Is the Arab Peace Initiative the key to achieving peace in the Middle East?

[Ivan Seeking]

In a message purportedly from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda deputy accused US President-elect Barack Obama of betraying his Muslim roots.

He likened him to a "house slave" - who had chosen to align himself with the "enemies" of Islam.

...This is undoubtedly a message aimed at sustaining anti-American sentiment among Muslims in the face of Barack Obama's election, says the BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson.

But it is a risky approach, our correspondent says.

Barack Obama is hugely popular world-wide and his colour and background make him a much tougher target to attack than President George W Bush in the eyes of a global audience, he says. [continued]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7737710.stm

No no, he is not different, he is an infidel! Really! And he is a slave to the infidels!

In the face of Obama's immense popularity abroad, does Al-Qaeda now have a public relations problem?

I think so.

 

[chemisttree]

When didn't Al Qaeda have a public relations problem?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When didn't Al Qaeda have a public relations problem?

In the ME, of course.

Answer: When Bush was President.

 

[mgb_phys]

Al Qaeda need a rebranding exercise, the AK47 is really overused by terrorist logos.
The arabic writing on the flags doesn't test well with the illiterate market.
Additionally the whole straggly beard motif doesn't sell to the female demographic.

Perhaps they could do something with pastels and a flower based logo?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, some flowers may make the "blow yourself to bits" option more attractive.

Before he even takes office, Obama has the terrorists playing defense.

 

[chemisttree]

I don't think Al Qaeda is the only one with an image problem in the ME...

Yet, news of Emanuel's appointment is causing a stir in the Middle East. It's being met with some elation in Israel, a country that has been notably uneasy about an Obama presidency, and some despair in the Arab world, which had largely embraced Obama. An Oxford-educated Arab friend called Thursday night to ask me in a tone of deep disappointment, "Did you notice how in the span of 24 hours Egyptians went from being ecstatic to being depressed about Obama?" The Arab News in Jeddah, whose editorials are a good reflection of the Arab mainstream, did an astounding somersault on Friday. Just the previous day, the paper hailed the "symbol of hope and change" in the U.S., saying Obama's historic election "threatens the cosy Washington consensus. We are, therefore, embarking on exciting times." After hearing of Emanuel's appointment, the paper headlined its next editorial "Don't pin much hope on Obama." Arab expectations, the paper warned, "are likely to be dashed, generating a great deal of pain and resentment...The new team may turn out to be as pro-Israeli as the one it is replacing."

http://mideast.blogs.time.com/
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=116161&d=7&m=11&y=2008

Before he even takes office, Obama is playing into the hands of the Terrorists.

 

[Cyrus]

"Obama is playing into the hands of the Terrorists.

Debatable argument. Considering what you said earlier, i.e.:

In a message purportedly from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda deputy accused US President-elect Barack Obama of betraying his Muslim roots.

The terrorists really wouldn't give a damn if he picked rahm-E or not. You need to revise your statement to 'playing into the hands of the terrorists' if you are using sources from mainstream news sources from Egypt. As we both know, that isn't a terrorist organization nor does it have anything to do with it. I think what you meant to say was, "Obamas choice of rahm is working against him in the arab media" - which would constitute a valid argument.

 

[LowlyPion]

I would think that Al Qaeda should be afraid of Obama.

With Bush, never catching him gave him a reason to hide behind so he and Cheney could conduct aggressive action against Iraq and Iran.

Obama on the other hand sees different strategic interests, and settling things in the Middle East would be a useful way forward to focus domestically and develop technologies for greater independence from oil in the first place. My suspicion is that at the highest levels Bush and Cheney have wanted to actually keep Bin Laden alive to serve their own Machiavellian purposes. It likely wouldn't be the first time the Ventriloquist and his Puppet postured on the big stage.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You need to revise your statement to 'playing into the hands of the terrorists' if you are using sources from mainstream news sources from Egypt.

Not to mention that according to chemisttree, by implication, Bush had apparently been playing into the hands of the terrorists all along.

I agree with your general point as well. The idea that individual appointments will have any lasting impact on global perception, is silly.

Also, the terrorists clearly do feel threatened by Obama's positive image, and his message of peace and cooperation. That is why they made the video.

 

[chemisttree]

Debatable argument. Considering what you said earlier, i.e.:

Huh? Who are you quoting?

The terrorists really wouldn't give a damn if he picked rahm-E or not.

Non sequitur... the point made by Ivan was that Al Qaeda had a good image in the ME. I don't agree. Now you are equating that, somehow, with me saying that the discussion is somehow related to Obama's image with terrorists. Thus what follows makes no sense...

You need to revise your statement to 'playing into the hands of the terrorists' if you are using sources from mainstream news sources from Egypt. As we both know, that isn't a terrorist organization nor does it have anything to do with it. I think what you meant to say was, "Obamas choice of rahm is working against him in the arab media" - which would constitute a valid argument.

My actual point was that if it was the terrorist's aim was toward "... sustaining anti-American sentiment among Muslims in the face of Barack Obama's election...", as was stated in the article that Ivan quoted, that Obama was himself acting in that capacity as well. Thus, Obama is 'playing into the hands of the terrorists'.

 

[WarPhalange]

Of course Al-Qaeda is afraid of Obama -- He's one of them!

Okay, so the real reason they are afraid of him is because he has more than 2 brain cells and will actually try to get things to work out in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of brute forcing a failing method. Not to mention being able to garner support from allies and in general the whole message of peace, as Ivan put it.

 

[chemisttree]

Not to mention that according to chemisttree, by implication, Bush had apparently been playing into the hands of the terrorists all along.

Again, non sequitur to the discussion. I made absolutely no inference to Bush (or McCain!).

 

[russ_watters]

Al-Qaeda afraid of Obama?

I can see no logical reason why you would think that they are - could you explain? To me it implies that they are not afraid of him. They do these things for PR, but they wouldn't do them as much if they thought there would be consequences. The purpsoe is therefore probably to show that they are not afraid of him. It's an opening shot, an act of defiance, and an attempt to intimidate.

Also, the terrorists clearly do feel threatened by Obama's positive image, and his message of peace and cooperation. That is why they made the video.

Please explain. Just asserting it is not an explanation and carries no weight.

This thread is of very poor quality, Ivan. As you know, the OP of a thread sets the tone. Your OP provided assertions without explanations -- and then you continued that tone.

 

[kasse]

Al Qaeda fear nothing; they know God is on their side. They're not even afraid to die.

The islamists are playing victims. They won't stop terrorising before the whole western world is islamised and Sharia is s global law. I agree with Obama. No need to withdraw the troops and let crazy islamists gain power.

 

[Cyrus]

Huh? Who are you quoting?

I was quoting the article that you provided. Sorry, I should not have said "you said", but "your provided article said"

Edit: Sorry, that was Ivan's link. Not yours.

Non sequitur... the point made by Ivan was that Al Qaeda had a good image in the ME. I don't agree. Now you are equating that, somehow, with me saying that the discussion is somehow related to Obama's image with terrorists. Thus what follows makes no sense...

Not at all. The terrorists are not going to say, gee obama sure is a swell guy. As your link showed, they said he was 'betraying his muslim roots'. The 'they' in the last sentence being al-qaeda. Given that fact, even if Obama did not pick rahm-E, they would still find an excuse, some excuse, any excuse, to daemonize him.

What I'm saying is that his pick of rahm-E, a jew, will work against him when it comes to the arab press. This is totally different than Al Qaeda (stated in the earlier paragraph) because they were never going to be supporting him, ever. The arab press would and did.

This is why I'm saying your use of describing the pick of rahm-E in the arab press AND al qaeda in the same breath is comparing apples to oranges.

My actual point was that if it was the terrorist's aim was toward "... sustaining anti-American sentiment among Muslims in the face of Barack Obama's election...", as was stated in the article that Ivan quoted, that Obama was himself acting in that capacity as well. Thus, Obama is 'playing into the hands of the terrorists'.

I don't know if I would agree with the last sentence. I understand what you're saying. But I would counter your agument that 'playing into the hands of the terrorists' would be picking someone, a non-jew, actually no jews, to work for him in high level positions. Now, that's pandering to the terrorists, IMO.

 

[jreelawg]

The republicans especially Joe the plumber got them all excited by implying Obama would mean death to Israel. His appointment of Rahm is just a clear sign that Obama isn't a terrorist bent on destroying Israel.

 

[Moonbear]

I can see no logical reason why you would think that they are - could you explain? To me it implies that they are not afraid of him. They do these things for PR, but they wouldn't do them as much if they thought there would be consequences. The purpsoe is therefore probably to show that they are not afraid of him. It's an opening shot, an act of defiance, and an attempt to intimidate.

I agree. That's my interpretation as well. They're recognizing the new leadership, so are turning their focus from old to new, but letting the world know that it doesn't matter to them who is in charge and they are still a threat.

 

[Proton Soup]

I don't think Al Qaeda is the only one with an image problem in the ME...

http://mideast.blogs.time.com/
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=116161&d=7&m=11&y=2008

Before he even takes office, Obama is playing into the hands of the Terrorists.

so what are you trying to say, that muslims don't like jews?! sir, i find that hard to believe, but if so, maybe Obama should think twice about hiring jews, now.

 

[leopard]

What motivates Al Qaeda? It takes something special to behave like they do.

 

[mgb_phys]

What motivates Al Qaeda? It takes something special to behave like they do.

Some magic guy in the clouds with a big beard who claims to have created the world.

 

[leopard]

It was a serious question. God doesn't motivate terrorism, then the world would have been full of them.

 

[Proton Soup]

Some magic guy in the clouds with a big beard who claims to have created the world.

becoming Imam is highly competitive.

 

[mgb_phys]

It was a serious question. God doesn't motivate terrorism,

Because god tells you to kill people that have a different god
Or the same god but you disagree about the details of the length of a vestment on the third week before easter.

then the world would have been full of them.

It always has been,

Of course they don't all hate America -

 

[leopard]

That's not the reason for terrorism. Then all believers would be terrorists, and as you know most people of faith are good people.

 

[jreelawg]

While religion is one factor in the new age of terrorism, I think that most terrorists are motivated out of revenge.

 

[leopard]

I will rather say that Al Qaeda misuse Islam to brainwash young people. What they learn at these schools, isn't real Islam. If he really believed that they would get 72 virgins in Heaven if they become suicide bombers, bin Laden would have been a martyr long a go.

What is it that REALLY motivates bin Laden & co.? Maybe revenge for Western invasion on their soil?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I found it interesting that they used the icon of Malcolm X and appealed to black on black racism by referring to Obama as a 'house negro'.

I wonder if he really intends to focus on Afghanistan and attempt to "kill Osama bin Laden", as he stated in the debates, and how that will effect middle eastern relations.

 

[jreelawg]

Bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia, and we never invaded Saudi Arabia, I think Bin Ladin himself might be motivated by religion. I think he believes himself to be some kind of messiah or prophet. He uses this image to act as the head of a radical cult.

But the fuel he uses to attract support is the fact that people have so much to be angry about.

Jim Jones was able to brainwash so many people using the emotional responses of people seeking an end to racism during the era of segregation. Then later he convinced them all to commit suicide as a protest to a cruel world.

The same thing goes on with terrorism, someone uses the emotional reactions of events to motivate people and to convince them that they are working for god.

The best way to defeat these people is to give them no events to exploit. Then in a few years, people will begin to wonder why they have to die for the cause. They will be more compelled to question whether killing themselves is necessary.

 

[Werg22]

I will rather say that Al Qaeda misuse Islam to brainwash young people. What they learn at these schools, isn't real Islam. If he really believed that they would get 72 virgins in Heaven if they become suicide bombers, bin Laden would have been a martyr long a go.

What is it that REALLY motivates bin Laden & co.? Maybe revenge for Western invasion on their soil?

In my senior of High School, I had to write an extended essay on a question of my choice, and I chose one that is somewhat related to yours. From what I have learned:

What motivates Al-Quaeda, or rather what earns them support, is a general sentiment in the Arab world that the West has been humiliating and betraying the Arabs ever since western powers came in contact with the Arab world in the 19th century. What constitutes by far the biggest frustration is the role the West had had on the creation of an exclusively Jewish state on land that was until then inhabited largely by non-Jewish Arabs. The Arabs objected to the creation of Israel, even though the original plan was more generous to the Arabs than what the situation today let's presume. However, regardless of their objections, the state of Israel was still proclaimed and that constituted and large portion of Arab world regarded this as a blow to their pride. The conflict that would result is, I believe, the real poison in the region and the fuel to the support of anti-West terrorist groups. Of course, terrorism has grown out of the Arab world rallying to its cause non-Arab muslims, but that's because they sympathize with Arab Muslims.

I think the highly religious aspect of Muslim terrorism is mostly circumstantial, stemming from the religious conservatism in the Arab world that has, unlike in the West, not dissipated. I don't think the situation today would have been much different had religious zeal not been present, because what has been the gate-opener to terrorism is mostly a non-religious conflict.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because god tells you to kill people that have a different god
Or the same god but you disagree about the details of the length of a vestment on the third week before easter.

Islamic extremists are no different than national extremists. If all religion, or all of Islam is to blame for terrorists, then all who say the pledge of allegence, and patriotism, are responsible for Hitler and his kind.

 

[leopard]

The best way to defeat these people is to give them no events to exploit. Then in a few years, people will begin to wonder why they have to die for the cause.

Sounds like a good plan. How do we do that?

 

[leopard]

Islamic extremists are no different than national extremists. If all religion, or all of Islam is to blame for terrorists, then all who say the pledge of allegence, and patriotism, are responsible for Hitler and his kind.

True. Moreover, islamists aren't real muslims.

 

[jreelawg]

We start by aiming at stabilizing regions and showing that we aren't just there to kill people. In Afganistan we could have been heros for helping them defeat the russians, but as soon as the russians gave up, we left them to be devoured by the very forces we created. We could have invested in schools and helped to rebuild some of the lively hood of the state. Instead we showed no concern for those problems. As a result we now have a breeding ground of terrorists.

There is a sentement out there that the U.S. isn't out there to help them but instead to hurt them. Those people need to see for there own eyes that we don't just come to find our enemies and kill them meanwhile messing up things for innocent bystanders, but that we have an interest in establishing peace in the region and that our presence is a good thing for them.

The real war is in the minds of the people, and we have to fight on that battlefield as well. If people see that the U.S. is building schools and helping farmers, then that will be working in our favor for the long run.

If we can bring improved conditions then people will side with us eventually. Bringing bad conditions as a side effect of our national interests hunting terrorists will only empower the terrorist movement.

What we should not do is be clumsy when we do our air strikes and what not. One event in which innocent civilians die can bring rise to an enormous amount of anti americanism.

 

[mheslep]

... What constitutes by far the biggest frustration is the role the West had had on the creation of an exclusively Jewish state on land that was until then inhabited largely by non-Jewish Arabs.

No. At the time, not until then.

 

[Werg22]

Well, it wasn't exactly yesterday when the Arabs settled in the region.