A suicide bomber blew up a fuel truck near a crowded vegetable market outside the mosque. In addition to the 98 killed, hospital sources said 75 wounded were being treated, including 19 in a serious condition. "This is a black day in the history of the town," Musayyib police chief Yas Khudayr said. "After the bomb I went over there and found my son's head. I could not find his body," said Mohsen Jassim of his 18-year-old son.
The usual suspects cannot claim American troops were responsible for the death and destruction. Much like other attacks, this one was purposefully targeted at a Mosque and market. This attack wasn’t directed at the “occupation”, but at the Iraqi people gathering for prayer and shopping at the market. These Iraqis are considered kufr for cooperating with the democratically elected government of Iraq, and reject the ideology of al Qaeda. The Islamists rationalize these bloody attacks by claiming they are following the will of Allah.
Professor Robert A. Pape has stated religious fundamentalism is not a main cause of terrorist attacks. He states the "strategic objective [is] to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." He is wrong, as he is confusing al Qaeda’s intermediate objectives with its final objective.
Ejecting the United States from the Middle East and Asia is only an intermediate objective. Al Qaeda’s final objective is reinstating the Caliphate under strict Islamic law. The United States' presence in the region is a major obstacle to achieving this goal.
Al Qaeda wishes to topple Middle Eastern governments, replace them with Islamist regimes, and consolidate them into the greater Islamic state. The model system of governance is the recently ousted Taliban regime of Afghanistan, where the strict law of Shariah ruled.
Osama bin Laden explicitly stated the establishment of Islamist regimes is main goal of al Qaeda in his fatwas of the 1990’s. The lack of religious purity is the main issue al Qaeda has with Middle Eastern regimes. Here are three quotes from his 1996 fatwa (there are more declarations such as this in this fatwa and in others; this is merely a sampling):
- Through its course of actions the regime has torn off its legitimacy: (1) Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law. The regime entered into a bloody confrontation with the truthful Ulamah and the righteous youths (we sanctify nobody; Allah sanctify Whom He pleaseth)…
- As stated by the people of knowledge, it is not a secret that to use man made law instead of the Shari'a and to support the infidels against the Muslims is one of the ten "voiders" that would strip a person from his Islamic status (turn a Muslim into a Mushrik, non believer status)…
- Priorities of the Islamic work are lost while the blasphemy and polytheism continue its grip and control over the Ummah. We should be alert to these atrocious plans carried out by the Ministry of Interior [of Saudi Arabia]. The right answer is to follow what have been decided by the people of knowledge, as was said by Ibn Taymiyyah (Allah's mercy upon him): "people of Islam should join forces and support each other to get rid of the main "Kufr" who is controlling the countries of the Islamic world, even to bear the lesser damage to get rid of the major one, that is the great Kufr".
If Professor Pape accepts bin Laden’s rhetoric that the US occupation of the Middle East and Israel’s occupation of Palestine is fueling their anger at face value, then why does he ignore the Islamist motivations? Why does he ignore the numerous statements of those who committed suicide bombings that are replete with references to the Islamist cause? Does he believe this is just window dressing and Muslims are blowing themselves up for the homeland? And how does he explain the fact that Muslims outside of countries at war repeated volunteer for suicide attacks? What nationalist claim do Muslims in Northern Africa have in Iraq, Afghanistan, London, Spain, Saudi Arabia…?
Professor Pape and others who promote this line of reasoning are engaging in a dangerous pursuit. They lend credibility to the belief that America is the root cause of terrorism, and the solution is to disengage from the Middle East. By ignoring the real agenda of the Islamists - the establishment of a seven century Caliphate stretching from Spain to Indonesia that, armed with today’s deadly weapons, will eventually confront the unpure world - Professor Pape promotes appeasement of the worst order.
Also Read:
...Grim's take on Pape over at The Fourth Rail. On appeasing the terrorists: "The mass of men will live and die in tyranny. The colors Western palatte -- liberty, freedom of thought and speech, the dignity and strength of the individual against the force of the state -- will be washed from most of the world. That is a viable position, but it is not the liberal position."
Having read several of Pape's interviews in various media but not his book, plus various blog posts on the topic and some of the better comments (including particularly those at Belgravia Dispatch, where I posted a version of these comments), I have the following observations:
1. Pape's basic research sounds as though it is extremely useful. If it has not already been done -- as Pape asserts -- by somebody in the American or Israeli intelligence staff, that is shameful in and of itself.
2. Pape's conclusions and his prescriptions strike me as far more problematic.
3. On the one hand, Pape cites the Tamil Tigers as "evidence" that suicide terrorism is not a Muslim phenomenon. Without having read the book, it seems that he is abusing this one example. Indeed, even if the Tigers were the inventors of suicide terrorism, who is to say that Muslims didn't "improve" on it and proliferate it to an entirely different level? Africans invented slavery, but Europeans made a business out of it and spread it to a new hemisphere. Just as Europeans industrialized human slavery (before abolishing it), Muslims seem to have industrialized suicide terrorism. See, for instance, al Qaeda's dissemination of "how to" instruction manuals, and the car bomb and bomb belt "factories" discovered in Iraq. So even if Pape is technically correct that suicide terrorism is not inherently a Muslim phenomenon, might we say that "industrial" suicide terrorism is?
4. On the other hand, as ready as Pape is to cite one data point (the Tigers) to universalize suicide terrorism, he ignores many data points when he universalizes his thesis that suicide terrorism is a response aimed at occupying democratic countries. Many occupied peoples have not resorted to suicide terrorism, even in modern times. You didn't see the Vietnamese blowing themselves up. Even since the "invention" suicide bombing by the Tigers, there are "occupied peoples" who have not attacked this way. There are separatist movements all over South America, for example, that don't use suicide terrorism (Bolivia, for example). Without having run the numbers, "Muslim extremism" seems much more highly correlated with suicide terrorism than "resistance to occupation" (although perhaps not resistance to occupation by democracies, which is the nuance in Pape's argument).
5. In order to accept Pape's thesis, you need a very expansive definition of "occupation." This is accomplished, it seems to me, with a sleight of hand. Under Pape's model, all Muslim suicide bombers are deemed resisting the occupation of any Muslim land. If an Egyptian blows himself up killing people, the explanation is that he is resisting the American occupation of Iraq. Well, who besides Muslims takes such an expansive view of what constitutes "occupation"? If any Muslim is considered to be resisting occupation as long as any infidel bases soldiers or businesses or there are any Jews on any Muslim land, then it becomes very hard to argue with Pape. But he hasn't proved anything other than Muslims -- uniquely -- have declared that a third of the world is off limits to anybody who does not recognize the Prophet. The implication -- that we're supposed to respect that point of view -- is troubling.
6. There are lots of suicide attacks that do not seem to fit even Pape's theory. Just yesterday, for instance, a female suicide bomber blew up a bunch of European tourists in Turkey. Turkey is neither Arab nor occupied by any sane definition of the concept. Only, again, by conceding that Muslims demand that a third of the world remain "apostate free" can you conclude that yesterday's attack was to resist "occupation."
7. His prescription, as I have read it, is that we return to the "offshore balancing" that characterized American strategy vs. the Middle East for the thirty years ended with the Gulf War in 1991. This will remove American troops from the region, and according to Pape it will diminish suicide attacks. There are two problems with this prescription. First, it was the collapse of "off shore balancing" that led to the first Gulf War. Second, it assumes that elimination of suicide attacks against American troops in the Middle East will today translate to the elimination of such attacks in Western cities, or against Westerners who travel in the Muslim world. The demands of al Qaeda are such that suffering suicide attacks may be a small price to pay for continuing engagement in the region.
That's it for now, although I may come back with more.
Why does he ignore the numerous statements of those who committed suicide bombings that are replete with references to the Islamist cause? [...]
Professor Pape and others who promote this line of reasoning are engaging in a dangerous pursuit.
Which objectives are theirs, when they issue so inaccurate statements? Does not Al Qaeda take into account all this people as internal allies?
"Professor Robert A. Pape has stated religious fundamentalism is not a main cause of terrorist attacks. He states the "strategic objective [is] to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland." He is wrong, as he is confusing al Qaeda’s intermediate objectives with its final objective."
Very nice. This is the same mistake that the otherwise brilliant Michael Scheuer makes. Al Qaeda is the theoretical crocodile, serving up the Middle East would only make us desert.
If I'm not mistaken something of the sort appears to be Juan Cole's position as well. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong there.
The problem with this prescription is, of course, that Israel will continue to exist and will be attacked using suicide terrorism. When you're the dog in the manger you can't maintain a low profile. Will an Israel that feels abandoned and besieged be more conciliatory (what can they conceded?) or be more aggressive?
We can't simultaneously maintain an active visible presence in the region (as has been suggested by many as an approach to solving the Israeli-Palestinian controversy) and adopt an “over the horizon” posture towards the region. That's “heads I win; tails you lose” and it's stupid, counter-productive, and just ain't gonna happen.
Under "strick Islamic law"? I hope it would be stricken!
Hi. This is an entirely nit-picking objection to a post the substance of which I have no objection to.
Bill Roggio: "Why does he ignore the numerous statements of those who committed suicide bombings that are replete with references to the Islamist cause?"
Maybe because there are no such statements. Please quote and reference just one, if you can.
No, not statements that you want to redefine as being about "Islamism" from your point of view. This is about the Muslim suicide bomber's point of view.
I want you to quote and reference one declaration by a Muslim suicide bomber, anywhere, ever, that he was going to kill and die not for Allah, not for Islam, not to punish the Jews or the Crusaders or whoever, but for your label, "Islamism".
I have no problem with saying the enemy used to be Communism, because plenty of Communists said they were Communists and they were fighting for Communism. I have no problem with people saying the biggest enemy before that was Naziism, because that's just short for National Socialism, and lots of National Socialists (Nazis) declared themselves as such and said that what they were killing for and ready to die for was National Socialism (and of course the Aryan race, the Leader, the Fatherland and so on). The Fascist label is fine too, if precisely used: there were plenty of Italian Fascists proud to fight for Fascism and ready to say so.
But who are these self-declared "Islamists" or "Islamo-fascists" or whoever? I have not heard from a single self-declared fighter for these causes. And I never expect to see such a statement either, because labels like these are invented to define what the jihadis do and believe in as not being Islam.
These are made up terms, invented by Westerners who know that it would be all right to hate and kill people if only they were "Fascists" or followers of a Western "ism" like Communism.
If you can't accept that those who are fighting and dying for the cause get to say what it is that they are fighting and dying for, I'll accept Salafist as a reasonable compromise.
But even then, I'd like some quotes to back it up. I'm not insisting, it would just be nice.
Back to substance: TigerHawk, that was a very outstanding post. You put your finger on a key point, your items 5 &6. To the extent that the conflict is territorial, we have to take into account that Islam (not "Islamism") has a uniquely aggressive definition of its territory, its (dominating and sometimes exclusive) territorial rights, and the legitimate means for it to secure those expansive and expanding rights (along with their corollary, a sharp reduction on the rights of others).
We're used to thinking of territorial issues as national issues, and to thinking of religion as at least aspiring to point to another "higher" realm (even though that creates abundant problems of its own).
That s not how Islam works at all. Islam is essentially, not accidentally, about issues of aggression, the active struggle for domination and the permanent subordination and humiliation of others, violence, and turf. It is a player. It struggles to colour in places on the map in its colour, and it fiercely desires the return of everything it ever owned. We should internalise that.
Tigerhawk: Pape thinks Turkey fits his analysis:
This is from an exerpt from his book.
Given that Turkey didn't allow its territory to be used by the U.S. military, I can only assume that by occupy, he means having a friendly relationship with the U.S.
These are not good ingredients for a forign policy: democracies are problematic and friendly relationships can only make matters worse.
David Blue,
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
Islamism is your word, not mine. I'll turn the tables on you and challenge you to find out where I wrote that. I did say "the Islamist cause", to which I am referring the jihadi mentality of killing themselves and murdering others for their belief they are carrying out god's will.
If you want me to say we are at war with Islam, I won't. It is a war with radical elements of Islam.
Tigerhawk -
Good points. "Occupation" is a pretty nebulous concept to Pape. It apparently means "US presence" without an actual presence required. He applies it to Egypt, for example.
Having seen Pape interviewed on television, talking about his exhaustive study of 600+ suicide bombers, it struck me as pretty ridiculous that someone could claim to study 600 people (who were unknown until they blew themselves to bits) and divine their specific strategic goals. Such a study would be better applied to the organizations that sent those people on their murderous missions.
Also ridiculous is his idea that if Islamists and the Tamil Tigers use the same tactic, they must have the same goal. Actually the bombing tactics of both Muslims and Tigers have their roots in European terrorism. Bombing made its way into Muslim praxis by way of Marxism and anarchism, the Palestinians being a main conduit.
Unless somebody has an earlier example, the first organization to use suicide bombing as a sustained tactic was the terrorist wing of the Russian Socialists-Revolutionaries (SRs). Their method was throwing dynamite at close range, with no hope of escape for the assassin. Czar Alexander II was murdered by a suicide bomber.
Unless somebody has an earlier example, the first organization to use suicide bombing as a sustained tactic was the terrorist wing of the Russian Socialists-Revolutionaries (SRs).
How about the 11th Century Assassins?
#6 Davd
Go here and read the transcript of what the Shoe Bomber said during his sentencing hearing. I think his comments speak for themselves as to his purpose and cause.
I perfer the term - Islamofascism. But to be entirely correct this pathology seems to have sprung from the Arabian and Norther African deserts long before Islam came on the scene.
It's seems these pathologies originated with the nomadic culture of these tribes that were later blended into form of Islam went eventually led to the radical fundamental sect of the Wahhabis.
For others who haven't read this thread scroll up to the top it's worth the read.
WOC Hearts and Minds
UPDATE - To LGF Post
[My comment in other thread]
Where the @#$% are the feminists groups who aren't raising hell . . . . ?
Bill and All
I went on to add this further comment to my original post. I've been wondering why the feminists groups haven't taken on the cause of the women who are victims of Islamofascism. It this because the MSM has not been covering these stories or is there something else to it?
*****
The American people and the free world need to hear these messages.
[...]
This how we will destroy the enemy and wipe its ideology of hate and evil from the face of the earth. The sooner this war is won, the less lives will be lost .
[...]
The answer and solution to Islamfascism and suicidal bombers may be found in these links as a consensus is beginning to gel in the Blogos
Lizaroids - The Blogos now has the power to bring these messages directly to the people without blocking or filtering by the MSM. Please share with all of your friends and anyone who will listen. You are the troops in CyberSpace that will win this war.
This war will not be won on the ground as it is a war of ideas, culture, religion, and ideology. The message we need to bring is the ideology of Islamofascism is doomed to failure just like Nazism, Communism, and Fascism that have been discarded into history's dustbin.
The key failure of these totalitarian, repressive, and evil ideologies is that they do not recognize the universal truth of the free will of men and WOMEN!
How about an Oprah hookup to bypass the MSM with the atrocities these male dominated Islamofascist regimes commit on women like these poor Iranian women!
Modern Day Stoning and Hanging and Mullahs hang CHILDREN too!
Sorry if I'm a touch passionate here but where the @#$% are the feminists groups who aren't raising hell and bringing this to the attention of the women of the world!
*****
Have we lost all meaning in our vocabulary to describe this barbaric, horrorific, sadistic, and misogynic torture of women that these asshats carryout in the name of a "religion" of peace.
This is evil incarnate! There is no defense or excuse. The line must be drawn in the sand.
There can be no reasoning or appeasement for those who would carry out these vile acts in modern society. They must be destroyed before the infect our culture.
Pape strikes me as an intellectual Procrustes, who trims or stretches facts until they fit his theories. I wonder what he would make of this article:
I suppose he could argue, that Islamism is not the cause of this terrorism, because these dudes were too wacked out to put together a mission, But Islamism makes it possible for the planners, who are the real terrorists, to easily obtain bombers, and suicide bombing as a tactic would not be effective without it, because it would be too hard to find bombers.
David,
Did you ever read this letter by Zarqawi published in January 2005?
"Zarqawi on Democracy"http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=368
If not, I'd highly recommend you do as it leaves no doubt as to three things: Z's extensively knowledge of democracy (2) his intense hatred for it and (3) his implacable resistance to it. This letter is the clearest explication of what it means to be an Islamo-fascist even though, as you may have already surmised, that word is not used therein.
Corrected Link for Zarqawi's letter here:
Zarqawi on Democracy
Also, I find it interesting that this "Free Muslims" group has no compunction about using the term "Islamist".
#1
4 Name one seperatised movement in South America. Remove Indians who never seen a TV and your left with Panama before the canal and some wealthy Bolivians who want to sell gas.
6 Never heard of kurds. Muslim did do the Turkish attack but communist kurds.
Bill Roggio: "I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth."
I quoted you directly and in context. I do not count this as putting words in your mouth.
"If you want me to say we are at war with Islam, I won't. It is a war with radical elements of Islam."
Of course I don't want you to say we are at war with Islam. You don't believe we are. I don't want you to say something you don't believe.
I merely press the inadequacy of such terms as "Islamist cause". I explained why.
Robin Wright,
I've used the term "Islamo-fascism" myself, and "Islamic clerical fascism". I think these terms are a reasonable Western-perspective outsider's description of how the Iranian theocracy works, and not much odder than (mis)calling the Japan of the 1930s and early 1940s "Fascist", which occasionally I have heard people do.
I have come to think such terms are not a great way to label what Osama Bin Laden is doing. I've heard these terms used by Westerners, and by Muslims to disconnect terror (and anything else that might seem threatening) from Islam. (That is, for Western ears - this did not extend to saying "Islamism isn't Islam and Islamists aren't Muslims, so you are not welcome at my mosque.") I do not think they are authentic. The first few times I heard them, from a fast-talking mullah clearly convinced that infidel=idiot, they stank of evasion.
Richard Reid was clear enough about what he stood for: "I start by praising Allah because life today is no good. [...] I further admit my allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah. [...] So, for this reason, I think I ought not apologize for my actions. I am at war with your country."
Robert Schwartz, thanks for the quotes and the great link, which everyone should follow and read.
I see you use the term "Islamism" too. I may just quit fighting the strong river current and use it again myself, even though I think it is unfounded, and likely to create a deceptive impression, and often has been used for that reason. Words, like spelling, go by convention, by usage, and sometimes if you don't like the assumptions embedded in them - tough.
sdh, thanks for the corrected link to the Zarqawi letter, which I re-read. And good point.
PS: returning good for good, here's a (link) for Richard Reid's remarks. It took me a while to find a record of what Reid said before the judge sentenced him, so I thought I'd save anyone doing the same hunt some time.
It's really a great, clear self-revelation: how a would-be suicide-terrorist thinks, what he stands for, and what he is ready to believe. Allah, Muhammed and trashy grievance propaganda basically.
These people really are just cheap kill-bots, primed by routine indoctrination and expended like rounds of ammunition.
#19 David
In case your link goes down I linked to the transcript here:
Transcript Link
Instapundit just linked to an interview by OBL's greatest enemy, Irshad Manji. She calls it as she sees it. The call her "The Lipstick Lesbian,"
Times Online UK
She has written a book from her insider's point of view of Islam. I can highly recommend this book.
The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change [Amazon Link]
Thanks muchly, Ron. :)
If course in reading all this, we are very far from the situation as described by Robert A. Pape.
As I said before, I was just picking a nit, about terminology. Bill Roggio's blunt "Pape's pap" seems on the mark. You can't ignore the elephant in the room and expect that everyone else also will pretend it's not there, but that's what Robert A. Pape seems to have tried: just "forgetting about" all sorts of terrorism other than the tactic of suicide-terrorism (or as I think of it the weapon of suicide terrorists), not noticing all sorts of strong counter-examples, and so on.
Again, data is your friend.
As I've said previously in Dan's thread, we MUST be aware of the effect that the US presence in Iraq has on the whole region. Because it DOES have an effect. People are streaming into Iraq that have NEVER attacked previously - and the main motivation is the US presence in Iraq.
Remember there was the National Intelligence Council report on Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorists
There there's also this study by Saudi Arabia and Israel that 'the vast majority of [non-Iraqi] Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."
This doesn't mean we necessarily change what we do - but if we CAN, it would be good not to exacerbate the situation, yes??
Bill -
Saying occupation has an effect on terrorist recruitment is quite different from saying that it causes suicide bombings, which is Pape's argument.
Without terrorist recruitment you don't have people to blow themself up