luke warm, on Nov 12 2006, 12:37 PM, said:
Winstonm, on Nov 11 2006, 12:20 PM, said:
Here is puportedly part of the quote from al-qaeda:
Quote
"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.
Voted for a level of reason...that doesn't sound doomsdayish to me - if fact, it sounds well.....reasonable.
thank God, eh? i've rarely heard or read anyone use the word "reasonable" to describe anyting Ali Khamenei and/or the terrorists do or say... but i guess the enemy of our enemy is our friend, eh?
Perhaps the difference lies in the listener - is it not better to listen to both side without bias?
I made no mention of enemies or friends - that is how you charecterized them.
I only quoted what was claimed to be part of the al-Qaeda message and the statement toward the American people was not hate filled - however, the statements toward Bush, Rumsfeld, and the American troops were bitter and harsh.
There have been many terrorist groups that have arisen over the past 50-60 years - the Zionists pre-Israel, the IRA, and many more - heck, the Boston Tea Party could be considered a terrorist action. In the case of the Zionists bombing the King David Hotel I don't see the same level castigation as is offered for the offensive al-Quada. Terrorism is a political action of last resort - when the political landscape changes the terrror ceases. The fact that "terrorists" can be reasonable and make reasonable statements should shock no one. Even our own press reported this Democratic victory was more a vote against Bush and the war than for the Democrats - is that an unreasonable statement? Then how can it be unreasonable for an al-quada leader to echo those sentiments when the election matched his own goals and targets. Al-Quada is a political/religious organization with goals for America to stay out of middle east affairs - if I had been born in that milieu I might feel the same way.
However, I know it is not that simple - there are legitimate concerns for America in letting the middle east decide its own affairs - and great temptation to intervene in order to make certain American interests are protected. But to a degree we have caused our own problems by globalization and a resistance to alternative fuel development. There is no doubt that without an uninterrupted supply of oil the U.S. economy would wither. But to use force to impose our will instead of negotiation is imperialism verses interntional cooperation.
There is a reaon why the rest of the world views Bush as more of a danger to world peace than N. Korea - it is the unilateral contempt for another's viewpoint and insistence on acquiescience to American will. Back anyone far enough into a corner and they will either yield or fight - is it then any surprise to anyone but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neo-cons to find that the Iraq war has strengthened rather than diminished terrorism?
The claims of the Bush White House that al-Quada attacked because they "hate our freedom" is grossly disinginuous. As with all terror, the attacks were an attempt to change the politico - and to some extent that goal succeeded with the dismantling of the Republican legislature, the approval rating for Bush of 31%, and a drastic change in the support of the Iraq war.
Governments tend to spend years castigizing terrorists and belittling their political strength and base until finally they must capitulate and admit to the power of that group and allow them a voice in government - the IRA is a classic example. Perhaps it is in our best interests instead of demonizing al-Quada to understand their political motivations and diffuse them by negotiiation and compromise. In the past, the U.S. has first supported Saddam Hussein and then vilified him, vilified Yasser Arafat and then later stood by as he spoke to the U.N. Whether a group or person is demonized seems directly related to the whims of the U.S. and the political strength of the vilified.
The cowboy claim that we do not negotiate with terroists is so hollow as our history is filled with such actions once the terrorists political might became a force too large to be ignored. Whether al-Qaeda reaches this level of strength is unknown - and I'm sure until it does we will continue to demonize and vilify their every action. But if they ever reach that strength, we will be making nice with them just as we have done throughout our history.
At some point in their lives, I would venture to say that Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin made reasonable statememts. To vilify a reasonable statement due to the source of that statement to me sounds similar to "you are with us or with the terrorists".
An insane man can state the sky is blue; the fact he is insane does not alter the fact that his statement is accurate.
Now, having said all this I also want to point out that I abhor terrorism as a viable means of political change and if captured those who plan and execute terror events should be harshly punished - but I am not so naive as to ignore the historical significance of terrorism as an effective means of political change, and because that of effectiveness our own view in twenty or thirty years of al-Qaeda may be radically altered.
So to me, to insinuate that an al-Qaeda leader cannot be reasonable or make a reasonable statement seems misguided loyalty to the characterization of al-Qaeda provided by leaders whose claims on other critical matters has proven to have been false.
Maybe they are all madmen and religious zealots; but perhaps they consider themselves reasonable men pushed to their limits and fighting back in the only way viable to them in the confines of their religious beliefs.
I don't claim to know - but I am certain in my own mind that nothing in this world is black and white, no matter how much simpler that would make things.
Help
