The Madrid Strategy
By DemosophistAs I write this there's some confusion about whether there were four, or up to seven separate attacks on the London mass transit system. Early reports were confused by the fact that some explosions took place between metro stops and generated reports of attacks at the stops on either end. But it's not clear whether the current high estimate of seven was influenced by this misjudgment. Some sources are still saying only four attacks.
Even at that, however, the coordination required for simultaneous attacks coordinated to coincide with other events (the G8 summit and the announcement by the IOC of London as the site for the 2012 Olympics) is impressive and ominous. If the perpetrators were only loosely affiliated with Al Qaeda that suggests a level of pervasive sophistication, especially in the European cells, that goes beyond what was previously considered probable. However, it is not yet clear whether this is true, or whether the attacks were perpetrated by a central Al Qaeda cell. My guess is the latter, for what it's worth, but it's just a guess (and perhaps a hope).The mother country is being tested by the "Madrid strategy," and I'm reasonably confident that the response will be greater unity and moral clarity rather than less, reflecting yet another miscalculation by the Salafists who consistently underestimate the capacity of their infidel opposition for moral clarity in the face of totalitarian method. England is not new to this game, and has already won a struggle of this sort. (Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and Anticipatory Retaliation)
I just saw on CNN.com that there was an internet posting by a group claiming responsibility on its website. Do you know anything about that?
Posted by: TGO at July 07, 2005 08:24 AM
I know Ted Kennedy already threw in the bar towel.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 07, 2005 08:40 AM
Posted by: Chelsea at July 07, 2005 08:47 AM
Not much, other than that it's a Salafist group indirectly associated with Al Qaeda. My intuition is sceptical of their claim. To be clear, if it was them, that's bad news rather than good. It will make the "criminal investigative" aspect of the war that much more difficult.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 07, 2005 08:54 AM
Scotland Yard, however, says they got no advanced warning. It is common for the IRA to give advanced notice of an attack. It is my understanding that they use a code word to confirm their identity to Scotland Yard in these advanced warnings. If this is all true, then that would leave an al Qaeda group or some anti-G8 summit nuts.
It all remains to be seen at this point.
Posted by: Oyster at July 07, 2005 09:18 AM
Seems to me that 99.9% of the terrorist attacks are by... ISLAMIC groups........
Why the F- do we bother giving these animals the Koran in jail? Why are we not pouring hot lead in their assholes and blowing them from cannons?
Posted by: Ob Snooks at July 07, 2005 09:29 AM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 07, 2005 09:38 AM
I don't care if the "muslim" is an American or not. Round the fuckers up and lets' end this.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 07, 2005 10:12 AM
Posted by: Carlos at July 07, 2005 11:28 AM
Posted by: sparky at July 07, 2005 11:57 AM
I beg your pardon, but one of the best roommates I ever had in college was a Jordanian muslim. Ironically he was also one of the funniest men I know, partly because he'd acquired a Scottish accent when he spoke English because his drill instructor at Sandhurst (where he graduated seventh in his class, by the way) was a gruff Scottish Mastersergeant. Anyway, I value his friendship over that of most people I know. Let's try to maintain at least a little perspective. After all most Christians regard restraint as not only a laudable but a necessary virtue. Of course we need reserve no such restraint when it comes to the totalitarian evil itself, whether it happens to wear a Muslim cloak (Al Qaeda) or a Christian one (Spanish Phalange).
Not to mention the fact that if we ever hope to acquire inside intel, we'll need to cultivate alliances with certain Muslim groups who members can act as agents and even internal provocateurs. Rhetoric like yours just doesn't serve that purpose.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 07, 2005 01:51 PM
Posted by: GeoBandy at July 07, 2005 01:52 PM
Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 07, 2005 02:03 PM
I had several muslim friends back in my multi-culti Lib college days. They were educated elite types, the "moderate" type of muslim everybody talks about. They were funny and charming and generous. I was very fond of them.
But when Salam Rushie got fatwad they supported it 100%. To these "moderate" muslims, he deserved death for blaspheming their prophet. In retrospect, I now understand that "moderate" muslims aren't moderate in the sense we understand the term.
Posted by: Carlos at July 07, 2005 02:11 PM
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 07, 2005 02:15 PM
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 07, 2005 02:17 PM
Muslims are evil. Once you get that into your puny head, you will be better prepared to deal with this filth.
Posted by: Filthy Allah at July 07, 2005 02:51 PM
Actually I helped my roommate arrange his marriage, and he wasn't "charming" so much as genuine... in a way that only village or small-town people can be. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't pressure so-called "moderate" muslims to start doing more to put the hurt on the Salafists and a radical Wahabbists, because those ideologies are pathological. Moreover, I'd never cop to the notion that Islam is a "religion of peace" any more than any other religion. The polarization of belief isn't ever "peaceful." But Islam isn't, of itself, evil. In fact it has some organizational traits the could inspire constructive reforms in the West.
It's not just important, but critical, to realize that Salafism or Islamism in its Qutbist form is as much ideological as "religious," and in that connection Islam really stands totally blameless. If you want to know the social pathology that's involved it has less to do with Islam than with either the Marxist or Fascist counter-enlightenment. Islamism wasn't invented in Arabia, it was invented in Germany, like most of the other social pathologies of the 20th Century.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 07, 2005 04:35 PM
Posted by: Improbvlvs Maximvs at July 07, 2005 11:56 PM
Sorry Demosophist, but the "good Muslims" aren't exactly lining up to speak out, which to me says that they quietly condone what is happening. I know some local Muslims and they're nice people on the surface, but they still wouldn't mind if all non-Muslims were killed off. Muslims are backward, tribal savages at heart, and as I said before, they are invapable of living as civilized people. Like the man said, you're either with us or against us, and Muslims are against us.
So what about the Muslims that are fighting with us? What about the Muslims who are part of the Democratic movement in Iran that's gathering steam? Seems like there are some pretty tight logic knots in your sort of thinking. How do you propose to untie yourself, if you need a little moving-around room?
By the way, the whole point of our being in Iraq is to establish a beachead for a "reformed" Islam that tolerates a secular civil society and democratic institutions. If one believes, as you apparently do, that there are no good Muslims then there's really no point to being in Iraq, and we should probably leave.
Like I said, you've bound yourself in some pretty tight knots.
But the bottom line is that you're simply wrong about Salafist Islam. It's really more an ideology than a religion. We could discuss the history, but what's the point?
By the way, I agree that more Muslims should actively oppose and speak out about Al Qaeda... but their lack of courage isn't necessarily support. It could be simple fear, which makes the people who are speaking out against Salafism and Qutbism that much more amazing. How do they figure into your cosmology?
Young Bourbon Pro:
The Spanish Phalange party was totalitarian and ruled with an iron fist, but it didn't blow up civilians, and regardless of what some say about Franco, he kept Islam at bay.
Simply put the Phalange blew up lots of civilians, before they came to power. Once they were in power, they didn't have to... because they could use State Terror. (Reference Orwell's 1984 if your unfamiliar with how this works.)
No matter what clothes the beast is wearing, it's the same beast. Or put another way, whether you're feeling the trunk or the tail, it's still part of the elephant. We're in a hundred-plus-years war with Totalitarianism. Don't outsmart yourself. Basically Nazism, Stalinism, other forms of Totalitarian Marxism, the Spanish Phalange, the Tamil Tigers, Pol Pot, Al Qaeda, etc. are all bastard children of the same whore of a mother (the German counter-enlightenment), no matter which father they happen to claim. It's important to keep this straight, not for the sake of Muslims, but for our own sake.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 08, 2005 01:02 AM
Sharia law even uses moral relevance in that it applies to Muslims and Muslims only. The rule in the Koran too is to pattern one's life after Muhammed (the sunnah) who committed all forms of reprehensible acts against his fellow man. No religion there either. It condones lying, cheating, stealing, even murder, as long as it's committed against non-Muslims. Yet, when these things are committed against another Muslim the punishment is severe, but only male Muslims.
At least the New Testament in the Christian religion insists that these things are bad under all circumstances. At least the Christian religion has evolved with man's enlightenment. Sure, there are isolated cases of Christian fundamentalism that twist the true meaning, but they are quickly condemned, and vocally, by other Christians. It's extremely rare to observe this among Muslims. Christianity certainly doesn't enforce that one wipes their ass with the left hand or exact harsh punishment if one fails to put "pbuh" after Christ's name.
The Golden Rule itself has little meaning for them for all those reasons above.
It all goes against the natural state of the human desire to be free and therefore should be condemned entirely along with Nazism, communism, etc.
Posted by: Oyster at July 08, 2005 06:59 AM
Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at July 08, 2005 07:46 AM
Posted by: Im lost at July 31, 2005 10:14 PM
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0092 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0064 seconds, 31 records returned.
Page size 23 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.