Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians
James Dunnigan    5/16/2004 12:02:00 AM
A Sunni Arab terrorist group in Iraq, claiming to be working for al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, displayed a video on an al Qaeda website (the Arab language Muntada al-Ansar Islamist Web site) showing the beheading of American businessman Nick Berg who was apparently kidnapped in Iraq earlier. Berg?s body was found on May 9th outside Baghdad. The beheading was announced as retaliation for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, has been the most active, and most senior, al Qaeda operator in Iraq. The United States is offering a ten million dollars reward for his capture. Many of al-Zarqawi?s followers are in Fallujah and currently fighting American marines. 

The Muntada al-Ansar web site regularly announces which terrorist group is claiming responsibility for attacks. The recent suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia were announced on the site. The use of videos of attacks and murders of captives is considered a recruiting tool and good propaganda. The videos are rarely shown on English language web sites, as they are intended for the hard core terrorist audience. Al Qaeda knows that such videos will turn off many in the West, but has found that it does wonders for al Qaeda recruiting and contributions. Al Qaeda has been unable to win any meaningful victories, so they invent success by declaring the slaughter of people via suicide bombings, or beheadings, to be a victory over the enemy. Historically, this doesn?t work, and such atrocities simply inflame the opposition. Consider, for example, the September 11, 2001 attacks and what the United States has done to al Qaeda since then.

Al Qaeda is taking advantage of a uniquely Arab concept of ?victory.? Having been on the losing side of history for so many centuries, most Arabs accept just about anything as a ?victory.? For example, Saddam Hussein declared himself the winner of the 1991 Gulf War because he was still running Iraq after it was over. Of course, the main, and widely publicized, reason he was still in power was because Arab nations refused to join the coalition to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait unless the U.S. agreed NOT to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Earlier, Saddam gained much perverse praise from the Arab world for getting Iran to agree to stop the war that had raged between the two nations throughout the 1980s. This war began when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, in an attempt to grab some Iranian oil fields while Iran?s armed forces were in disorder following a revolution in which Islamic radicals overthrew the king (Shah) of Iran. The Iranians quickly got their act together, pushed the Iraqis out of Iran and spent the next eight years trying to get to Saddam. For thousands of years, the Iranians (or Persians or Parthians or whatever) have been pounding Arab armies into the ground. So Saddam?s ability (via the use chemical weapons and billions of dollars worth of Russian arms) to stop (if not exactly defeat) the Iranians, was, to many Arabs, a real victory.

Now all this Iran/Arab stuff plays a special role in Iraq. To the surprise of many Sunni Arabs, the Shia Arabs fought, during the 1980s, to defend Iraq from the Shia Iranians. Actually, about three percent of Irans population is Arab, so in some cases you had Shia Arabs fighting Shia Arabs in this war. But the Iraqi Shia Arabs (over half the population), via a combination of fear, nationalism and financial incentives, were compelled by Saddam (a Sunni Arab) to serve in the war against Iran. What was being played was the race card. The Iranians are an Indo-European people, and have been defeating, and generally lording it over the Arabs, a Semitic people, for thousands of years. Memories are long in this part of the world, and in this case, ethnic memory trumped religion. Normally the Sunni and Shia Moslems do not get along very well. Conservative Sunnis consider the Shia heretics. And the fact that most Shia are Iranians does not help matters either.

Al Qaeda is a basically a Sunni Arab organization that attracts recruits who are not Arabs, but who MUST be Sunni. Al Qaeda was founded by members of the conservative Wahabi form of Islam found in Saudi Arabia. To a Wahabi, even contact with infidels (non-Moslems) is forbidden, and it is the duty of all Moslems to convert or kill the infidels. One should not lose sight of al Qaeda?s core values and goals. When you do focus in on those values and goals, the video of an American civilian being beheaded makes some kind of perverted sense. 
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

smitty237    RE:The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians   5/16/2004 8:20:03 PM
I had a conversation with my father the other day about current events and he voiced the often voiced question as to whether or not the terrorists are winning. Many claim that the terrorists are winning or have already won for various different reasons, such as the reluctance of Americans to go to Disneyworld or the passage of the Patriot Act. I think this missed the point, and I think Mr. Dunnigan's post supports this. It is the goal of al Qaeda and other Islamofascists to convert everyone in the world to their form of Islam. Those who do not convert are killed. There is no room for compromise. If this is their goal, and everything they have said indicates that it is, then they will not win. Unfortunately they will murder many innocents to achieve their futile goal. The Islamofascists will not win this war, but it will be a war that will last until all the Islamofascists are killed or lose the support of mainstream Muslims.
 
Quote    Reply

eon    RE:The Arab Concept of Victory and Beheading Civilians   5/20/2004 9:39:06 AM
The thing I find perversely amusing is the unswerving belief of people in the U.S. (such as academics, the news media, and the DNC) in something they call "Islamic Socialism"- as if UBL & Co. are simply true-believing Trotskyites with very poor fashion sense. If they would actually study the teachings of the Wahabists (who are the main motivators of the Islamic world's confrontation with everyone else), they would realize that the "endgame" consists of the Wahabists exterminating everyone else on Earth for the crime of not being them- including any Muslims who fail to meet their standards of piety. In many ways, the Islamic world today closely resembles Sicily in the 19th and 20th Centuries; a large population of basically decent people who live in fear of a small group of power-hungry fanatics (the Mafia in Sicily, the Wahabists in Islam). In each case, the main roadblock to resolving the problem is the fact that the "local authorities" collaborate with the fanatics, mainly (I suspect) for fear of the consequences if they don't. It took a sustained campaign lasting nearly half-a-century to root out most of the Mafia in Sicily (and it was a bloody one at that- ask any Carabineri officer who was there). Ridding Islam of the fanatics who wish to create an Islamic world by the sword is apt to take just as long, and be just as sanguinary. The questions are (1) which governments in the Islamic world will stand up to the radicals, and (2) does the rest of the world (ie., the people the radicals wish to remove from the world) have the "stick-to-it-tive-ness" to see the job through to the end?.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy