Egyptian Suicide Attacks

Sand

Whilst attention has been drawn to London, and even more costly attack was launched against a tourist resort in Egypt, where 80 odd people were killed, mostly Egyptians but also about 20 foreigners of various nationalities, presumably to punish the Egyptian government for its invasion of Iraq.....Hmmm, maybe not. Possibly it was to punish the Egyptian government for something.....But why not hit a government target or a government politician then.... Why hit a western tourist resort? Curious. I am sure however that some way to blame the US or the invasion of Iraq will be found.

It also brings back memories of the attack on Luxor where terrorists, apparently funded by Bin Laden, killed over 50 tourists, way back in 1997. Way before the invasion of Iraq. Im not sure, Im getting a sense these guys just dont like western tourists. The Anti-Bord Failte?

I found this list here of various terrorist attacks in Egypt over the past few years. Its odd just how many targets attacked were tourists, because of the Iraq war. I mean, from what Ive been told, before the Iraq war, these guys didnt exist?

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

Its odd just how many targets attacked were tourists, because of the Iraq war. I mean, from what Ive been told, before the Iraq war, these guys didnt exist?

Who is suggesting that it or those previous attacks in Egypt had anything to do with the war in Iraq?
Your argument (or at least the one you seem to be implying i.e. the targeting of Westerners) might be valid if every attack by every "Islamic terrorist" everywhere was part of a global jihad to destroy the West, but it's not the case.
Those groups in Egypt have been doing this for years as you point out, they have apparently always been targeting the Egyptian government by hitting a main source of income for them, i.e. tourism. Also, I'd imagine they target tourists because they're easier targets than military ones.
One link

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Whilst attention has been drawn to London, and even more costly attack was launched against a tourist resort in Egypt, where 80 odd people were killed, mostly Egyptians but also about 20 foreigners of various nationalities, presumably to punish the Egyptian government for its invasion of Iraq.....Hmmm, maybe not. Possibly it was to punish the Egyptian government for something.....But why not hit a government target or a government politician then.... Why hit a western tourist resort? Curious. I am sure however that some way to blame the US or the invasion of Iraq will be found.

I think you're being sarcastic about Iraq being responsible, yeah? Well, bin Laden doesn't like Egypt because Egypt doesn't want to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth. Traitors to the cause, or whatever.
And why attack a tourist resort? Because it's easier than attacking a heavily guarded government building...

DadaKopf

Islamist ideologues and terrorists don't like Egypt because its a strategic ally of the USA.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

I found this list here of various terrorist attacks in Egypt over the past few years. Its odd just how many targets attacked were tourists, because of the Iraq war. I mean, from what Ive been told, before the Iraq war, these guys didnt exist?

You normally do some research before posting but you appear to have dropped the ball on this one.

The Iraq war is simply the most recent of a series of justifications that are used by Islamic extremists. Many are related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and US support for the former), but you’ll note that, even from the list you supply, the vast majority of attacks against western tourists only began after the first Gulf war, which was repeatedly cited by Bin Laden and other Islamic extremists as a reason for their Jihad. He has also repeatedly called for the overthrow of many regimes in the regions - including the Saud family in Saudi Arabia (that he accuses of corruption) and Mubarak in Egypt (for being too secular).

The more recent war simply served to further inflame Arab public opinion and act as a recruitment campaign for Al Qaeda. Additionally I don’t think anyone would be so foolish as to claim that the recent war was the sole reason, and indeed don’t think anyone has said so despite your claim.

As such it doesn’t take a genius to work out that the attack was meant to both undermine Mubarak as well as being a soft Western target. That is you would have worked it out if you’d done some proper research first.

Orizio

Very well said.

In the end these kind of attacks will inevitably back fire on the violent Islamists in Egypt,just like the AIS in Algeria.If Mubarak is smart,the governments response to theses attacks will be measured and justified rather then the usual round up of anybody that speaks out against Mubarak deal.If there is a widescale response from the government then it will only help to turn public opinion away from Mubarak and to the terrorists that were responsible for this illogical attack.

Sand

Who is suggesting that it or those previous attacks in Egypt had anything to do with the war in Iraq?

I was under the impression that fundamentalist islamic terrorism was primarily motivated by political concerns like Western political involvement in the Middle East, not religious/idealogical concerns. I stand open to correction.

Also, I'd imagine they target tourists because they're easier targets than military ones.

And why attack a tourist resort? Because it's easier than attacking a heavily guarded government building...

Id imagine that rather than trying to find Bin Laden and punish him for his crimes, it would be easier to imprison and kill random Muslims. But it wouldnt make any sense to do so because random Muslims arent Bin Laden. So why are you assuming that islamic fundametalists are so stupid that they attack people who arent their enemies? Theyre evil yes, but that doesnt mean theyre stupid. If theyre attacking tourists, its for a reason other than "its easier". Its not too hard to kill government politicians to be honest. Iraqi politicians are finding it pretty hard to stay alive. As are Egyptian diplomats for that matter. Hence the reason "easier" doesnt add up.

Islamist ideologues and terrorists don't like Egypt because its a strategic ally of the USA.

Whats so problematic about the USA? Is it a political objection they have, or an idealogical and cultural one? Remember you described them as Islamist idealogues, as opposed to Arab nationalists. Islamic isnt interchangable with Arab, as the British bombings have shown. This genre of terrorism is different to Arafats generation. Whereas Palestinian terrorists of his era employed hijackings of planes and hostage negotiations as part of attempting to secure a political resolution, these guys have ruled out that sort of hijacking operation in favour of mass murder spectaculars and a culture of death worship.

The Iraq war is simply the most recent of a series of justifications that are used by Islamic extremists. Many are related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and US support for the former), but you’ll note that, even from the list you supply, the vast majority of attacks against western tourists only began after the first Gulf war

Okay, theres a couple of different points I need to make.

Firstly, you argue that the latest Iraq War is only the most recent justification for their terrorism - you dont claim it to be the cause, which is wise. Yet the first Gulf War you argue .....was the cause, or merely again another recruiting tool? Because the first Gulf War wasnt about invading Iraq, it was about stopping secular, socialist Iraq - definitly not an ally of Koran thumping Bin Laden - invading another Arab Kingdom. Politically, that sends conflicting signals - invading an Arab nation is bad, enforcing UN resolutions and driving out an invader of an Arab nation is bad. Effectively, Bin Laden hates the West and the US in particular no matter what it does. Hence his opinion an the opinion of those influenced by him can effectively be discounted when it comes to policy imo. Short of conversion and total surrender hes going to hate us, and even if only .01% of Muslims agree with him, thats still a hell of a lot of suicide bombers.

Secondly. Bin Laden and his Mujahadeen predate the First Gulf War. A more significant watershed in history around the same time would be the fall of the USSR, mortally wounded by the defeat inflicted on it by Allahs faithful in Afghanistan, as Bin Laden sees it. Having defeated the most immediate threat, Bin Laden was now ready to take on the decadent west which was seen as the weaker of the two Cold War blocs.

Thirdly, which also relates to the "easier to hit tourists" ****e above, fundamentalist activity in Egypt even predates Bin Laden himself, including a coup attempt in 1974 and of course the assassination of Sadat, whose killer, a military officer who moonlighted as a Islamic fundamentalist decared after the assassination "I am Khalid Islambuli, I have killed Pharaoh and I do not fear death."

By referring to Sadat as Pharoh he was of course equating the man with an Islamic boogeyman - ironically enough given the bitter sectarian hatred that motivates suicide bombers in Palestine today. And it should be bourne in mind, that the organisation that killed Sadat viewed it as a matter of philosophy that the rulers of the state were apostate - and thus should be killed immediately under certain interpretations of the hadith - because of their straying into western idealogies such as secularism, socialism, captialism - not neccessarily because of doing a peace deal with Israel. Either way, Sadat deserved death in their eyes. And so do we, the people who encourage and spread secularims, human rights, capitalism and socialism under the aegis of instutions like the UN.

You normally do some research before posting but you appear to have dropped the ball on this one.

Ah ye of little faith. See above.

It is at the end of the day, an idealogical struggle between Al Queda and friends who are fighting for a return to the "Good Old Days of Medieval Islam" and the idealogies of the modern world which are viewed as rightly or wrongly as having failed.

Victor

Maybe people attack foreigners and tourists because it gets attention?

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Id imagine that rather than trying to find Bin Laden and punish him for his crimes, it would be easier to imprison and kill random Muslims. But it wouldnt make any sense to do so because random Muslims arent Bin Laden. So why are you assuming that islamic fundametalists are so stupid that they attack people who arent their enemies? Theyre evil yes, but that doesnt mean theyre stupid. If theyre attacking tourists, its for a reason other than "its easier". Its not too hard to kill government politicians to be honest. Iraqi politicians are finding it pretty hard to stay alive. As are Egyptian diplomats for that matter. Hence the reason "easier" doesnt add up.

Yes, it does. It's a mistake to apply the same rules to terrorists as to states. They're not stupid by attacking innocent people. Terrorists want to cause terror. Aim number one. And the best way to do this is to attack innocent, defenceless people... Easier is a good reason for a terrorist to attack people - they don't care who they attack, as long as it will strike terror into their opponents' hearts.

county

Sand wrote:

I was under the impression that fundamentalist islamic terrorism was primarily motivated by political concerns like Western political involvement in the Middle East, not religious/idealogical concerns. I stand open to correction.




Id imagine that rather than trying to find Bin Laden and punish him for his crimes, it would be easier to imprison and kill random Muslims. But it wouldnt make any sense to do so because random Muslims arent Bin Laden. So why are you assuming that islamic fundametalists are so stupid that they attack people who arent their enemies? Theyre evil yes, but that doesnt mean theyre stupid. If theyre attacking tourists, its for a reason other than "its easier". Its not too hard to kill government politicians to be honest. Iraqi politicians are finding it pretty hard to stay alive. As are Egyptian diplomats for that matter. Hence the reason "easier" doesnt add up.



Whats so problematic about the USA? Is it a political objection they have, or an idealogical and cultural one? Remember you described them as Islamist idealogues, as opposed to Arab nationalists. Islamic isnt interchangable with Arab, as the British bombings have shown. This genre of terrorism is different to Arafats generation. Whereas Palestinian terrorists of his era employed hijackings of planes and hostage negotiations as part of attempting to secure a political resolution, these guys have ruled out that sort of hijacking operation in favour of mass murder spectaculars and a culture of death worship.



Okay, theres a couple of different points I need to make.

Firstly, you argue that the latest Iraq War is only the most recent justification for their terrorism - you dont claim it to be the cause, which is wise. Yet the first Gulf War you argue .....was the cause, or merely again another recruiting tool? Because the first Gulf War wasnt about invading Iraq, it was about stopping secular, socialist Iraq - definitly not an ally of Koran thumping Bin Laden - invading another Arab Kingdom. Politically, that sends conflicting signals - invading an Arab nation is bad, enforcing UN resolutions and driving out an invader of an Arab nation is bad. Effectively, Bin Laden hates the West and the US in particular no matter what it does. Hence his opinion an the opinion of those influenced by him can effectively be discounted when it comes to policy imo. Short of conversion and total surrender hes going to hate us, and even if only .01% of Muslims agree with him, thats still a hell of a lot of suicide bombers.

Secondly. Bin Laden and his Mujahadeen predate the First Gulf War. A more significant watershed in history around the same time would be the fall of the USSR, mortally wounded by the defeat inflicted on it by Allahs faithful in Afghanistan, as Bin Laden sees it. Having defeated the most immediate threat, Bin Laden was now ready to take on the decadent west which was seen as the weaker of the two Cold War blocs.

Thirdly, which also relates to the "easier to hit tourists" ****e above, fundamentalist activity in Egypt even predates Bin Laden himself, including a coup attempt in 1974 and of course the assassination of Sadat, whose killer, a military officer who moonlighted as a Islamic fundamentalist decared after the assassination "I am Khalid Islambuli, I have killed Pharaoh and I do not fear death."

By referring to Sadat as Pharoh he was of course equating the man with an Islamic boogeyman - ironically enough given the bitter sectarian hatred that motivates suicide bombers in Palestine today. And it should be bourne in mind, that the organisation that killed Sadat viewed it as a matter of philosophy that the rulers of the state were apostate - and thus should be killed immediately under certain interpretations of the hadith - because of their straying into western idealogies such as secularism, socialism, captialism - not neccessarily because of doing a peace deal with Israel. Either way, Sadat deserved death in their eyes. And so do we, the people who encourage and spread secularims, human rights, capitalism and socialism under the aegis of instutions like the UN.



Ah ye of little faith. See above.

It is at the end of the day, an idealogical struggle between Al Queda and friends who are fighting for a return to the "Good Old Days of Medieval Islam" and the idealogies of the modern world which are viewed as rightly or wrongly as having failed.

sorry but 95 % of people killed in the bombings where not tourists,,whats your point?

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Firstly, you argue that the latest Iraq War is only the most recent justification for their terrorism - you dont claim it to be the cause, which is wise. Yet the first Gulf War you argue .....was the cause, or merely again another recruiting tool? Because the first Gulf War wasnt about invading Iraq, it was about stopping secular, socialist Iraq - definitly not an ally of Koran thumping Bin Laden - invading another Arab Kingdom. Politically, that sends conflicting signals - invading an Arab nation is bad, enforcing UN resolutions and driving out an invader of an Arab nation is bad. Effectively, Bin Laden hates the West and the US in particular no matter what it does. Hence his opinion an the opinion of those influenced by him can effectively be discounted when it comes to policy imo. Short of conversion and total surrender hes going to hate us, and even if only .01% of Muslims agree with him, thats still a hell of a lot of suicide bombers.

I really don’t see your point here. You began this thread with an erroneous claim that “some way to blame the US or the invasion of Iraq will be found”. I amongst others pointed out that no one was going to do this and said invasion was a cited justification and a cause of anti-Western sentiment, but by no means the only one.

And according to the Islamists, their issue was less to do with the first invasion of Iraq and more to do with Western troops on Saudi (in their eyes holy) soil. Again, I suggest you do your homework (although at least you’ve realised that Saddam was not a member of Al Qaeda).

No one has claimed that these extremists did not exist or did not target the West prior to the invasion of Iraq. However it is pretty easy to point out that there’s an awful lot more of them since the invasion of Iraq.

Secondly. Bin Laden and his Mujahadeen predate the First Gulf War. A more significant watershed in history around the same time would be the fall of the USSR, mortally wounded by the defeat inflicted on it by Allahs faithful in Afghanistan, as Bin Laden sees it. Having defeated the most immediate threat, Bin Laden was now ready to take on the decadent west which was seen as the weaker of the two Cold War blocs.

What evidence, if any, of this do you have?

By referring to Sadat as Pharoh he was of course equating the man with an Islamic boogeyman - ironically enough given the bitter sectarian hatred that motivates suicide bombers in Palestine today.

What evidence do you have for this little gem of social anthropology?

And so do we, the people who encourage and spread secularims, human rights, capitalism and socialism under the aegis of instutions like the UN.

Then why did they not really target Westerners up until the first Gulf War? Look at your list if you don’t believe me.

Ah ye of little faith. See above.

Well either you hadn’t done your home work or you were being intellectually dishonest - you began this thread, after all, by rebutting an argument that no one had put forward as a means of proving your own - the classic man of straw.

It is at the end of the day, an idealogical struggle between Al Queda and friends who are fighting for a return to the "Good Old Days of Medieval Islam" and the idealogies of the modern world which are viewed as rightly or wrongly as having failed.

This is quite likely, however your analysis is simplistic. You fail to consider why their support, which was originally tiny, has ballooned in recent years or why Islamic terrorism has increased despite (and during) the War On Terror™. You’re happy to leave it at a simple “they just hate us”- give the man a coconut for that deduction.

You’re like a boy who’s stoked up a hornet’s nest then blames the hornets for stinging him.

Sand

Maybe people attack foreigners and tourists because it gets attention?

Terrorist attacks by definition tend to get attention in a media driven world - and high profile targets are the most valuable as opposed to the easiest being the most valuable. I dont think the motivation for the attacks can be written off as teenage attention seeking behaviour.

Yes, it does. It's a mistake to apply the same rules to terrorists as to states. They're not stupid by attacking innocent people. Terrorists want to cause terror. Aim number one. And the best way to do this is to attack innocent, defenceless people... Easier is a good reason for a terrorist to attack people - they don't care who they attack, as long as it will strike terror into their opponents' hearts.

They have goals though. Evil goals, that they intend to achieve through despicable means but that doesnt mean theyre idiots. Terrorism is a means to an end, not the end itself. Youre right, we cant apply the same rules to terrorists that we apply to democratic states, but that doesnt mean we stop asking *what* it is they want and/or believe, rather than assuming they simply lash out randomly at the easiest target going. Well never defeat them unless we recognise who were fighting.

sorry but 95 % of people killed in the bombings where not tourists,,whats your point?

98.76% of statistics are made up on the spot. 73.7% of people are aware of this. 97.95% of people dont really respect pedantry. It was a tourist resort they attacked. They were hardly expecting to kill Al Queda on vacation.

And honestly, you had to quote the entire post for a single line reply?

I really don’t see your point here. You began this thread with an erroneous claim that “some way to blame the US or the invasion of Iraq will be found”. I amongst others pointed out that no one was going to do this and said invasion was a cited justification and a cause of anti-Western sentiment, but by no means the only one.

Cori, that was called sarcasm. It was intended to point out that the invasion of Iraq was not the underlying cause of islamic terrorism, and cutting and running from Iraq would not appease islamic terrorists. Islamic terrorism is not about politics, or countries (the idea of identification with a nation-state, as opposed to Islam is/was a novel concept in Islamic thought). Im glad you recognise this, though youve pointed the finger at the *first* Gulf War now as being the culprit, which displays the same error.

And according to the Islamists, their issue was less to do with the first invasion of Iraq and more to do with Western troops on Saudi (in their eyes holy) soil. Again, I suggest you do your homework (although at least you’ve realised that Saddam was not a member of Al Qaeda).

According to the Islamists their grudges against the West and against their own predate the introduction of foreign troops in the Saudi Arabia - though that was a personal bug bear for Bin Laden, he was already radicalised in a philosophy that was "revived" back in the 50s and 60s in an atmosphere where western influence such as secularism and human rights were seen to have corrupted the Islamic world and led to its relative weakness, as opposed to the good old days when they followed Allahs law and Islamic civillisation *was* civillisation. Their whole entire philosophy is about returning to the values that brought them strenth ( in their eyes at least).

No one has claimed that these extremists did not exist or did not target the West prior to the invasion of Iraq. However it is pretty easy to point out that there’s an awful lot more of them since the invasion of Iraq.

Or in their news more these days. 800 people have died in Thailand this year in a conflict between the government and islamist insurgents. I guess that isnt happening because it isnt front page news in the papers every day? The only thing thats changed recently is that certain nations have recognised that Islamic terrorism cant be ignored or appeased in a world where it only takes 20 or so guys and technology from the era of black and white TVs to annialate a city.

And just a little farther down *you* question that they targeted western targets prior to the Iraq War - whichever one is to blame.

What evidence, if any, of this do you have?

The book Crisis of Islam notes it, and you can examine Bin Ladens "press release" where he comments on the cowardice of American forces in the face of the ambush of their soldiers in Mogadishu, were they withdrew after taking 18 casualties. Didnt seem to appease Bin Laden, only encourage him.

What evidence do you have for this little gem of social anthropology?

Come on Cori, its a well known facet of Islamist idealogy and even broader Islam. Youve done the research, you should know this. See here for the Koran and the religious view of Pharoh and what he represents - a mortal ruler, placing himself above the laws of God, and thus is a cruel, illegitimate ruler and an apostate who should be killed. The imagery remains vivid enough that attempts by Islamic schools in Malaysia to compare the government there to Pharoh led to the government withdrawing funding.

By referring to Sadat as Pharoh, his killer was identifying him as an apostate, a rule who ignored Gods laws with his imported western philosophies.

Then why did they not really target Westerners up until the first Gulf War? Look at your list if you don’t believe me.

Closed borders, less communication for radicalism ( the sort of links that allowed ordinary kids from Leeds to be radicalised into sucide bombers didnt exist back then), expensive travel, general lack of targets to hit in the Middle East and an inability to get quickly and easily to targets in the west? Those who did make the journey to the West as immigrants tend to do what all first generation immigrants do - work hard, keep their heads down, and build a future for their children. Its the 2nd and 3rd generation where the real fun kicks off. Saudia Arabia has served as a wealthy patron to the most extreme fundamentalists, but even their kulturkampf was still underway in the Islamic world until recently. Business wasnt the only thing that globalised in the past few years.

Well either you hadn’t done your home work or you were being intellectually dishonest - you began this thread, after all, by rebutting an argument that no one had put forward as a means of proving your own - the classic man of straw.

You’re like a boy who’s stoked up a hornet’s nest then blames the hornets for stinging him.

and lets see what you said at the top....

You began this thread with an erroneous claim that “some way to blame the US or the invasion of Iraq will be found”. I amongst others pointed out that no one was going to do this

Okay, so terrorism is *our* fault and is merely a reflection of *our* polices and wouldnt exist in any noticeable form if *our* policies were different. At the end of the day we stoked up that hornets nest.

And yet it would be ridiculous to ever *dream* that anyone would trace terrorism to *our* policies, indeed it would be intellectually dishonest to ever claim such a thing would ever be proposed. Im not sure theyve invented a phrase yet as catchy as "straw man" for arguing a position, whilst denying that youre arguing such a position.

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Cori, that was called sarcasm. It was intended to point out that the invasion of Iraq was not the underlying cause of islamic terrorism, and cutting and running from Iraq would not appease islamic terrorists.

No one said that the invasion of Iraq was the underlying cause of Islamic terrorism. All that’s been said is that it is one of numerous reasons for, or at least an aggravator, to Islamic terrorism. Presently it is one of the major reasons or aggravators - if not the principle one.

Islamic terrorism is not about politics, or countries (the idea of identification with a nation-state, as opposed to Islam is/was a novel concept in Islamic thought). Im glad you recognise this, though youve pointed the finger at the *first* Gulf War now as being the culprit, which displays the same error.

I’ve not pointed the finger at the first Gulf War. I’ve merely pointed out that this was the start of the Islamic terrorism that has been specifically anti-Western and asked you to consider why this might be the case. I’m not making any attempt to point the finger at any single cause, as you appear to be.

According to the Islamists their grudges against the West and against their own predate the introduction of foreign troops in the Saudi Arabia - though that was a personal bug bear for Bin Laden, he was already radicalised in a philosophy that was "revived" back in the 50s and 60s in an atmosphere where western influence such as secularism and human rights were seen to have corrupted the Islamic world and led to its relative weakness, as opposed to the good old days when they followed Allahs law and Islamic civillisation *was* civillisation. Their whole entire philosophy is about returning to the values that brought them strenth ( in their eyes at least).

Source / evidence please.

Or in their news more these days. 800 people have died in Thailand this year in a conflict between the government and islamist insurgents. I guess that isnt happening because it isnt front page news in the papers every day? The only thing thats changed recently is that certain nations have recognised that Islamic terrorism cant be ignored or appeased in a world where it only takes 20 or so guys and technology from the era of black and white TVs to annialate a city.

So were these attacks occurring fifteen or twenty years ago? When did these attacks begin? Have they increased significantly in recent years? Then you can talk to us of “the only thing that’s changed” - until then don’t, as you don’t seem to have bothered to examine what has or has not changed.

And just a little farther down *you* question that they targeted western targets prior to the Iraq War - whichever one is to blame.

Yes I did. Look at the evidence you yourself presented. Look at the numbers of western targets, civilian in particular, prior and post the first war.

The book Crisis of Islam notes it, and you can examine Bin Ladens "press release" where he comments on the cowardice of American forces in the face of the ambush of their soldiers in Mogadishu, were they withdrew after taking 18 casualties. Didnt seem to appease Bin Laden, only encourage him.

Source / evidence please.

Come on Cori, its a well known facet of Islamist idealogy and even broader Islam. Youve done the research, you should know this. See here for the Koran and the religious view of Pharoh and what he represents - a mortal ruler, placing himself above the laws of God, and thus is a cruel, illegitimate ruler and an apostate who should be killed. The imagery remains vivid enough that attempts by Islamic schools in Malaysia to compare the government there to Pharoh led to the government withdrawing funding.

By referring to Sadat as Pharoh, his killer was identifying him as an apostate, a rule who ignored Gods laws with his imported western philosophies.

Fair enough.

Closed borders, less communication for radicalism ( the sort of links that allowed ordinary kids from Leeds to be radicalised into sucide bombers didnt exist back then), expensive travel, general lack of targets to hit in the Middle East and an inability to get quickly and easily to targets in the west? Those who did make the journey to the West as immigrants tend to do what all first generation immigrants do - work hard, keep their heads down, and build a future for their children. Its the 2nd and 3rd generation where the real fun kicks off. Saudia Arabia has served as a wealthy patron to the most extreme fundamentalists, but even their kulturkampf was still underway in the Islamic world until recently. Business wasnt the only thing that globalised in the past few years.

“They couldn’t afford the plane fare to come and kill us” is hardly a compelling argument. Try again.

Okay, so terrorism is *our* fault and is merely a reflection of *our* polices and wouldnt exist in any noticeable form if *our* policies were different. At the end of the day we stoked up that hornets nest.

The blame game is second only to jingoism for it’s inability to achieve anything constructive here and you’ll note I’ve not discussed fault or blame at any stage - only reasons. You appear to be convinced that Islamists have been simply biding their time to start a World wide campaign from time immemorial, ignoring even the possibility that the West may have through its own policies influenced this in any way.

And yet it would be ridiculous to ever *dream* that anyone would trace terrorism to *our* policies, indeed it would be intellectually dishonest to ever claim such a thing would ever be proposed. Im not sure theyve invented a phrase yet as catchy as "straw man" for arguing a position, whilst denying that youre arguing such a position.

Get over yourself. No one is claiming that the Islamists are a bunch of murderous loons. However only a fool would believe that the massive increase in their numbers following, in particular, the last 15 years of militaristic policies towards the region by the West would not in any way contribute for this increase.

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Terrorist attacks by definition tend to get attention in a media driven world - and high profile targets are the most valuable as opposed to the easiest being the most valuable. I dont think the motivation for the attacks can be written off as teenage attention seeking behaviour.

Actually, terrorist attacks on white people get attention. And I'm not trolling or anything, but look at the furore over the failed London bombing and the nothing we heard about the Sharm-al-Sheik bomb. High profile targets are much more difficult to attack than low profile targets, and as ANY target will get them on the front pages (well, any attack on the West, anyways), why not take the easy route?

Sand wrote:

They have goals though. Evil goals, that they intend to achieve through despicable means but that doesnt mean theyre idiots. Terrorism is a means to an end, not the end itself. Youre right, we cant apply the same rules to terrorists that we apply to democratic states, but that doesnt mean we stop asking *what* it is they want and/or believe, rather than assuming they simply lash out randomly at the easiest target going. Well never defeat them unless we recognise who were fighting.

I know, and the best way for them to achieve their goals is to scare people. They get people afraid, they stop thinking rationally, they panic, their leaders follow, and something that Al Qaeda want to happen (like, for example, the Spanish pull-out following the Madrid bomb) happens. And even if it doesn't, well, the next bomb might, the next dead tourists or commuters, and every bomb gets them more publicity, more people in fear, one step closer.
I never said attacking soft targets was random. It is actually carefully considered. Attack a soldier, everyone goes, "Oh, a soldier. Well, he knew the risks when he signed up." Kill a tourist, and the response is subtly different... Less resignation, more sheer blind panic.

Sand

I’ve not pointed the finger at the first Gulf War. I’ve merely pointed out that this was the start of the Islamic terrorism that has been specifically anti-Western and asked you to consider why this might be the case. I’m not making any attempt to point the finger at any single cause, as you appear to be.

Islamic fundamentalism has always been anti-western. Its "karl marx" Qtub (an Egyptian) wrote his book in a reaction to the moral degradation and decadence he encountered when he visited the US.

Source / evidence please.

Source / evidence please.

Wheres the trust? I mean, youve done your research, you shouldnt need me to google it for you?

BIN LADIN: We learned from those who fought there, that they were surprised to see the low spiritual morale of the American fighters in comparison with the experience they had with the Russian fighters. The Americans ran away from those fighters who fought and killed them, while the latter were still there. If the U.S. still thinks and brags that it still has this kind of power even after all these successive defeats in Vietnam, Beirut, Aden, and Somalia, then let them go back to those who are awaiting its return.

He seems really impressed.

The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

Hmm, looks like Bin Laden doesnt view the Iraq war as being the cause of anything. Theyre already in his bad books, regardless of their presence in Saudia Arabia or politics against Iraq - touching really how he tears up at the mention of the evils perpetrated against Iraqis by the US/UN when his organisation is busy slaughtering children who collect sweets from US soldiers. Oh, and he viewed US intervention to end the famine in Somalia as aggression against the Muslim world....so his definition of aggression is pretty broad ranging to be taken as a policy guide.

So were these attacks occurring fifteen or twenty years ago? When did these attacks begin? Have they increased significantly in recent years? Then you can talk to us of “the only thing that’s changed” - until then don’t, as you don’t seem to have bothered to examine what has or has not changed.

Yes I did. Look at the evidence you yourself presented. Look at the numbers of western targets, civilian in particular, prior and post the first war.

“They couldn’t afford the plane fare to come and kill us” is hardly a compelling argument. Try again.

All effectively the same repeated point that the Iraq war is to blame, so ill deal with them all together.

Islamic fundamentalists have been waging various conflicts and formulating their philosophy for decades. All thats changed is that globalisation and the proliferation of dangerous technology now means they cant simply be ignored like the Maoist communists waging civil war in Nepal.

Now you mightnt feel willing to concede that cheap airlines and package holidays means that mass tourism into Middle Eastern states werent exactly common until a decade or so ago - and is still less than the norm, and that the internet and modern television wasnt bringing Islamic fundamentalist doctrine to kids in Leeds, or that Wahhibism hadnt yet completed it Saudi sponsored cultural imperialism - well that level of denial of reality is essentially your problem, not mine.

I would however like you to explain how if Western imperialism suddenly turned "bad" in 1991 and nothing else explains the attacks on westerners except the Iraq war, why werent they launching attacks in the era of the British Empire? Werent there hordes of tourists from Blackpool on two weeks holiday to suicide bomb back then?

You appear to be convinced that Islamists have been simply biding their time to start a World wide campaign from time immemorial, ignoring even the possibility that the West may have through its own policies influenced this in any way.

I accept that they have a wholly different view of the world, and they arent exactly waiting for permission or an opportune time to fit in to the history of the Western World. Trying to imagine that their actions are somehow only ripples from *our* polices as opposed to actually being independant of them is a mistaken point of view. They might try to drum up sympathy through false tears over some incident of Muslim suffering, but that means nothing other than recruiting material. Theyre happy to slaughter and murder muslims in mass suicide bombs .... the idealogy that prepares someone to do that isnt based on protecting muslims, nor is it reactive to temporal threats to muslims.

Get over yourself. No one is claiming that the Islamists are a bunch of murderous loons. However only a fool would believe that the massive increase in their numbers following, in particular, the last 15 years of militaristic policies towards the region by the West would not in any way contribute for this increase.

Do you believe that if the UN had allowed Saddam to conquer Kuwait, that British people in Leeds wouldnt be radicalised into suicide bombers? Do you believe that if Saddam was in power that Islamic extremists wouldnt have viewed the people who bought his oil and spread their ideas about female empancipation, secular laws as opposed to Sharia law as their enemies? Do you believe that the Wests policy towards the Middle East should be to demand that the UN removes its programs and inserts a passage in the Declaration of Human Rights to the effect that it does not apply to Muslims?

High profile targets are much more difficult to attack than low profile targets, and as ANY target will get them on the front pages (well, any attack on the West, anyways), why not take the easy route?

Youre assuming youre dealing with guys who want attention so they can go to a negotiating table and thrash out a deal. Thats not the case. Isnt it odd that Atta and Co didnt land the 4 planes in some US airport (or not), and start executing passengers every 10 minutes until the US withdrew from Saudia Arabia? Imagine how they would humiliate and infuriate the US. Do you know why they didnt do that? Fundamentalists have ruled out those sort of attacks - favoured by Arafat in his heyday - because theyre specifically against some sort of negotiated settlement. Theyre in an idealogical conflict, not a political one. Attention is not what theyre looking for. If theyre attacking western tourists its because they represent corruption and degeneration in their eyes.

supersheep

Sand wrote:

Youre assuming youre dealing with guys who want attention so they can go to a negotiating table and thrash out a deal. Thats not the case. Isnt it odd that Atta and Co didnt land the 4 planes in some US airport (or not), and start executing passengers every 10 minutes until the US withdrew from Saudia Arabia? Imagine how they would humiliate and infuriate the US. Do you know why they didnt do that? Fundamentalists have ruled out those sort of attacks - favoured by Arafat in his heyday - because theyre specifically against some sort of negotiated settlement. Theyre in an idealogical conflict, not a political one. Attention is not what theyre looking for. If theyre attacking western tourists its because they represent corruption and degeneration in their eyes.

Actually, I don't think it matters whether they want to go to the table or not. And I think they want attention - in the form of fear. I think nothing will make Osama happier than to see the entire Western world running about terrified with their tails between their legs. And it will help them achieve their goals - the gigantic Islamic caliphate. People will associate the War on Terror with causing terror, and demand withdrawals. Withdrawals mean the terrorists get a foothold, and suddenly we have the terrorist state that Iraq was supposed to be. And a terrorist state makes terrorism easier. And of course, that's only ONE way that terror helps them.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Youre assuming youre dealing with guys who want attention so they can go to a negotiating table and thrash out a deal.

Of course they don't want a deal. Deals require compromise. They're going for the all-in appraoch. Make it too expensive (in whatever sense) for the West to keep its course, and it will change course. No negotiations...just keep killing until things swing your way.

Isnt it odd that Atta and Co didnt land the 4 planes in some US airport (or not), and start executing passengers every 10 minutes until the US withdrew from Saudia Arabia?

Not really. Such "give us X or else" tactics are known to be unsuccessful. Fighting dirty, on the other hand, is far more established as being a successful tactic.

Fighting dirty with no negotiating option.....reduces the equation to a simple question of who's willing to tough it out longer. Power, wealth, military prowess....they cease to be important. Compromise doesn't exist. Vastly preferable approach for fundamentalists and extremists I would have said.

Imagine how they would humiliate and infuriate the US.

You seem to be suggesting that the aftermath of 9/11 wasn't humiliation and infuriation. I can't see how killing just the ppl on the planes would be in any way more effective than what they managed to achieve with those people's deaths they way they did.

Do you know why they didnt do that? Fundamentalists have ruled out those sort of attacks - favoured by Arafat in his heyday - because theyre specifically against some sort of negotiated settlement.

Yes they are...because a negotiated settlement requires compromise. I refer you to Earthman's sig for why thats not an acceptable option.

jc

Victor

Sand wrote:

Isnt it odd that Atta and Co didnt land the 4 planes in some US airport (or not), and start executing passengers every 10 minutes until the US withdrew from Saudia Arabia?

It wouldn't be odd, it would be stupid. If someone starts systematicly executing hostages like that, you storm the plane.

Sand

Actually, I don't think it matters whether they want to go to the table or not. And I think they want attention - in the form of fear. I think nothing will make Osama happier than to see the entire Western world running about terrified with their tails between their legs.

I dont accept that the attacks are designed to influence US/UK policy in such a fashion. Yes, terrorist attacks inspired fear and led to policy changes in Spain, but there they it seems they were specifically timed to influence the elections. The fear is short lived. The US got hit with one of the most spectacular terrorist attacks in living memory, if not ever, and yet life goes on pretty much as it always has. The UK, and London, are also returning to normality and the fear will die down as time goes by. The same will occur with the attacks on tourists, the Luxor attack occured only 8 years ago and it doesnt seem to have stopped people visiting the middle east.

If these terrorist attacks were supposed to influence policy, the best time for them would have been a few days before the recent UK elections. Now, as weve seen it just leads to a deeper resolve not to let the terrorists win -i.e. to stay in Iraq till the job is done. Claire Short and Robin Cook excepted of course whove got a personal stake in calling for an early withdrawal. Hence I dont see the attacks as being calculated to have some political impact, but more an idealogical one.

You seem to be suggesting that the aftermath of 9/11 wasn't humiliation and infuriation. I can't see how killing just the ppl on the planes would be in any way more effective than what they managed to achieve with those people's deaths they way they did.

The same reason why dragging out the murder of Ken Bigley was so effective. Issue a list of demands which you know cant be met without the US losing face, get the media onside to issue tearful pleas of the passengers for President Bush to please, please do whatever Mr Atta says so they can go home to their grandchildren to the entire nation/world, then start executing passengers after some time limit has expired. If the plane is stormed then blow them up, taking out pretty much everyone. Effectively the same result - they could even take off and go after the same targets and force Bush to order the planes to be shot down - but with the added humiliation of the Great Satan.

The political fallout would be similar to the Beslan massacre where in any country with democratic norms Putin would have been burnt at the stake by now. The Iranian hostages deal similarly humiliated the US, and lowered its standing in the Middle East. As it was Bush was able to rally US anger - which was the prevalent attitude, not humiliation - after the 9/11 attacks, but I cant see him being able to do the same if he was tainted with being even indirectly involved in the days events.

dearg_doom

Those attacks weren't solely directed at the West ffs.

How narrowminded are you(Sand)?? There is more to this world than us, ye know!

They were mainly directed at the Egyptian authorities for reasons which have been given above. It's all about intimidation.

Why attack a tourist resort?? Simple... what do you think makes up a large chunk of Egypt's economy? I'm sure ye've heard of the pyramids and the pharohs et al:)

Also it will get more press coverage in foreign press if it affects foreign citizens. I doubt most people have heard of most of the terrorism that occurs in most countries save for a tiny mention in the odd paper; it's just the way of the world, some people
just aren't interested unless it affects them. So if those countries' citizens are involved there will be more coverage of the incident and of the causes of the incident by default.