al Qaeda bombing Mahdi Army strongholds Shiites

al Qaeda bombing Mahdi Army strongholds Shiites

GENIUS WORK, TERRORISM VS ISLAM

Don't credit Al-Qaeda by assuming it offers Muslims hope
By Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski
Commentary by ( gERALD )
Monday, February 25, 2008

Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign in the United States is serious discussion on how to implement an effective long-term strategy for protecting the US from future terrorist acts. Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous, counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Osama bin Laden.

The framework assumes that groups like Al-Qaeda possess a coherent and compelling interpretation of Islam that the US must counter to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should be replaced by a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of the terrorist threat.

( That is the fundamental understanding in USA, G )

The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle; and second, it overstates the extent to which Bin Laden's worldview constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. His zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringes of Islamic intellectual thought.

For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps.

1st)
The first is de-coupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 Commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism' ... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. ( This stems from the fact that almost all terrorists are Moslem's, the error in that paradigm is apparent in this restatement"
"While all rapists are men , not all men are rapists." G. )

"Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.

2nd )
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists like Bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the US. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the US - and the West in general - as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American financial and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though Washington should not accept at face value the legitimacy of Al-Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.

( Here the fault lies with Islamic education, USA is accused or taking advantage of Moslems,
which maybe TRUE, but no more advantage than USA has taken with Europe, it is a capitalist system, one makes the best bargain one can, in an antique store one wouldn't offer a higher price just because the owner is a Moslem. Neither does that happen in the real world. If ANYBODY strikes a bad bargin, who's fault is it? I suspect any bad deals that were struck was because of a poor education, in the Madrases. G )

3rd )
The third step involves ensuring the US actively works for the promotion of human dignity. American policy makers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for Al-Qaeda's political aims. US conventional wisdom states that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things.



Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policymakers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies. If the US continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, Al-Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of American hegemony.

In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The US should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.

( Fixing the educational system, is one approach, jahidies I've talked to at length have a twisted view of history. G )

Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski work for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Chowdhry is a research assistant with the Project on US Relations with the Islamic World, and Masloski is a senior research assistant with the Middle East Democracy and Development Project. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Common Ground News Service.
SOURCE:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is subtle but accurate, and the target can eaisly be missed.

g

.

Qods vs Mossad: BLACK OPS

DEBKAfile: Rival Iranian and Israeli security teams vie for control of Mughniyeh killing’s military backlash

February 16, 2008, 3:05 PM (GMT+02:00)

Mossad chief Meir Dagan in battle of wits with Iran's Revolutionary Guards

Hizballah forces went on a state of preparedness in S. Lebanon Saturday, Feb. 16, while the US embassy and its Beirut centers were ordered to be on their guard for attacks, keep a low profile and refrain from using their cell phones.

Our intelligence sources report that Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, chief of the IRGC’s al Qods Brigades, heads Iranian team, as well an urgent probe of the killing, while Mossad chief Meir Dagan directs the Israeli command center.

With Tehran gunning for Israel in pursuit of revenge for one of its own, the two duelists are locked in a high-tension battle of wits to control the next steps.

Some circles in the US postulate that the master of deception may have faked his death to provide Iran, Syria and Hizballah with a pretext for attacking Israel.

Read more about the latest developments in the Mughniyeh case in DEBKAfile’s Exclusive Report below.
Full article

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Iranians are investigating how he was killed.
And will figure where and when the bomb was installed, what it was made from and any connections that are still alive will be talking.
The standard of proof is lower but more exacting than a criminal court.

They are looking for one piece of evidence that points the right direction,
something they are fairly sure couldn't be set up.

While the investigation is on going they are also picking targets and teams.

And the Israelis are watching it all. alerts out for the Iranian hit teams, and harding targets.
Developing counter-ops and searching for any traps they can lay.

Both sides are preparing for escalation.
And the Israelis are know for pre-emptive strikes.

Expect action in a month or so.

Gerald

I. Army on high alert.
.

.

HAMMAS VS SWAT TEAMS

Before USA attacks Iran they need to plan for Hammas.
Paradigm considerations.
SWATteams are great against a couple of bank robbers.

But we saw what happened in Calf, when two bank robbers with amour
and automatic weapons took on the police force.

How many SWAT Teams have been trained in out right military tactics?

How would the SWAT teams stand up against a Hammas squad with auto weapons?

There are many ex-Military in SWAT, but the teams have not been trained to fight
another Squad with automatic weapons.


Gerald

Al Capone, vs Al Qaeda.

Seems there are some similarities between Europe's Muslim immigrants / Islamofacisits and America's immigrants and the Italians / Mafia.

NOTE: I did not call all the Italians mafia or call all the Muslims Islamofacisits.

The comparison is to the power/force each group can generate.

The gangs in AMERICAN also could fit into this comparison.

Thinking of a hierarchy some structure to put these groups into.

al Qaeda,( non-state sponsored ) attacks governments.

But the Mafia seldom attacked the government.

al Qaeda uses small arms, automatic weapons, RPG's, and shaped charges.

The Mafia ( non-state sponsored ) used explosives, car bombs, small arms, and automatic weapons.

Gangs ( non-state sponsored ) use small arms, automatic weapons and explosives, car bombs.
In Chicago the Government felt Law Enforcement needed help to take on the Mafia and Al Capone.

This may illustrate some road posts to decide when Law Enforcement or the Army is used.

Some of these Islamofacisists groups are equivalent to criminal gangs, small arms, automatic weapons and explosives.

The scale tipping happens when you realize the Mafia didn't have a chance to use Nukes.
And I don't think Al Capone would have used nukes, bad for image.
But I do think the Al Qaeda would.

Al Capone, vs Al Qaeda.

Gerald

Anthropologist