# Another view of the Thoughts of Al Quaida



## 54/102 CEF (12 Jul 2005)

This book review looks at the origins of Al Quaida and its Egyptian cousins - the Muslim Brother Hood

An extract


Egyptian (doctor) Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man: (wrote) Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, the most politically grounded and comprehensive manifesto on global jihad. Its text is not yet available in English, but Kepel has translated important sections of it. Zawahiri begins with a call to shift the jihad's target from the "nearby enemy" to the "faraway enemy." To succeed, he says, the jihad needs a new leadership that is sufficiently "scientific, confrontational, [and] rational" to rethink relations between "the elite" and "the masses" and to wield inspirational slogans. (He finds that there is no cause more mobilizing than Palestine, which is "a rallying point for all Arabs, whether or not they are believers.") To those who are ambivalent about the use of political terrorism, Zawahiri explains that it is legitimate to strike Western populations, not just their governments and institutions, because they "only know the language of self-interest, backed by brute military force." "In consequence," he adds, "if we want to hold a dialogue with them and cause them to become aware of our rights, we must speak to them in the language they understand." Zawahiri defends suicide attacks as "the most efficient means of inflicting losses on adversaries and the least costly, in human terms, for the mujahedeen." 

Full review here http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101fareviewessay84113a/mahmood-mamdani/whither-political-islam.html


----------



## Marauder (13 Jul 2005)

Who gives a fuck what they think. All I need to know about them is the targeting data: Where, along what route, how often, when, and their vulnerabilities. Screw their point of view and the "need for cultural context". Publishing their views is just the liberal's pathetic attempt to humanize an enemy that has consistently proven his lack thereof.

AQ's political and religious views are irrelevant. No one should care why they do what they do. The only relevant info is how to exterminate them and those who ally them, shelter them, aide them, and protect them in any way, shape, or form. AQ's endstate is all infidels dead or converted by the sword. It's time the West woke the hell up and realized we have to take the gloves off. But instead, all that occurs is intellectual mental masturbation about how we might get them to like us and not, you know, kill us every chance they get.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

I thought the article was pretty good.

_"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. *If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.*"- Sun Tzu_


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

Marauder said:
			
		

> The only relevant info is how to exterminate them and those who ally them, shelter them, aide them, and protect them in any way, shape, or form.


Part of the information required to develop this picture is how the enemy thinks.   Do you think we learned warsaw doctrine during the cold war just for giggles?   So, to answer your question:





			
				Marauder said:
			
		

> Who gives a fuck what they think.


You should.

. . . that will also help you get inside the enemy's OODA loop.


----------



## Vigilant (13 Jul 2005)

To defeat your enemy you must understand them.

Just going out there and shooting would make you as stupid as they are.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> Just going out there and shooting would make you as stupid as they are.



Ahh...but are they stupid?   Perhaps, many different factions of the enemy we are facing right now are stupid, but I don't think we can put the leaders in the stupid pile.   Picture it this way - Osama bin Laden leads the deadliest attacks on US soil to date; he "awakens the sleeping giant" to quote Yamamoto.   He then manages, for three years, to elude the efforts of the strongest military on the face of the Earth backed behind the efforts of the world's superpower to get him, recognizes the power of the fear he produces by maintaining a zero profile, and manages to banner a fight against the West that has went on with a continual cost on both the physical (casualties), mental (fear of attack) and moral (divisions in the West on how to tackle the enemy) planes of war.     The same could be said, on a smaller scale, for guys like Zawqari, Zawahiri, Mullah Omar, and Shamil Basayev.

Sure, the day may come when we stick bin Laden's head on a pike - from what he's publically claimed, he doesn't seem all to worried about it as he is convinced that his actions have earned him a trip to paradise.   But I'd say, for now, these guys are presenting themselves as a very elusive, smart, and dedicated foe - we will need to ensure that we are armed with the proper knowledge, weapons, and resolve to send these guys to Allah in pieces....


----------



## KevinB (13 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> To defeat your enemy you must understand them.
> 
> Just going out there and shooting would make you as stupid as they are.



 :

I don't NEED to understand then - I need to FIND them and put my sights on them to defeat (kill) them.  I don't think that any westerner can truly understand them for I doubt we have the capacity to sit and punch ourselves in the balls repeatedly in an attempt to fully comprehend their hate for our society.


Surprise Cockbag  ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (13 Jul 2005)

Just my opinion but whats to understand? They harbour a hatred towards us(the western infidels) and contrary to the liberal elite no amount of understanding or concession will change that! I do agree in principal to attempt to understand their philosophy and tactics but only as a means to make it easier to hunt and kill them! :soldier:

Vigilant just going out and killing them is our JOB, what would you prefer to do with them?


----------



## Island Ryhno (13 Jul 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Vigilant just going out and killing them is our JOB, what would you prefer to do with them?



Umm I've got an idea, why don't we move them into our country, harbour them, give their children medical service (when injured doing terrorist thingys) let them take laptops full of terrorist information into our country to help out. All in the name of understanding. Oh wait, that's right it's already being done, oops, my bad.


----------



## Korus (13 Jul 2005)

> Who gives a **** what they think. All I need to know about them is the targeting data: Where, along what route, how often, when, and their vulnerabilities. Screw their point of view and the "need for cultural context". Publishing their views is just the liberal's pathetic attempt to humanize an enemy that has consistently proven his lack thereof.
> 
> AQ's political and religious views are irrelevant. No one should care why they do what they do. The only relevant info is how to exterminate them and those who ally them, shelter them, aide them, and protect them in any way, shape, or form. AQ's endstate is all infidels dead or converted by the sword. It's time the West woke the heck up and realized we have to take the gloves off. But instead, all that occurs is intellectual mental masturbation about how we might get them to like us and not, you know, kill us every chance they get.



I give a ****. It helps us develop the appropriate int so that the pointy end can inflict maximum damage to the enemy and them all come home and enjoy some beer.


----------



## Highland Laddie (13 Jul 2005)

Marauder said:
			
		

> Who gives a **** what they think. All I need to know about them is the targeting data: Where, along what route, how often, when, and their vulnerabilities. Screw their point of view and the "need for cultural context". Publishing their views is just the liberal's pathetic attempt to humanize an enemy that has consistently proven his lack thereof.....
> 
> AQ's political and religious views are irrelevant. No one should care why they do what they do. The only relevant info is how to exterminate them and those who ally them, shelter them, aide them, and protect them in any way, shape, or form....



In addition to the "know your enemy" response (highlighted well by others), you need to think of this from a wider perspective. Sure, we want targetting data to hit them now, but we also want to hit them again and again in the future. Think of this as "tactical" versus "Strategic" thinking.

Just having 'target data' to hit them now and stop their ops in the immediate term can be seen as a 'tactical' viewpoint i.e. fight the next immediate battle. But what happens afterwards, or what happens next? Failure to see and plan beyond that is militarily unsound. Think of it as conducting a platoon attack on an objective, but failing to plan and execute the subsequent step (ie prep for counter attack, resume the advance, move to the next objective, etc). Follow me so far?

Having a wider understanding of the enemy allows for more 'strategic' planning & execution. Understand how the operate, where the hide, sources of support and material, etc., and you can hit them again, and again, and keep hitting them until they cease to exist. Get inside their OODA loop as someone indicated, and you can seize the initiative from them, pre-empt their actions, and wear them down.

I don't buy the liberalist view of 'pulling out' of the Middle East as a means of ending the conflict, or getting Canada off the 'hit list'. That is simply wishful thinking, denial, or just ignorance of reality. I do believe that there is some merit to looking at the sources of fanaticism in these areas, and trying to address wider issues that contribute to this (ie repressive regimes, economics, development & poverty, the Palestinian issue, etc). This is not the only way however, as some radicals will always believe in 'living by the sword'. I have no issues with assisting them to "die by the sword" either, as this will always be needed, and many of us will always be more than willing to oblige  . 

It's ultimately about having a wider, more strategic view on how to destroy the enemy - "know your enemy" as the classic phrase goes. Its a two pronged approach - bring combat to the radicals; and use the triple D of Defence, Diplomacy, and Development to address some of the root causes. Remember the old phase "tactics win battles, but logistics win wars" - just the same, crush them on the battlefield, but cut off the logistical base (ie weapons, materials, new recruits, assisting & sympathetic populations), and they will slowly die. 

As for the immediate battle and the 'targeting data' - I am more than willing to   blow them to kingdom come with maximum violence, firepower, and shock action if the opportunity presents itself   :threat:


----------



## dutchie (13 Jul 2005)

The baddies are not stupid (as Infanteer so eloquently described), we do need to study/understand the enemy, but aove all, we need to kill them quickly and thoroughly. The 'we' here is the West in general.

As soldiers or course, who cares if they are dumb, who cares what they believe, and who cares what we do or do not understand about them. We need to know nothing beyond the 'tactical' - just destroy them and their threat. Just as I don't expect our civilian masters to know how to do a section attack, I don't expect soldiers to fully comprehend the politics/theology driving the enemy. It's not a job requirement, and in fact, in some cases it's a hinderence. The thinking/understanding part is done by others beyond our pay scale (well, mine at least).

But hey, I like debating this stuff anyhow, required or not.


----------



## Acorn (13 Jul 2005)

It's not a huge issue for our triggermen here, as they've clearly voiced. However, as much as they'd like to have an endless supply of animated fig. 11s to shoot, I think we would like to actually win at some point. That means understanding what produces this type of fanatic, what support they need and use, and what their TTPs are at all levels - tactical to strategic. If we can figure all that out, we can find a way to "soft kill" a whole lot of trouble before 2 Cdo and KevinB have to gun them down.

Understanding them, and the cultures that have decided to support them, is important to figuring out how to reduce their recruiting effort to negligible levels and removing the places they have to hide.

I sympathize with those who don't consider this stuff important - it isn't for you. It's important for others though, and not just in some "liberal" touchy-feely quest to psychoanalyze these guys.

Acorn


----------



## KevinB (14 Jul 2005)

ACORN - exactly right



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> I don't NEED to understand then - I need to FIND them and put my sights on them to defeat (kill) them.



That why your trade exists - to give us operational intel so we can kill them. - I love my job  ;D

 I do agree we need both Strategic and Tactical Levels of intel to be developed and analyzed - but while I may gather the occasional piece to put up for analysis - its not my job description.


----------



## Acorn (14 Jul 2005)

Kevin, nothing gives ME greater joy that to bring a little sunshine into your life by providing you with a valid target.  ;D

Acorn


----------



## dutchie (14 Jul 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> It's not a huge issue for our triggermen here, as they've clearly voiced. However, as much as they'd like to have an endless supply of animated fig. 11s to shoot, I think we would like to actually win at some point. That means understanding what produces this type of fanatic, what support they need and use, and what their TTPs are at all levels - tactical to strategic. If we can figure all that out, we can find a way to "soft kill" a whole lot of trouble before 2 Cdo and KevinB have to gun them down.
> 
> Understanding them, and the cultures that have decided to support them, is important to figuring out how to reduce their recruiting effort to negligible levels and removing the places they have to hide.



That's what I meant by....



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> The baddies are not stupid, we do need to study/understand the enemy, but above all, we need to kill them quickly and thoroughly. The 'we' here is the West in general.
> 
> As soldiers...We need to know nothing beyond the 'tactical' - just destroy them and their threat. Just as I don't expect our civilian masters to know how to do a section attack, I don't expect soldiers to fully comprehend the politics/theology driving the enemy. It's not a job requirement, and in fact, in some cases it's a hinderence. The thinking/understanding part is done by others beyond our pay scale (well, mine at least).
> 
> But hey, I like debating this stuff anyhow, required or not.



I was drawing the same distinction between 'job requirement' and 'interest' as you were. Some jobs require understanding, some do not. Your 'triggermen', do not require understanding. Someone else who is responsible for deciding what to do (strategically) does need to understand. Again, like you said, not in a 'touchy-feely' way, but in a 'how do we protect our interests' way.


----------



## Vigilant (14 Jul 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ahh...but are they stupid?  Perhaps, many different factions of the enemy we are facing right now are stupid, but I don't think we can put the leaders in the stupid pile.



True...intelligent people do stupid things.

My point was not understanding your enemy would make you as stupid as the uneducated foot soldiers that the Taliban employed. The ones who fight because they were told to fight and that their enemy was evil. We should be better than that as Canadian soldiers. My statement was in response to Maurauder's statement:



			
				Marauder said:
			
		

> Who gives a fuck what they think. All I need to know about them is the targeting data: Where, along what route, how often, when, and their vulnerabilities. Screw their point of view and the "need for cultural context". Publishing their views is just the liberal's pathetic attempt to humanize an enemy that has consistently proven his lack thereof.



Certainly their leadership is educated and knowledgable. 

You do not need to kill your enemy to defeat them. Nor would killing all of your enemies lead to victory, especially in a democracy.



			
				2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Vigilant just going out and killing them is our JOB, what would you prefer to do with them?



Not so sure about that. Killing when necessary, but there are many times when recklessness creates more enemies.

This is a war of attrition, and if we can prevent them from getting more converts it will help us win with less casualties.

So it's okay if you personally don't give a crap and just want to follow orders and kill kill kill, but for the rest of us who "give a fuck what they think" the original post was informative and thought provoking. Perhaps more important than what they think is how they think, but that's for the Pys Ops guys.


----------



## Nemo888 (15 Jul 2005)

The enemy sure knows how to use propaganda.

I am not blowing my self up for Queen and country. I am pretty curious how they make a well educated engineer into a living grenade. When I was a kid the Palestinians just threw rocks so something has radically changed. (The Israeli's would shoot them for throwing rocks, that may have something to do with it.)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Jul 2005)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The enemy sure knows how to use propaganda.
> 
> I am not blowing my self up for Queen and country. I am pretty curious how they make a well educated engineer into a living grenade. When I was a kid the Palestinians just threw rocks so something has radically changed. (The Israeli's would shoot them for throwing rocks, that may have something to do with it.)



Simple....you convince them that this life is only a test and that your real life comes in the next world.  As such, when they kill themselves and become shahid, although it takes some amount of courage, in their minds they are really sacrificing very little to obtain a lot.  

Different paradigm = Different decision process....



Matthew.


----------



## KevinB (15 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> True...intelligent people do stupid things.
> 
> My point was not understanding your enemy would make you as stupid as the uneducated foot soldiers that the Taliban employed.


 Which is why we have people to do that.
We have Assaulters and Infanteers to kill them



> You do not need to kill your enemy to defeat them. Nor would killing all of your enemies lead to victory, especially in a democracy.
> 
> Not so sure about that. Killing when necessary, but there are many times when recklessness creates more enemies.


Here is where you make a mistake - this enemy will not rest until we (the infidel) are destoyed  - as such we NEED to kill them.  I dont see any of us espousing carpet bombing the ME just to get insurgents - we are talkign about finding, fixing and KILLING the Enemy with precision.



> This is a war of attrition, and if we can prevent them from getting more converts it will help us win with less casualties.


 True - but killing the Enemy is bound to offend some sensibilities - lets not get to wrapped up about it as long as we are selective in our strikes (and we are)



> So it's okay if you personally don't give a crap and just want to follow orders and kill kill kill, but for the rest of us who "give a fuck what they think" the original post was informative and thought provoking. Perhaps more important than what they think is how they think, but that's for the Pys Ops guys.


 Actually the PysOps guys are hearts and minds and helping us gain local intel so we can kill the ones we need to.
I find your comments extremely poorly informed about the nature of the CF.


----------



## dutchie (15 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I find your comments extremely poorly informed about the nature of the CF.



And I find your comments to be bang-on regarding the nature of the CF.

Not to stroke your ego or anything.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Jul 2005)

As a soldier some troops need to be reminded what their job entails, and I'm not referring to peacekeeping! Remember a little phrase "To close with and destroy the enemy". I'll put it into laymans terms "To hunt and kill the bastards".


----------



## Gunnerlove (16 Jul 2005)

Seems like the same reason Christianity took off like a structure fire in Rome. The promise of an afterlife with the ability to earn a place in Heaven.  

A little bit of history repeating, again? Or is that just me being a crazy left wing nut?


----------



## paracowboy (16 Jul 2005)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Seems like the same reason Christianity took off like a structure fire in Rome. The promise of an afterlife with the ability to earn a place in Heaven.
> 
> A little bit of history repeating, again? Or is that just me being a crazy left wing nut?


history repeating itself, certainly. But not the time frame you're referring to. If we wanted to equate a time period of Islam to the beginnings of Christianity in Rome, I'd argue that would be the incredibly rapid spread of Islam throughout the (now) ME. I think what we're seeing in Islam today, is their Reformation.

(edited because I apparently have forgotten how to spell "certainly"   : ) 

(oh, man, again!)


----------



## Acorn (16 Jul 2005)

Christianity took off in Rome because the Emperor liked it. 

paracowboy, we may be seeing the Islamic Reformation, but if so it's at its earliest stage. Ironically, if Sunnis and Shias didn't have Israel and the West to concentrate on, they'd probably be killing each other.

Acorn


----------



## paracowboy (16 Jul 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Christianity took off in Rome because the Emperor liked it.
> 
> paracowboy, we may be seeing the Islamic Reformation, but if so it's at its earliest stage. Ironically, if Sunnis and Shias didn't have Israel and the West to concentrate on, they'd probably be killing each other.
> 
> Acorn


Acorn, I do think this is the earliest stages of their "Reformation". 
And once, either Sunni or Shia had triumphed, they'd start on Sufi's.  :


----------



## Acorn (17 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Acorn, I do think this is the earliest stages of their "Reformation".
> And once, either Sunni or Shia had triumphed, they'd start on Sufi's.   :


Agreed, though they'd probably do for the Sufis first, then the Alawi, the Druze, the Ismaili etc. etc.

Not much different from Christian divisions....

Acorn


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jul 2005)

Interestingly this (whatever you want to call it, I think an early islamic "reformation" is a fair title) is happening approxmiately 1500 years from the birth of Islam....the same amount of time between the birth of Christianity and the beginnings of the reformation (which, so I can be lazy, I put at 1517... though of course it's origins run deeper...)

[edit]

Coincidence or is there something to that...what do you guys think?


----------

