Misunderstanding al Qaeda: What you weren't told about their targets in Saudi Arabia (Must-read)

The Weekly Standard via the Benador Associates ^ | December 1, 2003 | Paul Marshall

[quidnunc]

American reactions to the recent bombing of a foreign workers' compound in Riyadh reveal multiple misreadings of the Arab world and — more dangerously — of both al Qaeda and the Saudis.

The media seem to equate Arab with Muslim and, along with some in the administration, think that al Qaeda's war is against Americans and Westerners per se, rather than against all "infidels," a group al Qaeda defines idiosyncratically and expansively as anyone who is not a strictly observant Muslim. Both mistakes are compounded by reliance on the Saudis' distorted account of the attack.

The November 8 bombing took place in a Lebanese Christian neighborhood of Riyadh, and of the seven publicly identified Lebanese victims, six were Christian. Lebanon's newspapers are replete with photographs of Maronite Catholic and Greek Orthodox victims. Daleel al Mojahid, an al Qaeda-linked webpage, praised the killing of "non-Muslims." The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes Abu Salma al Hijazi, reputed to be an al Qaeda commander, as saying that Saudi characterizations of the victims as Muslims were "merely media deceit."

If so, the media fell for it. Reuters described the bombing as against "fellow Muslims," the Los Angeles Times as "against Muslims," the Washington Times called the victims "innocent Muslims," the San Francisco Chronicle "Muslim civilians who happened to be in the wrong place," and the New York Times "expatriates from other Muslim countries."

Others used vaguer terms. The BBC said the "bombing killed Arabs and Muslims," as did the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. In the Wall Street Journal, David Pryce-Jones pronounced the dead "exclusively Arabs and Muslims." While perhaps strictly correct, this circumlocution hides the fact that the victims included Arab non-Muslims and Muslim non-Arabs.

The effect of this mischaracterization is to link Arab to Muslim, ignoring the large numbers of Christian Arabs from Egypt, Lebanon, and elsewhere who work in Saudi Arabia (and Israel) and have long been targeted by Islamic extremists, including by the Saudi government. (At the time of the bombing, two Egyptian Christians, Sabry Gayed and Guirguis Eskander, were in a Riyadh prison for holding a worship service, even though Prince Sultan had ordered them released.)

Similarly, media coverage of the October 4 suicide attack on Maxim, a restaurant in Haifa, noted that one co-owner was Jewish, but described the other simply as "Arab." Commentators wondered why Palestinian terrorists were killing "Arabs." But the second co-owner was actually a Lebanese Catholic, as were many of those killed. The term "Arab," while playing into America's obsession with ethnicity, hides the religious dimension that is central to the worldview of al Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

Similar puzzlement over attacks in Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, as well as over the targeting of the U.N. and Red Cross in Iraq, reflects a focus on nationality and ethnicity that misses the terrorists' own obsession with "infidels" and once again ties the attacks exclusively to anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism.

-snip-

[wtc911]

In turkey the muslim government shuts down Christian churces and radio stations. This is recent and easily verified yet turks and their apologists here want us to believe otherwise...why is that?

[okie01]

To be fair, the Western press, out of ignorance...

And, to be honest, there is no shortage of that in the Western press...

[Mr. Mojo]

How many muslims in America contribute to the terrorists through the mosque?

Yep, and it's a brilliant move, actually. They're playing on our weaknesses, knowing full well that CAIR and the other Muslim-terrorist apologists in this country would play the race and "freedom of religion" cards to the hilt if the U.S. began investigating mosques and busting up the terrorist rings therein. Mosques (as fronts) are their secret weapon. ....but becoming less secret every day, thankfully. Perhaps one day we'll have the guts to do what needs to be done.

[Spok]

This fact has not been overlooked but deliberately ignored by the left, especially the leftist media.
Remember that to a good lefty, ALL events are agenda driven-from the rising of the sun to the melting of a glacier. The spin IS ALWAYS anti-capitalist, anti-corporate and anti-American. To blame the seeds of this conflict on a clash between two cultures that predate the founding of the American Republican party profits them nothing. No, the cause must have political and economic roots traceable directly back to greedy American motives and conduct-this gives them a situation that can be exploited politically to their advantage. This is the spin that gives them political leverage with the spilling of American blood. As with the Bolsheviks, EVERYTHING is politicized.

[wtc911]

There are 17 serving muslim Chaplains in the US Army. They all (including Capt. Lee, currently under arrest for treason) share the same sponsoring agent. The founder of that agency is under indictment for money laundering and other activities in support of islamic terror groups.

[CoolPapaBoze]

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone in this country, or any country for that matter, can advocate anything less than the total annihilation of these people. The islamofascists have made it very clear what their goal is, as you state, yet we still have dullards in the U.S. and other countries that think there is some alternative to war.

[theFIRMbss]

>Our military presence in the Balkins should have alarmed a lot of Americans, yet they seem to snooze on. ... Your average American to this day couldn't tell you what it's about

And how would you know?
The media doesn't show
"average" people,

the media shows
people that fit its image...
And, anyway, how

does understanding
the Balkans help us decide
Hillary or Bush?

And isn't that choice
the only real choice we
have on our menu?

[Mat_Helm]

The paradox is that fundamentalist muslims that strictly follow their religion kill christians and the average muslim who dose not take the muslim faith serious kills nobody but likes when their radical buddies do, while the fundamentalist christian kills nobody and prays for their enimies and the mediocre christian who can't seem to be able to turn the other cheek would gladly pull the trigger and dispatch a known radical muslim if the opportunity presented itself. The difference is that muslims all over the world are actively killing christians globaly while the occasional christian kills only in self defense. Those my friends are the cold hard facts.

[gcruse]

Duplicitous? Maybe so. But I'd rather the Arabs think that Al Quada is attacking fellow Arabs and split them apart than have this played up as a religious war. We don't need that right now.

[quidnunc]

gcruse wrote: Duplicitous? Maybe so. But I'd rather the Arabs think that Al Quada is attacking fellow Arabs and split them apart than have this played up as a religious war. We don't need that right now.

I don't think the Muslims are fooled one bit about just who al Qaeda is really attacking — or about the true nature of this war.

As James Lileks ovserved on his weblog today: "… (I)f the other side regards themselves as war with you, and victory is their objective, you’re a fool not to pay notice."

By pussyfooting around we're only deluding ourselves to our own disadvantage.

[gcruse]

By pussyfooting around we're only deluding ourselves to our own disadvantage.

What would be satisfactory to you?  Declaring war on all Muslims?

[quidnunc]

gcruse wrote: (By pussyfooting around we're only deluding ourselves to our own disadvantage.) What would be satisfactory to you?  Declaring war on all Muslims?

TRhat's not remotely what I said.

What I do say is that it is vital for each and every one of us to recognise exactly who the enemy is, what motivates him and what his ultimate goal is — and then to make it abundently clear that we're not fooled by the dissembling of our enemy's apologists.

[Former Proud Canadian]

Great post quid. In particular:

"Al Qaeda and its allies aim to kill or subdue all "infidels," Muslim or non-Muslim, who stand in the way of their goal of restoring a worldwide caliphate governed, Taliban-style, by the strictest, narrowest interpretation of Islamic law.

Until this fact is finally assimilated, we will continue to have a military that fights superbly against an enemy whose strategic aims we refuse to understand. "

[gcruse]

What I do say is that it is vital for each and every one of us to recognise exactly who the enemy is, what motivates him

I recognize who the enemy is, and if I can have him turn in onto himself, it makes his defeat easier.  This article wants to push religious war.  Let the Saudis fight Osama wherever possible.  They have human assets that can blend into Al Q'ueda.  We fail spectacularly at that.

[armadale]

If I'm not mistaken, the President & advisors called the victims "fellow Muslims" as well.

It would be nice if our President made the distinction offered by this article.

[Gritty]

Religion Of Peace BUMP!

[ladyinred]

This is more than interesting, and rather disgusting.

[LikeLight]

Mat,

This is something I've often thought about. Whenever you get a group of Christians who take their beliefs seriously and make a profound effort to live them out, you end up with something like the Amish. But when you get a group of Islamists who take their beliefs seriously and make a profound effort to live them out, you end up with something like 9/11.

[GatekeeperBookman]

the Crusades were in RESPONSE to the muslim invasion of Europe.

"The War does indeed have many facets; http://aztlan.net/ Look at your enemy."