Al-Qaida's Terror Is Based In Anarchism

by iosaf Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:47

Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, a noted egyptian pacifist and regular contributor to the egyptian magazine Ahram, which is closely aligned to the Egyptian state looks at "what makes a terrorist". His analysis sees terrorism (the Al Q kind) as a post cold war "third global pole".
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/754/op5.htm
Egypt is currently celebrating two anniversaries linked to its modern identity, one the founder of the modern state and the other an imam, Egyptians can trace their "ideas" through violence, terror, religious debate and political cultural traditions which now seek to "explain" Al Q which they naturally understand in a very different way to the average irishman or irishwoman as they also look to increased democracy in Egypt and of course the end of the military regime. It might be, that they "play our game"
by writing articles on a "new type of terror", when in fact they understand its not "new" at all, its older than jacobinism.

by iosaf Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:03

Soumayya Ghannoushi a member of SOAS just round the corner from the july bombs has written an article which I believe is important on Al Qaeda for a global audience which of the global audiences i am keenly aware of, knows the least about South American revolutionary politics or the route of violence and pacifist western liberalism from jacobin action to just about where i came in.
I enjoyed these last days a dinner of decent salad and conversation which looped into Ghannoushi's daily campus, the statue of Gandhi in the middle of the park, the medical council looking antisepctically over his yarn looming pose.
& you know what? Its an important article. It is being dismissed by those who are mostly ignorant of the "development of ideas" in other rivers of thought which previously we had not immediately considered, you look around Gandhi's statue and you see the antiseptic medical council, little red buses, and xviii buildings most of which survived the blitz and of couse that university. You don't see much of SOAS beyond its canteen's reputation, that is you don't read much of Ms. Ghannoushi's prejudice or historical ingnorance, it is all so...
familiar.

& it ought not be the last article wondering is there a relation between this and that, on the subject of comparing and contrasting "ideas", add Ms Ghannoushi to your list of writers, we may learn something from her yet, if the goal is not historicise a common enemy that is if the goal is to find a solution to the threat.
Paint them blue and call them the countrywide alliance. Squeeze them into Gandhi's park with orange sashes, or T-shirts, post-modernise them completely, give 'em baseball caps and paunches of familiarity.

by Bingo Bango Tue Aug 09, 2005 19:51

I take it, iosaf, that you're going to reveal how Al Qaeda are attempting to look radical by painting themselves red and black. If so - that IS worrying. The last thing progressive forces need is to be shackled with conservative lunatics.
I know the MAB and the British Socialist party have teamed up - as crazy as that is - but I'd hate to see further chimeras of this sort.

by iosaf Mon Aug 08, 2005 20:57

connection which has been made by a writer on Al Jazeera and the history of the left in europe and though inaccurate in both wide sweep and specific detail, it has marked a watershed in comments which see a process of politicisation.

[the computer I use has succesfully been salvaged, and all my files are currently on a little motherboard which is now being flushed for all known viruses. I will be back operational in 48 hours minimum and am most grateful to all those who have come to my/our little peruvian internauts assistance in the last days, and the value in workhours of the help given. Muchos Gracias. When I'm back online I'll compare and contrast this article and its significance with others in the general pattern of "politicising and historicising the agenda of Al Qaeda and those who might be recruited by them".

As I said, the article *is important*.

by R. Isible Mon Aug 08, 2005 20:48

And comments by Counterpunch editor/publisher Cockburn

by Bingo Bango Mon Aug 08, 2005 15:27

The article's not important at all. It takes more than having an 'idea' to make one an Anarchist. How the hell can religious fundamentalists have anything to do with libertarian communism? Get an education, idiots...

by iosaf Mon Aug 08, 2005 15:18

When its pitch is considered, as much as its readership are considered and presumed effect in the meta-narrative of what is AlQ "now". The meta-narrative has already changed, it is now common-place in the west to see "AlQ" spoken about as an umbrella group flag of convenience. This is a move, only several years ago, it was a centralised "smersh" style organisation which controlled from the afghan hills a drug empire, fleet, trainging camps and happily run recruitments through mosques such as Finsbury park concentrating on giving much needed housing and food to the most marginalised of the London muslim community in exchange for their unswerving loyalty to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu'ran and clear links with mujahaddin.
& now it is thought of merely as an "idea" an "idea" based in mimicry of attacks which are honed for meta-narrative, with plays on numbers, and no centralised agenda or "battle plan".
(as some of you might know the computer I normally publish from is dead, and with many links between areas of the news media which would normally be bounced to you. But if you can remember the issues which I had been monitoring for you across this summer till ["we over here in bcn" are online properly again"] they were Africa, in particular near subsaharan africa, and the internal conflict in the apartheid state of israel, as predicted Netanyahu has resigned, and _do_ run down this woman's way of thought, not as leftists, or anarchists but as "ignorant of the west's history".)

The article is important. I hope to tell you soon why.

by Bingo Bango Mon Aug 08, 2005 13:30

I think Al-Jazeera's image as a radical voice owes more to loonies like Donald Rumsfeld running around a few years back calling them a terrorist rag etc.
Rumsfeld calling you names no sign you're honest.

by Joe Mon Aug 08, 2005 13:15

I already responded in a polite and resonable manner last week pointing out the enormous factual errors aboves. They choose not to publish this factual correction. So they are pretty much no different in that from any other mainstream media source.

by Bingo Bango Mon Aug 08, 2005 13:11

The Al-Jazeera site has a response function by which you can reply to this article. Keep it clean, but if you care at all about setting the record straight let them know.
(I know that this is an open invitation to trolls, but as Al-Jazeera have never refuted the erroneous 'Jews Knew' stories about September 11th, I doubt they'd say sorry anyway.)

by Joe Mon Aug 08, 2005 13:03

The article is rubbish as one extract demonstrates
"al-Qaida falls largely within the modern tradition of revolutionary anarchists - from the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks down to latter-day Marxist guerrillas like the Baadr-Meinhoff Gang. "

Anyone with even a basic understanding of history knows that none of these groups were anarchists (calling the Bolseheviks anarchists is very weird as they actually suppressed the Russian anarchist movement from 1918-21).

However it is worrying as it is part of a growing trend that unites sections of the left and the right in trying to associate anarchism with Al Quaeda. From the left we have seen useful idiots like Tariq Ali do this (and he does know better) from the right the London Times has done so (with another article this weekend). Right after the London bombing 'the Economist' (which hates anarchists for obvious reasons) and the Austalian High Commissoner both suggested anarchists might turn out to be responsible.

This despite the fact that the actual anarchists in Britain were quick to condemn the bombing - see http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=897

As that fundamental anarchist slogans like 'No Gods, No masters' would sit more than a little uneasly with those who want to impose a religous state.

I actually wrote to Al Jazerra pointing out the ludicrous nature of that article - it is interesting to see that they choose not to publish this very obvious factual point in the comments on it they did publish.

by Bingo Bango Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:48

This report makes very little sense. If all it takes to be an Anarchist is an inability to see the difference between what is legal and what is illegal, then surely all governments everywhere are Anarchists when they change the law, as they are transforming what is illegal into the legal, and vice versa. This is, of course, crazy; as is this report.
Just academic drivel...