand... I agree with most of what you said, but while most of the Mujahideen were sincere and good people who felt it was their duty to defend their brothers and sisters against the Soviet machine, it's undeniable that some of the leaders of Al-Qaida today were prominant Mujahideen figures, ie the 'elite' class of the Mujahideen. Osama was a CIA 'middle man', nothing more and nothing less. He was a major financier of Mujahideen operations, and acted as a middle-man to funnel money/arms from the CIA, Arab/Muslim governments, and other entities that kept supplying the Mujahideen throughout the semi-long conflict. In fact, the US leaders admired Bin Laden and the Mujahideen back then so much that Reagan himself called them "freedom fighters"; and they were. BTW, I don't disagree that most of the Mujahideen went back home or just continued to live in Afghanistan or, as thousands did, went on to Bosnia/Chechnya and other areas of conflict were Muslims were being oppressed/massacred and needed to be defended. However, Al-Qaida movement was established in the 1990s and announced by Bin Laden and Zawahiri as an organization that would basically struggle to kick the 'Crusaders' out of the 'land of Islam' and topple despotic regimes, namely the Saudi royals and the Mubarak regime in Egypt. Anyways, I do agree with you here that while the Mujahideen led largely an 'honorable' cause, few among them came together later on to form Al-Qaida, which could be no further from leading an 'honorable' cause. Al-Qaida operatives and allies (such as Zarqawi and the former Ba'athists and what they are doing in Iraq today, namely targeting Iraqi civilians on purpose, not as 'collatoral damage') are terrorists who are violating their own religion, which they claim to be defending. Al-Qaida's top brass were basically people interested in nothing less than acquiring political power for themselves, and therefore their cause was never 'altruistic' in nature, but was always directed at a certain political goal, which it still is to this day. They want a base of power, a place from which they could establish a new 'Caliphate', which would rule in a way similar (in fact likely worse) to how the Taliban ruled. They are not honorable, and that's a major distinction between the Mujahideen and the current Al-Qaida-inspired movement, which holds as its motto 'by any means necessary', which is completely and undeniably anti-Islamic in both theory and practice. So you are right in a sense when you say they are different. As far as what led to the Taliban coming into power, there were a lot of forces involved, chief among them was (as you pointed out) anarchy following the Soviet withdrawal, and therefore the need for a strong, unifying force like the Taliban (same thing could be said of Iraq and why it needed Saddam to stay unified); another would be that the Taliban were essentially a 'pet project' by the Pakistani ISI, which viewed the Taliban as a sure way to control a vital strategic country like Afghanistan. So basically there were many reasons as to why the Taliban came into play in the post-Soviet era. It just goes to prove over and over again that people will ALWAYS choose 'tyranny' and security over 'freedom' and anarchy. Just wait a few years from now if Iraq continues down the same path as it is now, and don't be surprised when the Iraqis -- in retrospect -- start to refer to the Saddam era as the 'good ol' days'. Security trumps all, that's just reality.
Reading over what you said, you are correct. But, before we can continue this discussion, what is your definition of Al Qaeda?
