I have been wondering recently why all the Al-Qaeda attacks happen in countries that would be at the bottom of the list of expected targets for a terrorist group with their agenda. They aim at American or Israeli targets but that does not explain the exotic selection of places they chose to do so. Here is a list of suspected Al-Qaeda attacks, by no means exhaustive:
- Djerba, Tunisia, 9th March – A truck explodes near the El Ghriba synangogue, killing 14
- Rishon Letzion, Israel, 11th April – a suicide bomber kills 16 and wounds 60 at a billiard hall
- Karachi, Pakistan, 14th June – suspected suicide bomber kills 14 outside Sheraton hotel and a car bomb outside the US consulate explodes later killing 11 and injuring 45
- Aden, Yemen, 6th October – an explosion of the French tanker Limburg kills a crew member
- Bali, Indonesia, 12th October – bombs explode outside the Sari Club disco at Kuta Beach resort killing 185 people and injuring hundreds more. A third bomb explodes near the US consulate in Sanur, no-one is hurt.
- Zamboanga, Philippines, 17th October 2002 – two bombs detonated at a shopping center leaving 6 people dead and 144 injured.
- Mombasa, Kenya – 28th November – a vehicle crashes into the lobby of the Paradise Hotel and together with a second device explodes, 14 killed and 80 injured. Two Stinger missiles are fired at an Israeli passenger jet at it takes off from Mombasa airport, narrowly missing 260 passengers.
These are not obvious terrorist destinations. One explanation is that the developed Western country have higher security, which makes it more difficult to carry out same style of attacks. I very much doubt that, as the IRA used to manage just fine disrupting life in London and I am not aware of any security measures that would make terrorist attacks impossible.
Any more theories about why the strange collection of targets? It is the ones that are missing from the list that puzzle me…
The reasons Al Queada go for these targets seems to (me to) be the oppotunity to recruit some very stupid idiots to throw their lives away after many years of indoctrination. Al Queada is best seen as a suicide cult.
In most cases the attacks seem locally orientated, symbolic to the Muslim world rather than the West, and with weapons supplied by a network with the financial muscle of a small country (but no GDP) but no sense of responsibility. They do not take responsibility for their attacks either.
This hydra has many heads but as each one is lopped off, more may grow but the neck will bleed until nobody is stupid enough to accept “help” killing themselves for some local or perceived cause from someone who then just hijacks their (local) intent.
Stop seeking logic in the dealings of a group totally devoid of any logic, or at least any logic that we can understand. There is no logic, there is no central command with a plan or a strategy. Their strikes are random, they strike wherever some guy spots an oportunity to kill, and finds an easy target. And stop analysing too much because there is nothing to analyse. Stop wondering who did it – what does it matter if it is Hamas, the Palestinians or Qaeda ? What’s the difference? They are all the same.
It’s an ugly war. Nicholas is right: it’s a siucide cult, a death worshipers cult. But it is not a major threat to the existence of the West. It is not the Barabrians knocking at the gates of Rome. It’s a nuisance, no more. It will go away in due course, like the Red menace (which was far more serious) has.
Option 1: Maybe they just do not have a clue how to actually attack us. They just inept and stupid.
Option 2: Then again, in today’s papers there was a story about how Al Qaeda did plan to hijack a passenger aeroplane flying out of Heathrow on Sept 11 2001, so maybe we have just got lucky.
The fact 3 Arab guys were arrested in the UK just a couple weeks ago and charged with conspiring to release cyanide in the London Underground does rather suggest the ‘we have just been luck so far’ scenario seems the most likely one.
What’s with this al quaeda fixation? Not every islamic nutball is al quaeda. There’s hizbollah and so forth as well.
The main reason is probably that they are poor as shit, and stuck in whatever third world country birthed them – they can’t afford the plane fare.
Don’t forget Robert Reid attempting to blow up an aeroplane from Paris or the theatre in Chechnya.
It is probably a combination of factors:
Al-Qaeda’s immediate strategic objective is to ensure that all Western influence is removed from existing Muslim areas. Therefore, their attacks are concentrated in the Middle east, North africa and stretching towards South east asia.
However, they have targeted locations in the West but have a) been inept; b) are keeping their powder dry or c) the security is better than we imagined (unlikely).
We appear to be in a campaign of escalation and I don’t like to follow where that thought leads as they haven’t struck in Europe or the US yet
Two words:
Soft Targets
Third World tourism is now a casuality of the war on terrorism.
If you cannot secure your nation from Islamofascists.
You will not get western tourist dollars.
1. Have you noticed two days after we hear a Al-Quaeda bigshot is captured we hear that he’s talking? That’s the sort of thing that makes complex international operations difficult.
2. We have nailed a large part of the umbrella organization that connects the various cells so the attacks tend to be local.
3. The Big Database O’ Freedom. Using phones, credit-cards, electronic reservations and going to the loo leaves an electronic clue in the west. When the analysts have an idea what they’re looking for it’s hard to hide.
The choice of targets indicates al-Qeada is decending into self-parody and becoming an also-ran among international terrorist organizations. We in America are well advised to broaden our scope. I believe Hezbollah is the larger global threat at this time.
The choice of targets indicates al-Qeada is decending into self-parody and becoming an also-ran among international terrorist organizations. We in America are well advised to broaden our scope. I believe Hezbollah is the larger global threat at this time.
Is Hezbollah a global player now? I was under the impresion their ops were confined to the Middle East
There is some truth to most of the above. This is an organization with primarily religious goals, not material ones. The long term goal is to bring all Men under the One True Religion. Subgoals are to bring their own flock back to the fold of the old time religion; regain control of any land anywhere which was once Muslim (Israel, Spain, East Timor) because it is against God’s Will for any Muslim land to be taken back; and lastly to kill or convert the Infidel. (That’s us.)
There is more than one front in this war. Start looking at the attempts to create Muslim areas in Europe as one of the real goals to get a foothold for Shari’a in lands they failed to take by the sword some 6-800 years ago.
The US is a target because it’s the hardest nut to crack, the great Satan. Without the US the Europeans would keep givin g in until it either was either too late or close to it… and then there’d be one hellacious war over here again.
Don’t forget the birthrates and the proximity to Europe. These rich caliph wannabes have all the cannon fodder they could ever hope for if they can control it.
So quit thinking about logic and rational causes and solution. We are dealing with Capital R Religion of the convert or die sort that has infested side of the planet for millenia.
Zamboanga is part of Mindanao (I think), which is the Muslim part of the Philippines (at least where the MILF, MNLF and Abu Sayyaf have been fighting). Domestic terrorism has been going on there for ages, it’s not new.
The above comments are good. I think “low hanging fruit” comes to mind. THat’s not to say there isn’t logic. I’m sure al Quaida would love to remove the infidels from the hotels of Bali and Kenya.
And, I know on this site, it is fashionable to believe in the incompetence of government (believe me, I sympathize), but I think American security agencies are being actually quite effective. And not just the agencies, but the citizens of this country are being quite vigilent. I don’t think there is any shortage of tipsters reporting to the FBI. And, planning big operations without getting noticed is quite difficult now, with all the scrutiny from both the public and private sector (along with rules put into place by private businesses after OK City & the previous World Trade attacks).
And, don’t forget Afghanistan. We know that al Quaeda probably scattered after the war. A lot of them are probably still in Pakistan or somewhere in the middle east. Others are in other parts of the world. But for them to get to the U.S. and set up an active cell after the roundup of illegal immigrants after 9/11 and all the other intellegence, it is got to be quite daunting a task. ANd, if we believe these guys DO have some logic and ARE trying to get across a message, I doubt they’d settle for small attacks in America given the risks. They want BIG attacks in America, and that’s quite difficult to plan without getting noticed. And thanks to the heroes of Flight 93, I’d be shocked if there is ever a successful hijacking of an American airplane any time in the next 20 years.
Bottom line, I think soft targets are really what it’s all about. Any logic beyond that is betting on hitting nations that might be potential appeasers, since obviously the U.S. & Britain will not be.
The aim is threefold:
1. To push the US and Israel closer together. AlQ wants tp break down the firewall the US now has in its relations with Israel.
2. To pull US intel into more broadly dispersed regions hoping to dilute its effectiveness. ALQ’s chosen strategy is not to attack in the US but draw and dilute making the periphery of operations a nightmare for the US. In this wayUS will have to bring in Mossad just to cover all the turf with explosive consequences for the coalition. This is standard war of the flea stuff but on an international scale.
A month or so ago, someone suggested that AL’Q is like a franchise – a framework that makes sense to me. Franchise operations are notoriously difficult to control even when you want or try to do so.
If the aim is to spread terror, control is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive. Were the attacks logical, they would be easier to defend against. Leaving cells (franchisees) to plan and execute their own atrocities ensures the randomness and therefore the success of the process.
Sorry Russ, but by no stretch of the imagination are the US domestic security services more effective than those of the UK and in absolutely no way is the US public more ‘terrorism savvy’ than the UK public. Try leaving a shoulder bag unattended in a shop in London and see what happens. Why? Simple: we have been on the receiving end of Irish terrorism since the 1960’s.
The whole point underlying Adriana’s question was that if the IRA can cause chaos in London when it puts its mind to it, regardless of frequently being infiltrated by the formidable British security services, then why is Al Qaeda not doing the same in London or Manchester or Glasgow… and also in New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC etc. at least on an occasional basis? It is not like these places lack local Islamic populations to ‘host’ any operations and act as background cover the way some Irish communities in the UK have in the past. Arabs are not exactly a rare sight in many regions of the UK or USA. Also unlike Irish terrorist, who do rather insist on surviving their terrorist attacks, Al Qaeda terrorists do not give a damn if they go up in flames with their victims, so making the risk of getting ‘caught’ after their fell deeds rather meaningless.
As for the Samizdata view of government, to minarchists (which most but not all of us Samizdatistas are) security is the one true legitimate role of the state. But yes, our attitude is best summed up as:
The state is a core of malevolence surrounded by a thick cloying crust of incompetence
(Slogan of the day on Nov 7th of last year)
Perry, you correctly identified the the point and cause of my confusion. I will blog further on this after processing the comments and other sources…
For Perry Haviland:
Hezbollah has been responsible for two terrorist attacks in South America.
Here is a summary which mentions the two attacks.
Also, they kidnapped an Israeli reservist from Cyprus not too long back.
My own interpretation: that they are trying to create clearly defined Islamic territories in areas which have hitherto been mixed. Once they’ve managed the religious cleansing of inconvenient dissenters (often other muslim sects) they can then proceed to the implementation of complete sharia law. Hence the violence against the Xtian and animist people of Nigeria and Sudan, the Hindu and Xtian Balinese, the Xtian philipinos, the Hindu Kashmiris, and, most of all, the Jews of Israel.
Martin
Martin
Dear Martin Martin,
Xtian? What the hell is an Xtian? Why do you use odd terms without explaining them first? Reply in English please.
“But for them to get to the U.S. and set up an active cell after the roundup of illegal immigrants after 9/11”
I’m sure there are several million or so illegal immigrants still unroundedup. I’m also sure that AQ and other groups had deep cover cells in place well before 9/11. Both in the U.S. and Canada.
“Start looking at the attempts to create Muslim areas in Europe as one of the real goals to get a foothold for Shari’a in lands they failed to take by the sword some 6-800 years ago”
Attempts to use hate speech laws against their enemies might also be considered the Sinn Fein-esque side of this attempt:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/000101.html
The reason they conduct attacks in far-flung places might be to a) spread their enemies thin, b) drive non-Muslims out of those areas, and c) play to the locals, showing them that they care about their area and also trying to get local helpers.
Just a thought here, but maybe the IRA are more effective precisely because they intend to survive? Like, they plan harder, they boast and leak less, and their most successful operatives are long lived and experienced, not (as it were) one shot wonders.
Snide: When Martin wrote ‘Xtian’ above, it was slang for Christian, as in Xmas for Christmas. Common term in certain underground/counter-culture and/or non-Christian circles of the last few decades, primarily in the US.
(Generally, if someone considers Objectivists, Libertarians or Theosophists to be overly ‘straight’, they’d probably get the Xtian reference).
In short, any members of the Lunatic Fringe TM.
Now, which of any such non-groups I’M confortable with, only my Big Brother could tell you, but then he’d have to shoot you 🙂
Immiseration. Bali’s tourist industry has almost collapsed. Great local hardship will ensue. Deprived people are easier to recruit and radicalise. At least that’s the theory.
The big question of course is, will this work? Almost certainly not. All that is likely to happen is that the Islamofascists will elicit a response from security services that are much more sanguine about pulling out fingernails than ours.
Bali and the Israeli hotel attack have one, to me, obvious commonality. In addition to the immediate benefit of killing some infidels, there’s the strategically valuable long-term effect of destroying tourism, with all its modernizing effects from exposure to foreign people, practices and ideas.
(Anti-globalists are in practice, whether they think so or not, very effective allies of Islamicism.)
In the case of Bali, I think it was also a deliberate act of economic warfare against the Hindu population of Bali.
I was going to reply with my thoughts on your list, and in particular
which places were NOT on the list, but got distracted by Perry de
Havilland’s comment.
The ‘whole point’ paragraph did an excellent summation of a possibly
paradoxically situation. It stopped before any conclusions were drawn
unfortunately.
One solution to this is that AQ is not as capable or powerful as it
has been portrayed as being. Maybe there are not that many people
willing to undertake these attacks? Maybe it’s a static or shrinking
resource really? I hope it is.
I am not am optimist by nature though.
We should be as vigilant about the loss of liberty in the cause of
war as in the defense of it from totalitarianism and terror however.