Tim Cavanaugh | October 24, 2004
After much speculation about European Muslims heading to Iraq for jihad, the first piece of hard, cold (or actually, just cold) evidence has surfaced: 19-year-old Redouane el-Hakim, a French national born of Tunisian immigrants, killed July 17 during an American bombardment of Fallujah. The Scotsman has some interesting details about el-Hakim's brother Boubakeur's sad-sack journey in search of either jihad or Islamic education in the Levant. (He is now in prison in Syria.)
Le Figaro says the Salafist group the brothers belonged to was broken up by the cops in July 15.
David Ignatius recently checked in on Gilles Kepel's argument that these and other recent glorious martyrdom operations are really indications that it's twilight for the jihadists, in Europe and elsewhere (which I find fairly persuasive, both because I want to believe it's true and because Kepel knows a great deal about the subject).
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Kepel knows a great deal about the subject
I dunno, seems like you can know more about this subject than
anyone else alive and you still don't really know diddley.
Well that's just great... not only is France against us in the war on terror - they are exporting their own Muslims to fight against us. When do we get to bomb Paris?
not only is France against us in the war on terror - they
are exporting their own Muslims to fight against us. When do we get
to bomb Paris?
That kind of statement is archi-irritating. I heard something
similar from a caller on C-Span yesterday.
FRANCE IS NOT AGAINST YOU ON THE WAR ON
TERROR!
THE INVASION OF IRAQ WAS NOT PART OF THE WAR ON
TERROR!
...they are exporting...
YASER HAMDI. American.
The Americans are exporting their own Muslims... When do we get to
bomb Washington?
dumb dumb dumb
raymond, is there some sort of coherence in your post? It is typographically interesting, though.
It seems to me that the point of this story is that Iraq is acting as a sink for all types of local and regional criminal/jihadist types with an added qualification that they are willing to commit suicide to kill. At the end of the day this is a story about an individual who has made some terrible choices in his life which has lead to him choosing the wrong side of a fight. He happened to also have a French passport.
Todd Fletcher, I think raymond's post is perfectly coherent, although I fear he took Mr. Will a tad too seriously and so, as they say, took the bait. Still, while I'd say Will was clearly being facetious, sometimes people use humor as a flamboyant exageration of what they literally think, and if that was Will's aim, raymond's response is pertinent as well, albeit overwrought.
So the murderous whackos are going *there*, not here. Even the
murderous whackos from non-Islamic countries.
Why is it so hard to see the brilliance of this? Obviously Bush
can't come right out and say so, but come on, isn't is pretty
obvious?
GH,
Possibly, you're right. But hopefully you're aware of all the
assumptions that formulation makes. In case you don't, allow
me:
1. That the wackos going to Iraq would have joined an American
venture instead were we not in Iraq. Highly questionable to say the
least.
2. That this energization of anti-US jihadism on Iraqi soil does
not reflect a parallel energization in anti-US jihadism on US soil.
No way to say. Maybe our spooks know, ha-ha.
3. That there won't be more jihadists to take the place of those
going *there* who may eventually turn their attentions toward US
soil, regardless of the eventual turns of events in Iraq. Again,
hard to say. Depends on a multitude of factors, such as those turns
of events in Iraq and the effect they have, but I think the largest
factor of all is simply whether this jihad thing turns out to be a
decades-long or a centuries-long fad, over which we probably have a
very limited amount of control. Economic and cultural globalization
may help in the long run....
fyodor-
Good points. My thoughts:
1. That the wackos going to Iraq would have joined an
American venture instead were we not in Iraq. Highly questionable
to say the least.
Why so questionable? 9-11 *did* happen, and other plots *have* been
foiled. US is the best, high profile target.
In any case, I'd rather have anybody even *willing* to do this
stuff go there, whether or not they actually would have
here.
2. That this energization of anti-US jihadism on Iraqi soil
does not reflect a parallel energization in anti-US jihadism on US
soil. No way to say. Maybe our spooks know,
ha-ha.
Agreed; no way to say for sure. My gut feeling is that we don't
(yet) have the perpetual-motion jihad generator here, but who
knows?
3. That there won't be more jihadists to take the place of
those going *there* who may eventually turn their attentions toward
US soil, regardless of the eventual turns of events in Iraq. Again,
hard to say. Depends on a multitude of factors, such as those turns
of events in Iraq and the effect they have, but I think the largest
factor of all is simply whether this jihad thing turns out to be a
decades-long or a centuries-long fad, over which we probably have a
very limited amount of control. Economic and cultural globalization
may help in the long run....
Well, if this spectre of the perpetual terrorist generator is
true - that jihadists will just keep regenerating like video game
characters, and that no amount of defeat or getting dragged into
defending their own lands will help, then we're doomed anyway. I
refuse to subscribe to such pessimism.
GH
I think you misunderstand my point #1. I am definitely not
saying that jihadists in general have no interest in attacking the
US. Only challenging your implication (maybe it was stronger than
an implication) that a jihadist in Iraq is one less focusing on US
territory, that if he goes *there* he ain't coming *here*. I think
the more reasonable assumption is that if he didn't go *there*,
he'd probably just stay the hell home. The larger questions are
what are the effects of the war on Iraq on those who would already
be predisposed to attacking the US and on marginal or potential
terrorists who might otherwise just curse the US in coffeehouses
and then learn a trade or something. We've both seen the arguments
both ways, and I'd rather not reprise them here. Only wanted to
make the point that, while I see what you're saying, and I hope
you're right that we succeeded in trapping someone who would have
come here, I nevertheless believe that notion rests on questionable
assumptions.
As to the "perpetual terrorist generator," you invoke absurd
imagery, but unless we kill all potential terrorists, there can
always be more. That is what Israel has experienced, and we
experience a similar phenomenon in the War on Drugs.
As to the pessimism thing, I must admit I'm quite pessimistic that
there is anything we can do to make this menace go away. We can
only practice defensive measures and wait it out, whether that's 20
years or 2000. OTOH, I'm quite optimistic that our civilization
need not be "defeated" and that most people's lives need not be
seriously affected enough that, for instance, we stop enjoying
wonderfully frivolous things like the World Series.
As to the "perpetual terrorist generator," you invoke absurd
imagery, but unless we kill all potential terrorists, there can
always be more. That is what Israel has experienced, and we
experience a similar phenomenon in the War on
Drugs.
Well, I wasn't ascribing the idea to you, but it is definitely
floating around out there ;)
I just don't buy it - something can defeat these guys.
Nazis were passionate about nazism, separatist Southerners were
passionate about separatism, Crusaders were passionate about taking
the Holy Land back from Muslims ... yet somehow, all were defeated
and reduced to nonentities.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245