Al-Qaida's stance on women sparks extremist debate

Sunday 01st June, 06:35 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 54 Total Comments Show All

Jahdog at 03:32 PM JST - 2nd June

Look at things in context: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/05/01/int05001.html Michael Scheuer: ...the most basic thing for Americans to realize is that this war has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe, and everything to do with what we do in the Islamic world. Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush before Mr. Clinton--they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press.

Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya.
super delegate at 03:50 PM JST - 2nd June

"I sure don't exonerate militant Muslims."

The Blame America first crowd charges that every every US administration from '73 on is to blame for fundamentalism. But this fundamentalism you speak of is found throughout the Mohammedan world, so you implicitly agree that there is a transnational nature to the threat.

It therefore follows that their supposed anger and resentment about things like "Palestine" (which I assume is what your reference to '73 means) is more of a convenient cover for the organized and relentless violence that their religion's founder called for. Not all Mohammedans heed the call, but it is clear that the numbers have grown. It has less to do with US policy (OBL issued his fatwa against America after Oslo and before GWB came to power) and more to do with Islam's war against modernity.

Michael Scheuer, eh? Isn't he the guy who wants our borders manned by Army soldiers in uniform?
Jahdog at 06:20 PM JST - 2nd June

Yes, Scheuer wants the army on the borders and the ports secured, because they are, seven years after 9/11, very porous, making importation of a nuke much more likely.

In fact, Scheuer advocates drastic action in enough areas that few people would agree 100%, and condemns Bushes and Clintons for their failures to take out OBL, but especially condemns W for blundering into Iraq.

February 2001: Al-Qaeda Is Expecting US to Invade Afghanistan, Wants War in Iraq and Somalia as Well
Ahmed Zaidan, a journalist for Al Jazeera, is invited to a wedding also attended by al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atef in Afghanistan, and while there he talks to Atef about al-Qaeda’s military strategy. He will later recall that Atef told him, “He was explaining to me what’s going to happen in the coming five years.… There are two or three places in the world which [are] the most suitable places to fight Americans: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. We are expecting the United States to invade Afghanistan. And we are preparing for that. We want them to come to Afghanistan.” Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit, will later comment, “Did they want us involved in the war on the ground in Islamic countries? Absolutely. Part of the goal was to make sure that Muslims perceived America as the infidel invader of Muslim lands.” http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=michael_scheuer

"Terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to American power, an idea associated with Johnson's (2000) 'blowback' thesis...the powerful global position of the United States, particularly in its role of propping up repressive undemocratic regimes... [creates an environment conducive to] Arab-Islamic terrorism as a result. The causal mechanism here is that the projection of military power plants seeds of later terrorist reactions, as 'retaliation for previous American imperial actions'." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamicterrorism#Motivation.2Cideologyandtheology
Zaphod at 06:30 PM JST - 2nd June

Jahdog:

" ...they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way of life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press. "

More ignorance about islamic doctrine. Of course nobody wants to die because of somebody else`s primary elections of freedom of the press. Jihadist martyrs die because that is the garanteed way to paradise, and remember islamic paradise is very graphic indeed.

Also, this has nothing to do with "the West". Muslim jihadists are active in Nigeria, Thailand, China, the Philippines, India, and countless other places that have nothing to do with any "primaries" or "freedom of the press". Remember that Christians and Jews are actually the priviliged type of kuffars. Buddhists and Hindus are considered polytheists, ranking even lower.

Like Al-Quaidas womenfolks, some commentators here would do well to take a basic course in islamic teaching.
skipthesong at 07:27 PM JST - 2nd June

I can not even believe there is even a discussion about this. What did these women expect? That OBL was going to change Islamic doctrines? This is a guy who feels the world would be better off going back in time, not going forward. Change is not welcomed. Un-changing is.

"Remember that Christians and Jews are actually the priviliged type of kuffars. Buddhists and Hindus are considered polytheists, ranking even lower." I never heard that. Are you sure that is true? I better tell my Sokka Gakai friends that there is no point in me going to meetings any longer - it ain't gonna help.
Madverts at 07:46 PM JST - 2nd June

"I can not even believe there is even a discussion about this"

Neither can I. Extremists don't discuss things. It's my way or the highway.
Zaphod at 09:45 PM JST - 2nd June

Skipthesong:

" "Remember that Christians and Jews are actually the priviliged type of kuffars. Buddhists and Hindus are considered polytheists, ranking even lower." I never heard that. Are you sure that is true? "

Yes, I am sure. And if you have never heard that, it is time to start reading the Koran and the Haddith to get some information. (Same advice as to those Al-Quaida chicks.)

Christians and Jews are "people of the book" and are thus allowed to live in an islamic Caliphate as long as they pay the head tax (jihza). Polytheists and atheists don´t have that option. Basic islamic doctrine, nothing new here.
taiko666 at 12:37 PM JST - 3rd June

I like to think of myself as a liberal, but not to the extent that I'm oblivious to the facts. And the facts are that sections of the Koran, and the Sharia law that it's based on, do amount to the oppression of women. And in countries where Sharia law is supreme, the penalty for adultery or homosexuality is often death. It seems that liberals who fail to address these realities care more about their own PC credentials than the suffering of those who are oppressed.
Farmboy at 06:54 PM JST - 3rd June

I think it's nice that Al Qaeda is becoming more of an equal opportunity group. After all, strapping on a bomb doesn't require male anatomical features. Anyone young or old, male or female, can do it. This is just so refreshing. Now we just have to wait until they all realize that blowing yourself and other folks up isn't the only religious activity available. There are other outlets for those of a religious bent...prayer, loving others, helping the poor, going door to door selling things and so forth...
Zaphod at 10:53 PM JST - 3rd June

Farmboy:

" Now we just have to wait until they all realize that blowing yourself and other folks up isn't the only religious activity available. "

Why should they? For you, it is not a religious activitiy, for them it is. Don´t be so arrogant to project your religious ideas at them.
Farmboy at 12:37 AM JST - 4th June

Well, first, notice the use of the word, "only," and the general tone of the comment, and then, what in the world are you saying? That it's okay for suicide bombers to kill people because it's a kind of religious expression, and that I shouldn't criticize it because it would be "arrogant"? Sorry, but people are dying... and it's true that I don't view that as a positive thing...a view shared by many Muslims, I'm told...does that annoy you?
Zaphod at 03:51 PM JST - 4th June

Farmboy:

" That it's okay for suicide bombers to kill people because it's a kind of religious expression, "

It is from the islamic point of view. Dying as a "martyr" in the battle against infidels is the ultimate religious act.

" and that I shouldn't criticize it because it would be "arrogant"? "

You can criticize it. What is arrogant is judging islam according to the religious view of your religion.
NuckinFutz at 09:31 PM JST - 4th June

I'm all for setting up suicide bomber training camps for these women ... with live fire practice sessions!
zanza123 at 01:37 PM JST - 6th June

How is blowing up a bus full of civillians the same as off'ing INFIDELS??? The leaders of the terrorist groups are such high and mighty hypocrits. They say that their family dies because of US bombing and the US actions, but as long as they need to, they have a bus bombing whenever they want to.
Zaphod at 03:01 PM JST - 6th June

Zanza123:

" How is blowing up a bus full of civillians the same as off'ing INFIDELS??? "

If the bus carries infidels (i.e. us), of course. And for Sunni and Shia fundamentalists, the members of the respective other sects are heretics, which amounts to the same.