« Climbing Up The Walls | Main | Amir Moment: Just Long Enough for a Joke »

September 22, 2008

Comments

Bin Laden's son (one of many, I assume) is imprisoned in Iran? I'm surprised I haven't heard that before in rebuttals to the idea of the monolithic Islamofascist threat. Or at the very least as an administration claim that bin Laden's son lives in Iran.

You do hear this from time to time. Neocons like to claim that the house arrest is "soft" and not really an arrest at all, but a cover told to the US to prevent action.

Yes, normalizing relations with Iran would be a sensible thing for the US to attempt. But first you will have to elect some sensible people.

So is it wrong for me to think of the Iraq War as a diversion for the current "i can Handz Bagz 'o Keash 2 Wallz Teat" fun policy?

Comparisons with the Sino-Soviet split of the late 1950s come to mind here.

I've long thought that we the US are not as central an actor in Middle Eastern power politics as we like to flatter ourselves by thinking, and are being played by both sides in the Shia - Sunni rivalry.

I've long thought that we the US are not as central an actor in Middle Eastern power politics as we like to flatter ourselves by thinking, and are being played by both sides in the Shia - Sunni rivalry.

I think there's something to this, but I'm not sure the two sides are playing us against each other.

I'm not even sure that the distinction between Shia and Sunni is as relevant as the distinction between Arab and Persian, or any of the other many dimensions along which the Muslim world is fractured.

My take is that, from the Muslim point of view, we're just one of several big objects in the room that has to be worked around. Part of the political geography, but not much more than that.

Our interests are not their interests, but at the moment we're part of the landscape, so they deal with us one way or another, according how they think it will best serve their own goals.

On the whole, I think they'd rather we just went away.

Thanks -

Arab vs Persian ... Enjoy!

And that's a very good website BTW to learn about Iran.

On a more serious note, though, something is brewing between Shi'i and Sunnis (both on the religious & the geopolitical levels), and Ayman al-Zawahiri just might be acting as nothing more than a Saudi agent. [Via Syria Comment]

The Iranian regime and al-Qaeda each ascribe to strongly held religious beliefs that create an inherent conflict between the two. They are rivals in the competition for Muslim hearts and minds,

Not terribly so. Iran's aim at the Islamic hearts is political/diplomatic maneuvering; rather than ideological or religious.

The charge of Iran's political opportunism is not entirely untrue.

However, let's keep in mind WHO actually brought AQ to existence! May I say, CIA?
That AQ's turned focus on Iran assists CIA's wish for instability inside Iran. This is how:

Americans have probably given up hope that a velvet revolution will arise from the heart of Iran, by the Iranian people! The Iranian government has been running the state security very heavy handedly--this is one of those times that I don't mind being arrested as I arrive in Iran on suspicion of threatening NS :) ... because, well CIA is spending all that money that congress has allocated to messup-Iran will end up in the pockets of someone; and so they need to be vigilant.

So, the only way they can wreak havoc in Iran is to use AQ against Iran--because the MKO terrorists are heavily under watch!

This might also explain the expedited deportation of Afghan refugees from Iran. They are not taking any risk!

Right now, ironically, Iran is the safest and most stable spot in the region; and that doesn't please Americans (who don't like Iran's strength vis a vis Iraq), nor Russians (who don't like Iran's strength vis a vis the caucuses--where Iran and Russia has been in a pseudo cold-war over natural gas resources and delivery).

Molly, thanks! :)

Why is it always so cold, on your side of the bed?

Who would have thought that Joy Division would have something so cogent to say about Islamic fundamentalism?

That's what I said Scott. But it's right there in the remix ;)

"However, let's keep in mind WHO actually brought AQ to existence! May I say, CIA?"

Not really, no. Try "ISI." The U.S. supplied lots of money to Pakistan, along with Saudi Arabia, for the ISI to channel as they saw fit to Afghani jihadists. Not the CIA, which wasn't allowed, for the most part, any direct contact with the Afghans, let alone chosing which of them them would receive money, let alone organizing them.

Moreover, al Qaeda, per se, came into existence after the U.S. had ceased supplying money to Afghans at all. So, basically, no, you can't say that if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Moreover, al Qaeda, per se, came into existence after the U.S. had ceased supplying money to Afghans at all. So, basically, no, you can't say that if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Unless, of course, he was talking about bloody precursors (and I really don't give a fvck if it is misspelted). In which case, yeah, he did know what he's talking about.

But even then Jeff, the CIA did not bring al-Qaeda, or its precursors, into existence. Once active, the US government encouraged several factions of Afghan resistance fighters (funded and armed them). Some of the foreigners who joined the resistance later went on to form al-Qaeda.

But al-Qaeda's leadership was not formed then and there. For example, Zawahiri was an active radical during the 1970s. His outfit was behind the assassination of Sadat. He was imprisoned in Egypt and tortured mercilessly. Is it fair to say that we created Zawahiri? More likely, the Egyptian regime did in advertantly.

al-Qaeda created itself. It is true that while some of al-Qaeda's future-participants were involved in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, we likely provided some with the aforementioned aid. But via the ISI. And still, this does not equate to bringing al-Qaeda, or its precursors, into existence.

"Unless, of course, he was talking about bloody precursors"

As I just got through explaining, they weren't created by the CIA. Any history you like can verify this. Try the book Eric has pushed, Legacy of Ashes, say, or try Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, or try Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, or try Jason Burke, or Charlie Wilson's War, or whatever reputable source you like; don't take my word for it.

And then, yes, you'll actually know what you're talking about, which is that the CIA most certainly did not create al Qaeda.

And Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri was an eventual leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which also wasn't created by the CIA, and which was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also wasn't created by the CIA.

And, yes, it's helpful to know what one is talking about in discussing these, or any subjects, rather than just repeating silly-ass bumper-sticker slogans and myths.

"Unless, of course, he was talking about bloody precursors"

As I just got through explaining, they weren't created by the CIA. Any history you like can verify this. Try the book Eric has pushed, Legacy of Ashes, say, or try Steve Coll's Ghost Wars, or try Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, or try Jason Burke, or [continued in Pt. II]

Pt. II: Charlie Wilson's War, or whatever reputable source you like; don't take my word for it.

And then, yes, you'll actually know what you're talking about, which is that the CIA most certainly did not create al Qaeda.

And Ayman Muhammad Rabaie al-Zawahiri was an eventual leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which also wasn't created by the CIA, and which was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which also wasn't created by the CIA.

And, yes, it's helpful to know what one is talking about in discussing these, or any subjects, rather than just repeating silly-ass bumper-sticker slogans and myths.

"which is that the CIA most certainly did not create al Qaeda."

Neither did it create any of the Afghan resistance groups. They all formed themselves, and then were funded by the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, which was the sole outside group that had any significant contact with them, and which was the sole conduit for funding. Saudi Arabia and the U.S., the latter via the CIA, handed over vast sums of money to the ISI, but had almost no other contact with the Afghan resistance, let alone "creating" them. Again, see all of the above books I mentioned, and more, for details.

The comments to this entry are closed.