Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Terrorist Agenda

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Terrorist Agenda

    PART ONE...

    In many threads both here and in the Iraq forum, mention is invariably made of OBL, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist threat. Many threads have dealt with both our current and other alternative strategies to deal with the threats coming from the afore mentioned 'group'. Yet what do we really know of the strategy (if any) or aims (however plausable) that really underpin and drive their terrorist actions?

    As i see it there are three main options in finding some sort of useful truth about the threats we face today. Firstly we can analyse the 'political' information provided by the terrorists themselves, in the form of the comments and threats they make to the media. Second we can analyse the actual terrorist actions themselves (in either success or failure), and try to establish the strategy behind them. Thirdly we can go beyond both the the rhetoric and actions of the terrorists themselves and put our own thoughts and strategies in their place, and its the latter which i would like to think about here.


    What would we do in their place?...

    The above heading is about as simple as we might state it, but first i feel we should establish the political aims which drive our strategy. What are the political aims that drive our terrorist war?


    Poilitical Aims?...

    Before we list them, we possibly need to affirm that at the heart of our struggle is the clear threat to our faith, specifically the overt attack on the Islamic religion by both Christian and Zionist states. This is executed by them under the cover of either nationalistic or economic acts, both political and military, either overtly or covertly. The desire to destroy our faith underpins every action they carry out, either within or with regard to Islamic nation states. This threat is essentially why we must not only resist, but more importantly destroy the Western Enemy!


    The Enemy?...

    Its clear that we face three overt threats in our struggle, so lets deal with their strengths and weaknesses.

    The USA.

    This nations politics are driven by its hardline Christian ideology, coupled with its need to be seen as the leader of the Western world and to set a moral example as such. It has immense military power which it can project rapidly on a global scale, coupled with the political will to use its strength as it sees fit. Economically its domestic economy is a driving force globally and it exerts a huge influence over world trade.

    This nation though does exhibit many weaknesses with regard to its apparent strengths. Politically it can invariably be driven into risky or dangerous foreign policy actions by purely domestic political demands, motivated by either religion or self interest. Added to this is the poor relations it has with the UN, which can also provoke unwise action in the face of UN provarication. Militarily its forces are still focused towards fighting conventional warfare on a national scale, and this creates a situation where its probable responses to unconventional warfare will be either heavy handed or inappropriate. Economically its weakness (especially with regards to oil) lays in its high domestic standard of living and the demand this creates for massive foreign imports. This is coupled with the need to keep the US economy 'stable', lest any economic downturn destabilise the world economy and then create a downward world trade spiral.

    ISRAEL...

    The true enemy in terms of faith and the subtle hand behind many of the actions of its closest ally the USA. Militarily it has the strength to defend itself indefinately and if needed to intervene powerfully against its Islamic neighbour states. Politically it has the will to use its military strength in the face of any opposition, including the USA. Economically it is dependant in both the long and short term on the USA, especially in terms of 'economic aid' or 'loans'.

    The primary political weakness of Israel is the presence of the Palestinian peoples within its borders, and the destabilising effect this has on its relations with its allies and Islamic neighbours. Coupled with this is domestic political policy which invariably bends to a zionist political agenda, either overtly or covertly according to US political pressure. Military weakness derives in the main from the foreign political problems its heavy handed domestic actions provoke. On the ground the preponderance of power over the Palestinians, coupled with the need to defend against a conventional enemy has led to a massively heavyhanded and inept approach to counter terrorism. Economically her weakness derives again from its relations with the USA, especially in terms of national defence. ANY disruption of aid or support would provoke severe problems in both the short and long term.

    Europe...

    Even though the UK has acted independantly on occasion, its the overall actions of this group which deserve close consideration.

    Europes political actions and responses are diverse and driven by nationalism, economic and global considerations, not least of which is the desire to be political independant of the USA. Its large ethnic Islamic populations exert little influence except to moderate its actions towards Muslim 'problems' in a minor way. Militarily they can on occasion approach the USA in terms of appliable power, but the unified political will to do this long term is invariably absent. Economically the EU is both stable and powerful and has on occasion flexed this power in defence of its own agenda. In the main though its main consideration is to maintain stability within the union and good relations with global trading partners.

    Europes main weakness politically is its diversity and this in part derives from individual nation state history and domestic politics. A true concensus over external EU politics is virtually impossible, especially if the USA is involved. Militarily some EU nations (UK) are very effective regarding security, but in the main the majority of its forces are both conventional and poorly motivated 'politically'. Added to this is the lack of overall unity in force application and internal domestic politics both before and during such actions.
    Economically the very diversity of the EU is both a strength and a weakness, specifically regarding its overall flexibility and nationalistic policies in that same context. Weakness is clear though in terms of global trade and specifically with regard to the strength of the American and far eastern economies.


    Poilitical Aims...

    These have to be formulated with regard to both the threat to Islam and to the enemies involved in that threat, either actively or passively. It seems clear that there are three main objectives that lay at the core of our struggle against the West.

    1... The removal of all Western (foreign) intervention in Islamic lands, either military, political, religious or economic. This will be the primary short term objective, and when achieved would allow the following.

    2... The removal all governments in all Islamic lands that do not conform to pure Islamic virtues, specifically those tainted with either Western or secular ideologies. This is the secondary and medium term objective, and its execution will allow the following concurrently.

    3... The spread of the Islamic faith, ideology and government to all non Muslim nations, either peacefully or by force as the situation demands. This is the long term objective and can only be fulfilled if the previous two are successful.

    These are the political aims and objectives needed to remove the threat to the Islamic state.


    phew...

    Just going for a break, so if anyone wants to add any comments before i deal with strategy and actual actions, please feel free to do so.

    PLEASE NOTE...i have absolutely no sympathy whatsover with any terrorist thoughts, themes, ideologies or actions, neither am i stating that any of the above comments are either 'true' or my own personal views. I'm just trying to get in the mind of the enemy, with the intent of beating them all the better and more efficiently. Ive added this just in case......

    regards

    Gaz

  • #2
    Originally posted by allsirgarnet View Post

    2... The removal all governments in all Islamic lands that do not conform to pure Islamic virtues, specifically those tainted with either Western or secular ideologies. This is the secondary and medium term objective, and its execution will allow the following concurrently.

    a quick note on this one. it this plus the fact that they are tyrannical dictatorships.

    the west (USA) has always pushed for dictatorships everywhere in the third world - from cuba, to nicaragua to Chile to vietnam, to everywhere... a big fuel for communism in the past and still - that helpy make Islamism appealing to many people living under the boot of the Mubaraks, Musharrafs, etc.
    "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by piero1971 View Post
      a quick note on this one. it this plus the fact that they are tyrannical dictatorships.

      the west (USA) has always pushed for dictatorships everywhere in the third world - from cuba, to nicaragua to Chile to vietnam, to everywhere... a big fuel for communism in the past and still - that helpy make Islamism appealing to many people living under the boot of the Mubaraks, Musharrafs, etc.
      Thanks for the input.

      Saudi Arabia is a good example for objectives in '2', though whether the USA created or pushed them is a moot point. I would suggest that they were less the 'victims' and far more the 'willing supplicants', in which case given the situation the USA would be stupid to refuse.

      I suspect the appetite for being 'corrupted' by the West was embraced eagerly in most of the Arabian Peninsular!

      Regarding Communism per se, i think it was a matter of who got their foot in the door first, for most of the 'Leftist' dictatorships were equally as horrific as those of the 'Right'.

      regards

      Gaz

      Comment


      • #4
        The other issue is that a lot of the "Islamist" terrorism is in reality nationalistic at heart. Their goals are largely regional, and not so much related to the establishment of an Islamic state, as they are to either establishing an ethno-centric state, and/or reclaiming territory they believe to be improperly gained. The grunts may be told the West wants to destroy their way of life, the upper echelons operate with with the understanding of limited goals relating to specific ethnic and cultural concerns; not viewing the West a threat as much as an impediment to the advancement of those goals.
        Now listening too;
        - Russell Robertson, ruining whatever credibility my football team once had.

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X