INDCJournal: Michael Scheuer's Bad Day

« Confusing Narratives and Counternarratives: Sistani (UPDATED) | Main | Quick Links »

September 04, 2006

Michael Scheuer's Bad Day

Posted by Dorkafork

Michael Scheuer on al Qaeda:

It's a policy issue for the United States. Bin Laden is fighting against us not because of who we are or what we do or that we have elections or women in the workplace -- none of that stuff that the president and Mr. [John] Kerry say, and Mr. Clinton before them. They give those as the reason. They hate us for our freedoms and our liberties. There's nothing further from the truth than that.

al Qaeda on on Michael Scheuer:

The Civilization which commits the filing of lawsuits against those who slander and libel celebrities, politicians, and other public figures of ill repute. The Civilization such as this cannot then hide behind the exclusive freedom of expression after it desecrates copies of the Qu'ran, or defames with unquestionably malicious intent the chief and master of Adam's children and the embodiment of high morals and good character, our Prophet and Messenger Mohamed, may Allahs peace and prayers be upon him.
...
God recognizes no separation between religion and state. And the concept of rendering unto Caesar that which be Caesars and unto God that be God's as understood and interpreted by the proponents of secularism is an atheistic concept of which God and his Prophets are innocent. And since the believer in God and his Prophets believes and lives his life according to the book and prophetic practice, he has no need for the legislatures and parliaments which you in the west have, to put it mildly, used to legislate yourselves into a prison of your own making.*
...
Muslims don't need democracy to rid themselves of their home grown despots and tyrants. What they do need is their Islamic faith, the sprit of jihad and the lifting of foreign troops and interference from their necks.
...
In other words, if the Zionist Crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Scheuer, Steven Emerson, and yes, even the Crusader-in-Chief, George W. Bush, were to abandon their unbelief, and repent, and enter into the light of Islam, and turn their swords against the enemies of God, it would be accepted of them and they would be our brothers in Islam.

And yet many will still ask "Why do they hate us?", without making the slightest effort to find the answer.

* Need I point out I don't think that "idiot Californian" is the final word on a religion with 1.3 billion adherents?

Posted by Dorkafork at September 4, 2006 09:59 PM | TrackBack (1)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2724

Comments

Probably the most damaging of all is our 30-year support for police states across the Islamic world: the Al Sauds and the Egyptians under [Hosni] Mubarak and his predecessors; the Algerians; the Moroccans; the Kuwaitis. They're all police states.

When has there ever been anything else there? 30 years ago or 300 for that matter. And if this is the most damaging of all, but overthrowing one of these police states is really bad too, wtf are the choices here?

I can't believe what a bunch of buffoons the CIA has become.

Posted by: B Moe at September 5, 2006 11:46 AM

What I don't understand why people buy this explanation when any state set up by Bin Ladenites would make the current police states seem like a day at Disneyland.

Posted by: Angie Schultz at September 5, 2006 12:23 PM

By the way, for ages I've been under the impression that you had to have a TypeKey account to post a comment here. Did you switch, or have I been living in an alternate reality?

Posted by: Angie Schultz at September 5, 2006 12:24 PM

Switched a while ago, alternate reality for another while.

When has there ever been anything else there? 30 years ago or 300 for that matter.

The rise of police states in the Arab world has been mostly a post-WWII phenomenon. Prior to that was colonialism, tribalism and weak central authority. Saddam Hussein learned a great deal from Stalin.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at September 5, 2006 01:00 PM

What I don't understand why people buy this explanation when any state set up by Bin Ladenites would make the current police states seem like a day at Disneyland.

I almost included this Scheuer quote from Wikipedia, but I couldn't find the source:

It's always been hard for me to understand how we say people who supports Osama Bin Laden or someone else like him – who are willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia – how we can describe those people as people who hated freedom. It seems to me that their definition of freedom might be different than ours, but to oppose a dictatorship, one must want freedom in some kind of way. (Al-Jazeera TV on September 11 and 12, 2005)

I think there are some people that understand that, Angie, but just don't care due to a weird multicultural view of the meaning of "freedom."

Posted by: dorkafork at September 5, 2006 02:31 PM

The rise of police states in the Arab world has been mostly a post-WWII phenomenon. Prior to that was colonialism, tribalism and weak central authority.

If you stick to the strict definition of a police state, yeah. But the tribal monarchies and Ottoman colonial period seems to basically be variations/precursors of the modern police state. The "common people" have never really had a say in anything, is what I am getting at, so I don't really see how the argument our backing oppressive regimes is what is setting them off really registers. I don't think most people over there know anything else, nor have their ancestors.

Posted by: B Moe at September 5, 2006 06:56 PM