Policy Review: Lee Harris on Al-Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

This article is a few months old, now, and I've posted it to spacebattles twice, but I do not believe it's shown up here. Essentially it proposes that the purpose of the 9/11 attacks were not to cause terror, or make a political statement, but to launch an attack; as part of a political-religious pageant directed towards the Islamic world by Al-Qaeda. Very thought-provoking, in the least, and the implications are disturbing.

[weemadando]

Ugh... That is horribly un-academic. Its more of an editorial than anything else.

And he ignores every other Al-Qaeda action other than September 11. Thus I fail this paper academically. As an interesting piece of trivia for a columnist in a paper to print, it gets the space required.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ugh... That is horribly un-academic. Its more of an editorial than anything else.

And he ignores every other Al-Qaeda action other than September 11. Thus I fail this paper academically. As an interesting piece of trivia for a columnist in a paper to print, it gets the space required.

It wasn't written for an academic audience, firstly. Secondly, how do those actions differ from his theory? Two simultaneous embassy bombings, no follow through - That's quite the drama move.

So was the Cole attack - Absolutely committed Muslim Jihadis in a simply wooden Dhow, overcoming an entire American missile destroyer...

And, again, no follow-through.

The argument can certainly be made.

[weemadando]

Coming from UTAS (widely regarded as one of the leaders in Terrorism studies in the world) and having studied Terrorism for the past two years, I can safely say that those actions didn't NEED to have a follow up. Look atht the attacks, each of them led to massive changes in the structure and workings of their related areas. The embassy bombings gave the world a message: we are organised and powerful. The result? More security at US embassies and more alienation in sub-saharan Africa. The USS Cole attack was designed to show that even the US military, "the strongest in the world" isn't safe. Result: Changed procedures and security.

September 11. Message: We can hit you wherever we want and as hard as we want. Result: Do you feel safe on an airliner? And even if you do - does everyone else? It was such a massive attack on such high profile targets. WTC - Skyline making buildings, highly recognisable, BIG. They fall and you change the complexion of the city and the nation. Pentagon - by hitting that they show that NOTHING is safe. More of a symbolic than a media target. 4th plane? Assume it was going for the Capitol or the White House - another big visible media target.

Why were the planes impacts staggered? To allow the media time to get there and set up. You don't think that they just hit in a staggered fashion because they were incompetent do you? The final plane was likely meant to be the coup-de-grace to finish the attacks with something spectacular.

The media was Al-Qaeda's biggest ally that day. Without them how powerful would these attacks have been?

And did these attacks really need any follow-up in order to achieve what they wanted?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Hi-ya Thelea, Hi-ya Ando, play nice and civil now ok?

[Enlightenment]

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Not much more than a very long winded and rambling justification of Shrubbite policy. Whatever legitimate points the author makes are completely overwhelmed by his repeated licking of Shrubby's nether regions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Coming from UTAS (widely regarded as one of the leaders in Terrorism studies in the world) and having studied Terrorism for the past two years, I can safely say that those actions didn't NEED to have a follow up. Look atht the attacks, each of them led to massive changes in the structure and workings of their related areas. The embassy bombings gave the world a message: we are organised and powerful. The result? More security at US embassies and more alienation in sub-saharan Africa. The USS Cole attack was designed to show that even the US military, "the strongest in the world" isn't safe. Result: Changed procedures and security.

September 11. Message: We can hit you wherever we want and as hard as we want. Result: Do you feel safe on an airliner? And even if you do - does everyone else? It was such a massive attack on such high profile targets. WTC - Skyline making buildings, highly recognisable, BIG. They fall and you change the complexion of the city and the nation. Pentagon - by hitting that they show that NOTHING is safe. More of a symbolic than a media target. 4th plane? Assume it was going for the Capitol or the White House - another big visible media target.

Why were the planes impacts staggered? To allow the media time to get there and set up. You don't think that they just hit in a staggered fashion because they were incompetent do you? The final plane was likely meant to be the coup-de-grace to finish the attacks with something spectacular.

The media was Al-Qaeda's biggest ally that day. Without them how powerful would these attacks have been?

And did these attacks really need any follow-up in order to achieve what they wanted?

Yes, but what if that's all incidental? You have to think like they do; you're making the same mistake. You're making the exact same mistake. These aren't normal people, they don't think like we do. Their entire culture is totally disconnected from our own.

Have you ever read The Song of Roland, WeeMadAndo? I'd hope you would have sometime in college. It's from the Middle Ages, a chanson de geste, probably from the 11th century. It's organized into paragraphs, they're stanzas really, that are totally disconnected from each other in sequence - That is to say, whoever wrote it (we don't know who did), was totally disconnected from linear thought. Each one of those sections of verse is a self-contained world, a single action unrelated to anything else that happens in the universe, and caused by God.

The Muslim world still thinks the exact same way to this very day. No; those attacks weren't directed against us, at least, in the sense of that being the sole goal. Their purpose was to demonstrate the superiourity of Allah over the Infidel, and to unite the Islamic world behind the Wahhabist cause. The casualties and terror were simply a necessary side-effect thereof.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Not much more than a very long winded and rambling justification of Shrubbite policy. Whatever legitimate points the author makes are completely overwhelmed by his repeated licking of Shrubby's nether regions.

Do you hate the President so much that if someone presented legitimate points which lead to a conclusion whereby you'd have to support him, you'd reject them simply because of that? Surely that's a very unenlightened sort of policy indeed.

[Edi]

Didn't quite bother to read all of that, the guy might have made his point without quite as much pontification as he did. Besides, for the point to be accepted completely requires the suspension of critical thinking capabilities on a scale I shudder to think of.

And he isn't shy about saying things about the motivations and fantasies of some people and condemning their actions as irresponsible and foolish (his friend during the anti-Vietnam War protests) and then completely ignoring the exact same point when it suits his own goals (later when he says there is no root cause whatsoever for the events of September 11, 2001).

Interesting also how his points about fantasy ideology and its pursuit, which he so readily applies to Islamic extremists, apply equally to Zionist extremists in Israel and their supporters elsewhere...

Btw, O'Leary, if you're going to keep posting stuff occasionally and intending to actually engage in a meaningful discussion, you should keep track of those (relatively few, at least here) conversations.

It tends to get people miffed at you when you post something as fact when it's at best an informed (or misinformed, as the case may be) opinion, and then ignore replies to it. Granted, the thread I'm speaking about strayed off-topic from its actual title (that being the question of gay Palestinians), but it was just getting interesting, talking about how the problem of radical Islam should be solved and so on, but you never bothered to take another look at it. Not that you necessarily have particular interest in hanging around these forums, but if you open up as big a can of worms as you did in that thread, don't expect it to go unnoticed or uncontested.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... m&start=30

Edi

[weemadando]

Yes, but what if that's all incidental? You have to think like they do; you're making the same mistake. You're making the exact same mistake. These aren't normal people, they don't think like we do. Their entire culture is totally disconnected from our own.

Is it? Or are you just being insular and unwilling to see beyond your own scope of experience? Do you read more than what the papers say? Do you watch CNN and question some facts? Yes their culture is different, but it is not disconnected. The fact that they are interacting with our own on some level proves this.

Have you ever read The Song of Roland, WeeMadAndo? I'd hope you would have sometime in college. It's from the Middle Ages, a chanson de geste, probably from the 11th century. It's organized into paragraphs, they're stanzas really, that are totally disconnected from each other in sequence - That is to say, whoever wrote it (we don't know who did), was totally disconnected from linear thought. Each one of those sections of verse is a self-contained world, a single action unrelated to anything else that happens in the universe, and caused by God.

Why, yes, I have read The Song of Roland. Your points about its structure are true, but what is its relation to this debate? Are you attempting to build a comparison between the thoughts of a medieval poet and the thoughts of the modern muslim extremist?

The Muslim world still thinks the exact same way to this very day. No; those attacks weren't directed against us, at least, in the sense of that being the sole goal. Their purpose was to demonstrate the superiourity of Allah over the Infidel, and to unite the Islamic world behind the Wahhabist cause. The casualties and terror were simply a necessary side-effect thereof.

The purpose, like many terror attacks is to attack lifestyle. The sniper in MD isn't a true terrorist (as far as I can determine) but his attacks have a terroristic quality as they are attacking lifestyle and people at random. What is the point of saying that the attacks were to "demonstrate the superiority of Allah over the Infidel"? The attacks, though likely having some basis in religion are more of an attack on the Western lifestyle. How long had America sat all alone, at home and safe? The point of the September 11 attacks was to shatter the peace and promote changes in the American lifestyle, which, by god, they have achieved with flying colours.

Bin Laden needs to swing the moderates in order to convince the world of the Allah>Infidel thing. Why would he do something like that in order to reach out to the moderates? The fact is that Al-Qaeda wanted the US to come after them hard in order to create martyrs and more excuses to fight. They honestly didn't expect America to just collapse after September 11, and they certainly didn't expect the world to suddenly go, "Wow, maybe Allah really is greater than the Infidels." The attacks were designed to provoke a response and all of the rantings, ravings and "interpretations" of the Dubya regime doesn't change the fact that America responded exactly the way that Al-Qaeda wanted them to. And all those rantings and ravings also don't provide any rational arguement for the Allah>Infidel theory.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Didn't quite bother to read all of that, the guy might have made his point without quite as much pontification as he did. Besides, for the point to be accepted completely requires the suspension of critical thinking capabilities on a scale I shudder to think of.

And he isn't shy about saying things about the motivations and fantasies of some people and condemning their actions as irresponsible and foolish (his friend during the anti-Vietnam War protests) and then completely ignoring the exact same point when it suits his own goals (later when he says there is no root cause whatsoever for the events of September 11, 2001).

Interesting also how his points about fantasy ideology and its pursuit, which he so readily applies to Islamic extremists, apply equally to Zionist extremists in Israel and their supporters elsewhere...

Btw, O'Leary, if you're going to keep posting stuff occasionally and intending to actually engage in a meaningful discussion, you should keep track of those (relatively few, at least here) conversations.

It tends to get people miffed at you when you post something as fact when it's at best an informed (or misinformed, as the case may be) opinion, and then ignore replies to it. Granted, the thread I'm speaking about strayed off-topic from its actual title (that being the question of gay Palestinians), but it was just getting interesting, talking about how the problem of radical Islam should be solved and so on, but you never bothered to take another look at it. Not that you necessarily have particular interest in hanging around these forums, but if you open up as big a can of worms as you did in that thread, don't expect it to go unnoticed or uncontested.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... m&start=30

Edi

Unfortunately my time commitments didn't allow me to check back here after that.

As for Zionist extremists: You're right; especially in recent months the level of fanaticism there has been bothering. The mutual violence may be creating a level sort of psychosis which is shared both by the settlers and the Palestinians. But the Israeli population at large can't realistically be included in that; they are a modern, western country with our ideals and thought processes.

The differences are minor, though sufficient enough, of course, to be troubling. The problem is that they could grow; those fringe fanatics do exist after all, I'm not going to deny that, and even a very small group can expand explosively in the right circumstances. The Israelis remain our most reliable in the Middle East (Turkey, of course, technically being a European country), but I'm not saying that's saying much...

And he isn't shy about saying things about the motivations and fantasies of some people and condemning their actions as irresponsible and foolish (his friend during the anti-Vietnam War protests) and then completely ignoring the exact same point when it suits his own goals (later when he says there is no root cause whatsoever for the events of September 11, 2001).

Would you expound on that, please?