How Can You Ask a Jihadi to be the Last One to Die For a Mistake?

Take this with all the salt you can muster. If it's true, it's mighty interesting. If it's disinformation, it's mighty interesting that someone's spreading it around:

A speech allegedly made by Sheikh Abu Abdul Rahman has surfaced on a jihadi pro al-Qaeda website in which Rahman is cited as condemning the "infidel Hizbullah" and "the most corrupted regimes of Syria and Iran."…The statement [represents] the seething resentment of Sunni al-Qaeda, directed at what it sees as an attempted Shiite takeover of the jihad campaign in the Middle East.

In the speech, Rahman espoused anti-Semitic conspiracy theories inspired by the Russian forgery, the protocols of the elders of Zion: "We know very well from our history that the Jews target to occupy Lebanon, Syria and even the north of the Arabian peninsula even up to Iraq to the river of Furaat (Euphrates)."

However, he then turns his wrath to Hizbullah, Iran, and Syria, calling them "infidel entities," and arguing that they are preventing Sunni jihadis from attacking Israel….

"We need to know the reality, and we already know how Hizbullah do not fight for the sake of Allah. They declare themselves that they fight for the sake of Lebanon, are backed by the most corrupted regimes -- Syria and Iran -- and backed by the most evil people," Abdul Rahman was cited as saying.

"We cannot be fools to die for nationalism and tribalism, if two entities of Kuffar (infidels) fight that does not bother us. What bothers us is if we side with any one of them," he added.

Comments

[gaijin]

I dunno, unlinked 'jihadi website' story posted to a jewish news site, claiming that the A-rabs are at odds with one another...I don;t think the disinformation angle is really that hard to understand or believe...which makes it not all that interesting...

[R C Dean]

C'mon, how dumb do they think we are? The Sunnis and the Shi'ites would never turn on one another.

[Jesse Walker]

You're only interested in disinformation campaigns that are hard to understand or believe?

[gaijin]

You're only interested in disinformation campaigns that are hard to understand or believe?

Poor choice of sentence construction I s'pose Jesse...

I am not all that interested in disinformation on Reason. I can find that anywhere.

[joe]

Hezbollah declares that they don't have global ambitions and are not part of the same struggle as Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda slams Hezbollah for not having global ambitions and not being part of Al Qaeda's struggle.

It's almost enough to make one think that there are different varieties of Muslim bad guys with different, even conflicting interests, and that they need to be dealth with as the unique problems that they are, instead of as a unified, monolithic global conspiracy.

[joe]

RC,

The only ones I can remember downplaying the historic hostility between Sunni and Shiite are supporters of the Iraq War, and those who proclaim Hezbollah and, laughably, Iran to be part of THE Islamist jihad.

[R C Dean]

It's almost enough to make one think that there are different varieties of Muslim bad guys with different, even conflicting interests, and that they need to be dealth with as the unique problems that they are, instead of as a unified, monolithic global conspiracy.

Of course, just as the nascent Japanese and German empires had "different, even conflicting interests", the same solution was called for in dealing with both of them.

Similarly, I can't think of a solution to Hez or AQ that doesn't involve wiping them out. Sure, different tactics may be called for, but dealing with them any other way will only breed more of the same.

[joe]

Name a single conflicting interest, or a single war, between Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan, RC.

While you're doing that, I'll start a list of conflicting interests and historic wars between Sunni and Shia powers. Sound like a plan?

[SM]

"Hezbollah declares that they don't have global ambitions and are not part of the same struggle as Al Qaeda."

I believe Hezbollah, no questions asked, none. Who wouldn't ?

[R C Dean]

Or, joe, try this:

they need to be [sic] dealth with as the unique problems that they are

Which probably explains why the US has mounted a global military campaign against one, but has not really done anything about the other. And by the other I mean both Hez and its sponsors Syria and Iran.

Name a single conflicting interest, or a single war, between Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan, RC.

Trust me, if they had ever gotten past the Allies, they would have found something to fight about. Most likely, who would get the various British possessions in the Pacific. Or how they would manage their new border in Eastern Asia.

They didn't have any interests in common, joe, except common enemies, and both were built on fundamentally racist, intolerant, and expansionist ideologies. No, no way they would have ever had a falling out. Nosiree.

But anyway, joe, way to avoid the real point, which is that regardless of nuance, the ultimate solution to both Hez and AQ is the same.

[Cugel]

Of course we see Bush-level comprehension in Bush war supporters, along with open calls for genocide to "wipe out" the problem.

Short of the Roman solution of killing all the men, seizing all the women and selling them into slavery and pouring salt into the fields -- in short outright genocide against tens of millions of people there is NO military solution that involves "killing them." It's like trying to kill a vial filled with Ebola Virus by smashing it with a hammer. All you accomplish is to spread the disease around.

This has to be said over and over as another U.S. retired major general has just done: "Terrorism is a tactic. It makes as much sense to say that you're going to win a 'war on terrorism' as to say you're going to 'win a war on night attacks.'"

The only actual solutions involve convincing the muslims of the middle east to stop supporting terrorists and the only way to do that is to address their legitimate concerns for peace and self-determination.

And putting hundreds of thousands of troops into their countries and bombing their cities into rubble isn't going to accomplish that.

Don't like that? Prefer the macho posturing of "strength" because it makes you feel better emotionally to be strking around in a blind rage and ignoring reality? Too bad! We've had three years of that stupidity and it's only making things worse!

Yet after 3 years of beating their heads against the wall and making things palpably worse all the time, all we see out of Bushco and their supporters is that we have to "stay the course." Forget the splitting headache! Keep pounding our brains out! We have to be "strong".

Everything seems to be about the perception of weakness and Munich analogies abound. Only people in the middle east don't care a fig about the perception of American strength, they just want to run their own lives without us interfering. And the more we interfere and bomb their cities the more they will resist and support terrorists to attack us.

Showing them how "tough" we are by killing large numbers of people and destroying country after country in the region isn't going to make them quit. It's an endless cycle of madness.

And it will never stop until we stop doing things the Stupid Way.

It's simple: are things better or worse than they were in March 2003? If you say "better" then you REALLY haven't been paying attention!

[SR]

"Name a single conflicting interest, or a single war, between Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan, RC."

I assume you meant to say Nazi Germany rather than Imperial Germany. Imperial Germany and Imperial Japan fought each other in WW I in China and the western Pacific.

[T1]

Cugel, you make several excellent points. This issue of the war in Iraq as the central front in the war on terror is a canard. It's time for some common sense in approaching the challenges currently being referred to as the 'Global War on Terror, TM'. The team america super hawks may furrow their brows and shriek about 'appeasement' but this fantasy they have about bombing the Islamic world into democracy is beyond absurd.

[Herb Schaffler]

"Similarly, I can't think of a solution to Hez or AQ that doesn't involve wiping them out."

RC, it's none of our business. You could never completely wipe them out anyway. Our meddling over there just encourages more terrorism against us. Even if you did wipe them out, there would be others to take their places. It's a never ending battle just like the war on drugs. Maybe some in the military-industrial complex know this. It's job security.

You are right about one thing, however. The Shiites and the Sunni hate each other, but in the end they would unify against us and the Israelis. Like my wife, who is Iranian says: It's like two siblings that can't stand each other, but if somebody picked a fight with one of the siblings, the other would rise to the defense of his or her sibling.

[Herb Schaffler]

Good post, Cugel.

[well, actually]

So the two sides of this argument seem to be:
A: Suni terrorists are not the same as Shi'ite terrorists and understanding their differences is important.
vs
B: Kill them all. Distinctions are a waste of time.

I would wish the B crowd lots of luck, provided they show the wisdom and discretion to target terrorists without radicalizing more moderate Muslims. Then again, discretion isn't exactly the hallmark of the "kill them all" crowd. Also provided they use their own blood, sweat, and money to do it. I would like to reserve my own support for efforts against terrorist who actually threaten me (Al Qaeda) rather than a blanket war on terror.

[TrickyVic]

"It's simple: are things better or worse than they were in March 2003? If you say "better" then you REALLY haven't been paying attention!"

For those who own, or are in, security related businesses, or oil companies. Times have never been better.

[Rex Rhino]

I say somebody should secretly drop some oil eating bacteria (the kind they geneticly engineered for cleaning oil spills) right into those middle east oil wells, and let the little microbes eat it all up.

The enviornmentalists will be happy, because we will be consuming less oil... the oil companies will be happy, because with a smaller supply and a non-dimishing demand they will rake in the dough... and as for terrorism, if it wasn't for oil the War Hawks would care about the middle east about as much as they do the Congo or East Timor right now! And the Jihadists will be able to chop off heads and make women wear burkas without the fear that anyone will use their intolerant extremism as a pretense for attacking them. EVERYONE WINS!!!!

[Herb Schaffler]

"if it wasn't for oil the War Hawks would care about the middle east about as much as they do the Congo or East Timor right now!"

No, they would still be involved in protecting Israel.