Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, ole Bogie's a real gay-basher, alright.   

Right; a nonstarter, a dead horse.

Terrorism is as old as mankind, and not going to be eradicated by any means. We can only keep it under control in our own yard. That is the best that can be expected.

Thank you for completely missing the point.   

[De Selby]

The IRA was also motivated by political separatism, not by a sincere belief that martyring would get them 72 raisins in an afterlife.

The idea that people join Al Qaeda only because someone told them they'd win a big prize when they did is well beyond belief.  Common sense is enough to tell you that this theory doesn't hold water; actually studying our enemies is what tells you how they  think.  And that's what the Hoover institute's feature piece didn't do.

[Ron]

The IRA was also motivated by political separatism, not by a sincere belief that martyring would get them 72 raisins in an afterlife.

The idea that people join Al Qaeda only because someone told them they'd win a big prize when they did is well beyond belief.  Common sense is enough to tell you that this theory doesn't hold water; actually studying our enemies is what tells you how they  think.  And that's what the Hoover institute's feature piece didn't do.

Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?

That is the point of the article, nothing you do or say is going to change the nature of this enemy. They live in a fantasy world based on an interpretation of Islam that apparently most Muslims reject. The moderates have to do a better job of reaching folks in their own faith and making it a shameful thing for someone to support or have sympathy for the radicals.

There can be no detente with radical Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy yourself.

 

[wooderson]

Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?

Yes. Because once you get beyond the idea that it's a 'fantasy' of afterlife reward - you have to start dealing with terrorists as rational actors.

Americans at Iwo Jima rushed onward to certain death - were they ennobled by some kind of 'fantasy' that allowed many of them to take on what were essentially suicide missions? Or were they simply individuals fighting for something?

[De Selby]

Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?

In terms of moral culpability no.  In terms of writing an article about what ideology motivates Al Qaeda crimes, it is so important that you could not possibly write such an article without exploring it.

That is the point of the article, nothing you do or say is going to change the nature of this enemy. They live in a fantasy world based on an interpretation of Islam that apparently most Muslims reject. The moderates have to do a better job of reaching folks in their own faith and making it a shameful thing for someone to support or have sympathy for the radicals.

There can be no detente with radical Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is to live in a fantasy yourself.

 

Of course there can be-it's just that most aren't willing to accept the price of such a detente.  Of course, there isn't much rational discussion of the price anyway, because people like this hoover author are flooding the press with totally off the wall, unsubstantiated, free-wheeling fantasy theories about how Al Qaeda operates.

The radical Islamic terrorists of today are the nationalist terrorists of yesterday and the communist terrorists with and before them.  Unless you can grasp that the phenomenon of people being jaded with their un-representative governments and turning to extremism to fight them, just like many in America did in the 60's (witness the rise of black militant groups, communist terrorists, and the mess that ensued). 

It is a product of more than just one guy's theological teachings; if there were no Osama Bin Laden, it would be someone else's idea about whatever driving this garbage.  And after Al Qaeda is gone, there will be some other militant group doing the same things for essentially the same reasons, but under a different banner-and until you grasp that, there is no way to even start talking about how to deal with the problem.

[The Rabbi]

Does it really matter what the fantasy is that they use to convince people to blow themselves up while taking innocent lives with them?

Yes. Because once you get beyond the idea that it's a 'fantasy' of afterlife reward - you have to start dealing with terrorists as rational actors.

Americans at Iwo Jima rushed onward to certain death - were they ennobled by some kind of 'fantasy' that allowed many of them to take on what were essentially suicide missions? Or were they simply individuals fighting for something?

You obviously didn't read the article.  Because your comments in no way describe what he wrote.
You and Shootingstudent have missed the major thesis of the article.  Your points are way off base.  I'd suggest trying to slog through it again.

[LAK]

Thank you for completely missing the point.

Not I. Let's backpeddle a some ...

And no one is arguing otherwise.  "War on Terror" is just a handy, short-hand phrase, take it as intended.  No one honestly believes that "terror" has a capitol city or national boundaries.

It is misleading; a fraudulently used term. People like George Bush and others have given the impression that it is a "war" in the context that it can be "fought and won" and somehow "the world freed from terrorism". There are  plenty of people that believe that it is rooted in some countries and thus that if those countries are the subject of some G8 or U.N. sanctioned campaign, or invaded, occupied - or obliterated - that somehow "the [current] terrorists" and "terrorism" will be overcome and we will "win" the "war".

--------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[The Rabbi]

That actually is the crux of the essay, or one of them anyway.  People tend to interpret new events in light of their own historical experiences.  For many 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor. Thus the war metaphor.  Notably the author says Bush perceived the difference right away.
As for the fantasy ideology of al Qaeda, one does not need to read al Qaeda's position papers (assuming they exist) to posit that theory.  Look at how he defines fantasy ideology and it clearly fits this situation.  This is regardless of whatever they happen to think themselves (assuming they actually think).

[wooderson]

Look at how he defines fantasy ideology and it clearly fits this situation.

Heh.

[De Selby]

That actually is the crux of the essay, or one of them anyway.  People tend to interpret new events in light of their own historical experiences.  For many 9/11 was like Pearl Harbor. Thus the war metaphor.  Notably the author says Bush perceived the difference right away.

That part is true-except that what the article proved was that the author was incapable of getting outside his own presumptions and researching what the enemy really believes.

As for the fantasy ideology of al Qaeda, one does not need to read al Qaeda's position papers (assuming they exist) to posit that theory.  Look at how he defines fantasy ideology and it clearly fits this situation.  This is regardless of whatever they happen to think themselves (assuming they actually think).

I don't see how you can possibly assert something about Al Qaeda ideology without reading their texts or studying their speech.  It's not even possible in theory to do this.

He is defining Al Qaeda's ideology without reference to any facts.  That makes his article fantasy ideology; it doesn't say anything of value about Al Qaeda.

[The Rabbi]

The article wasnt meant to say anything about al Qaeda but about how we conceive of this "action", whatever it is.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.

[De Selby]

The article wasnt meant to say anything about al Qaeda but about how we conceive of this "action", whatever it is.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.

Well, let's quote from it to see what it says:

For us the hijackings, like the Palestinian suicide bombings, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique that is incidental to a larger strategic purpose, a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap. In short, Clausewitzian war carried out by other means  in this case by suicide.

But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom  martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom.

That sure looks like he's claiming to know what the "prism of radical Islam" actually is.

But this fact gave to the event  in terms of al Qaedas fantasy ideology  an even greater poignancy: Precisely because it had not been part of the original calculation, it was therefore to be understood as a manifestation of divine intervention. The 19 hijackers did not bring down the towers  God did.

More claims to understand Al Qaeda's ideology.

Here's some more:

this interpretation is correct, then it is time that we reconsider some of our basic policy in the war on terror. First of all, it should be obvious that if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called root causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc.

And some more:

While the Sorelian myth does aim, finally, at transforming the real world, it is almost as if the real world no longer matters in terms of the fantasy ideology of radical Islam. Our real world, after all, is utterly secular, a concatenation of an endless series of cause and effect, with all events occurring on a single ontological plane. But the real world of radical Islam is different  its fantasy ideology reflects the same philosophical occasionalism that pervades so much of Islamic theology:

So now he's adding to his totally unfounded claims about Al Qaeda, with broad sweeps about "Islamic theology" and what pervades  it.

Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of racial profiling would disappear

Nice conclusion-we won't even debate "pseudo issues" like whether or not treating people differently on the basis of race is important, once we "understand Al Qaeda" like he does.

I have to say, it looks pretty clear to me-and it doesn't look like he's just saying "oh, we don't understand AQ"--he's saying that he does, and then telling the rest of us we should agree with him, even though he cites not one shred of evidence to support his diatribe.

[Tecumseh]

Against whom are we having the war, exactly?  Al Qaeda?  Are they a nation with a chain of command and an infrastructure that we can destroy as one typically does when having a war?  Do they have a military that we can neutralize in the field?

They and their kind will only be suppressed by the Muslim world. It will have to become as shameful to be an Islamic extremist in the Muslim world as it is to be a neonazi or KKK'r in the USA. They won't be eliminated completely but they will have been marginalized.

Unfortunately the tactics of suicide bombings and mass murder against civilians are still looked at as legitimate by some in the Middle East. This causes a  blurring of the lines between radicals and moderates. Some Muslims (see shootingstudent above) act as if all condemnation of those tactics or those that believe they are legitimate are condemnations of Islam.

This is an Islamic problem that we cannot solve, even if we abandoned Israel and withdrew from the world stage the killing would continue.

Mass murder against civilians also has support in the USA, Ireland, South America, and other nations.  It bothers me that so many people think that Al Quaeda seems to represent all Muslims.

[The Rabbi]

The article wasnt meant to say anything about al Qaeda but about how we conceive of this "action", whatever it is.
Look, if you didnt like it or didnt understand it or thought you could write a better essay, have at it.
But your comments indicate you don't understand the essay.

Well, let's quote from it to see what it says:

For us the hijackings, like the Palestinian suicide bombings, are viewed merely as a modus operandi, a technique that is incidental to a larger strategic purpose, a makeshift device, a low-tech stopgap. In short, Clausewitzian war carried out by other means  in this case by suicide.

But in the fantasy ideology of radical Islam, suicide is not a means to an end but an end in itself. Seen through the distorting prism of radical Islam, the act of suicide is transformed into that of martyrdom  martyrdom in all its transcendent glory and accompanied by the panoply of magical powers that religious tradition has always assigned to martyrdom.

That sure looks like he's claiming to know what the "prism of radical Islam" actually is.

But this fact gave to the event  in terms of al Qaedas fantasy ideology  an even greater poignancy: Precisely because it had not been part of the original calculation, it was therefore to be understood as a manifestation of divine intervention. The 19 hijackers did not bring down the towers  God did.

More claims to understand Al Qaeda's ideology.

Here's some more:

this interpretation is correct, then it is time that we reconsider some of our basic policy in the war on terror. First of all, it should be obvious that if our enemy is motivated purely by a fantasy ideology, it is absurd for us to look for the so-called root causes of terrorism in poverty, lack of education, a lack of democracy, etc.

And some more:

While the Sorelian myth does aim, finally, at transforming the real world, it is almost as if the real world no longer matters in terms of the fantasy ideology of radical Islam. Our real world, after all, is utterly secular, a concatenation of an endless series of cause and effect, with all events occurring on a single ontological plane. But the real world of radical Islam is different  its fantasy ideology reflects the same philosophical occasionalism that pervades so much of Islamic theology:

So now he's adding to his totally unfounded claims about Al Qaeda, with broad sweeps about "Islamic theology" and what pervades  it.

Once we understand this, many of our current perplexities will find themselves resolved. Pseudo-issues such as debates over the legitimacy of racial profiling would disappear

Nice conclusion-we won't even debate "pseudo issues" like whether or not treating people differently on the basis of race is important, once we "understand Al Qaeda" like he does.

I have to say, it looks pretty clear to me-and it doesn't look like he's just saying "oh, we don't understand AQ"--he's saying that he does, and then telling the rest of us we should agree with him, even though he cites not one shred of evidence to support his diatribe.

How do you know his characterization of al Qaeda ideology is incorrect?

[De Selby]

How do you know his characterization of al Qaeda ideology is incorrect?

By paying attention to the organization's stated goals, concrete examples of its crimes, and by reading transcripts of statements and letters produced by Al Qaeda members.

Also by reading professional commentary that relies on such sources, like the Army war college piece posted above.

[CAnnoneer]

Clausewitz says "they kill you until you comply with their political demands".

The essayist says "they kill you because it makes them feel good".

I say:
1) These two takes are not mutually exclusive.
2) Either way, killing them off solves your problem.
3) The article is way too wordy; he could have said the same in a third of the space.