What do al-quieda actually want?

after being blindsided by the news this evening and hearing that the security forces have banjaxed al-quieda's latest attempt to blow things up (this time with added chemical goodness). i was wondering what they actually want. is it the standard bond villain desire to rule the world or is it just the pretty reasonable request for the west to piss off out of their countries and let them live their own way.
admittedly i don;t take much interest in foreign affairs but in all the programmming on terrorism i have seen i've not once heard what their goals are and what it would take for them to stop blowing people up. it's always been, zero tolerance, kill the evil men, etc.
can anyone enlighten me?
cheers


julian

 

i do suspect it might be along the lines of get the feck out our countries.

not much help, just what i think may be the root

 

They did say (allegedly) that they would leave Spain alone now that they influenced an election in the favour of a government who said they would withdraw out of iraq. So its possible.

I'd therefore think it'd be possible that if Al Quaeda were to attack Britain, they would do it at a time where they felt it could be influential to something somewhere, to their benefit.

Also, todays news stinks of propoganda to me.

 

They want the 'infidels' to completely stop meddling in Arab / Muslim affairs. The US is obviously the worst offender; it has attempted to dictate policy and manipulate things for its own end in much of the middle east over decades of ill advised foreign policy. The very least Al Qaeda want is the US and Israel out of the Arab region, but I suspect they are far too pissed off with the US to stop at that. Any country that sides with the US is a target for them.

God knows where this will all end up, IMHO both sides are equally wrong; there is never any justification to bomb civilians - it does not matter whether the bomb falls out of a B52 or is strapped to a suicide bomber, the effect is exactly the same. There is no moral high ground here.

Tony.

 

There is a complex history to the thing, but what we're seeing is a resurgence in Islamic pride. You have to remember that the religion and the politics were indivisible for a long time. Mohammed's followers swept out of the Arabian deserts in the 9th. century and didn't stop until there were half-way up France (stopped at the Battle of Poitiers by Charles Martel). They held Spain until 1492 (the year Granada fell). The Caliph of Baghdad, later the Sultan of Istanbul were not only temporal leaders but also Commanders of the Faithful. The defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna was the start of the long decay that led to the colonisation of the whole of North Africa by the Europeans and the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire at the end of the First World War and the setting up of the League of Nations's Mandates in Palestine and Iraq (UK) and Lebanon and Syria (France).

Add to that the British goof of promising the same bit of land to two different lots of people (the British were basically pro-Arab, but the Balfour Declaration promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine), and you have the ingredients for a catastrophe. The British had quite a time with terrorist gangs led by people like Begin and Shamir. It also didn't help that the Arabs resented the Zionists who were (illegally) moving in and that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was pro-Nazi (only because they were anti-Jewish).

Arab pride returned with Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt and was reinforced by the success of the Algerian War against France. These were secular struggles (Nasser was no Islamicist), but Islam and politics were never far apart, hence the attempts to secularise the states and marginalise the clerics by the likes of the Shah and Saddam. However, the Iranian revolution and the triumph of the Shi'a mullahs has given radical Islam an enormous boost, and has helped catalyse the return of a Islamic - and anti-western - point of view.

Which is a pity, because this wasn't how it was. Mediaeval Islam was extremely enlightened and put contemporary Christianity to shame. Jews and Christians were "people of the Book" and not subject to conversion to Islam. Their beliefs were respected and they rose high in government service in Islamic Spain. When Mehmet II conquered Constantinople, he reinstalled the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church on his throne, because he wanted to respect his Christian subjects. the Patriarch of Constantinople remains the head of the Orthodox Church till this day.

 

Their minimum requirement is for the West to agree on a transliteration of their name

 

A tad off topic, but I saw the "christ" film directed by Mel Gibson last night. All I can say is that was one of the most horrific films I have ever seen. More graphic than it needed to be (IMO) - conversly the wife accepted the graphic scenes as an indication of what Jesus suffered for all of us. I have diff views from the wife (a la extended heated discussions after the movie) - but it looked as though King Herod had a whale of a time.

 

was King Herod the for runner to The Baby Eating Bishop of Bath and Wells?

 

Depends on which one. The Herods were Idumeans and therefore non-Jews, imposed on the Jews as puppet kings by the Romans and heartily detested by them. The first of the line, Herod the Great, the one of the Bethlehem baby massacre, was one of the most unspeakable individuals ever to grace the world stage. To secure his throne, he did in a substantial number of his family (no wonder he went into orbit when the Magi rolled in and said, "Where's this new king then?"). He tried carrot and stick with the Jews. The carrot was the new Temple, so big that they had to extend the Temple Mount itself (this extension survives as the Wailing Wall to this day). However, as he lay dying, he had a collection of prominent Jews rounded up with orders that, when he died, they would be killed - that way, he said, Jews would weep at his death.

His son Herod Archaleus had all of Daddy's cruelty but none of his political finesse, so the Romans deposed him and broke up the kingdom into four bits, or Tetrarchies. Three of these were ruled by Herod's other sons Herod Philip II (Traconitis) and Herod Antipas (Galilee and Perea). The fourth bit, Judaea, became a Roman Procuratorship (Procurator at the time of Jesus, Pontius Pilatus). The Herod in the film was Antipas - Pilate saw a way out of his dilemma - since Jesus came from Galilee, Antipas should judge him.

Antipas was bad enough - he was the one who had John the Baptist shortened by a head for being rude (Antipas had run off with brother Philip's wife), but not nearly as nasty as Daddy. But then, nobody much was.

 

I want to see this. I'm fed up of films about Christ that wrap the viewer in cotton wool. Having a crown of thorns forced onto your head, then having to drag a huge cross and then be nailed to it is pretty damn gory; until now, NONE of the movies have done it justice.

This is of course assuming the story of Christ is not just a big fantasy some pot smoking, mushroom eating ancient drop out who needed some royalty cheques for his next fix....

Exhibit A - the Turin Shroud...

Don't let my mum, or my Franciscan Monk (I kid you not!) Uncle hear me say that though - there's a reason I'm not going home for easter. Fed up of lying by proxy by going to church....

 

Nobody has dared, Dom. The Romans reserved crucifixion for its worst offenders, such as traitors (and ultimately that's the charge for which Jesus was executed - blasphemy meant absolutely nothing to them). It was meant to be totally agonising and totally degrading at the same time. By the way, carrying a whole cross was rare - victims usually got to carry the crossbeam (the uprights being permanently erected on the execution site). A Roman-style flogging would have left Jesus barely able to stand, never mind carry a whole cross.

 

Plus of course then he had to deal with the pain in his limbs as they cramped up and couldn't move, while he froze at night, and slowly suffocated due to the weight of his body preventing his lungs being fully opened....

Pleasant. Not.

Hung drawn and quartered sounds like a picnic in comparison....

 

I'm a Christian believer with a passion for history - and, no, I'm not going to see it. It sounds like gore for gore's sake (and I've heard that from a few people who've seen it here).

 

Get right in!

I wanna see it now

 

I think you guys have missed the point about human motivations.

Chances are that Al-quieda have the same motivations that most terrorist groups have, i.e. that someone wants some power.

Certain people like to be a "big important person", and have found over the centuries that creating a large group or party can lead to power, money etc etc. The key point is that they need to create a common purpose. In many cases, who cares what it is, just aslong as you can convince enough people that it's worth having a go at. After that, just reap the benefits.


Whilst you might think that the above is a little off the wall, just think about why the IRA still exist? Both sides want peace, and everyone is sick of the war. The simple fact is that by disbanding the IRA, whoever is in charge loses power and prestige. Simple really, although a bit of a sad reflection of human nature.

 

Just my tuppence worth.

I think we should make a sea out of the whole area, from Pakistan to The Red Sea - overnight.

The people of that region do not have problems anyone can fix. They are a problem, a menace, and do not deserve to share the planet with the rest of it's inhabitants.

Might not be PC but then it's not fanciful bollox either.

 

Your point is a good one, Mr. S, but also never underestimate the power of fanaticism. Another feature of human behaviour is the need to believe in something. With the retreat of organised religion, people have found other things to fill the vacuum, nationalism, ecology, communism, hi-fi cables, that sort of thing. As you say, there will always be those who are using these things to improve their own positions, but (and this is certainly true of Irish Republicans) there are many who are True Believers in the cause, their saints are the martyrs of Ireland (Wolfe Tone, Emmet, Pearse, Connolly), and when England is banished from Irish shores, the Millenium will arrive the very next day. It's all nonsense of course, but it is believed. Look at Bobby Sands and the hunger strikers. He starved himself to death. What did he get out of it, apart from the status of martyr for the cause? And the suicide bombers of Hezbollah and Hamas? What benefits will they enjoy in this life as a result of their action? As I say, never underestimate the power of fanaticism and complete unreasonableness.

 

im with Merlin on that idea

i did suggest the napalmed St Pauls in Bristol, would make a handy park n ride for the city center

 

Aha, tolerance of one's fellow man is such a wonderful thing!