Al Qaeda and Victims

4 posts


The most acceptable opinion on Al Qaeda and 9/11 among mainstream, moderate Muslims in the West and in Westernized pockets of predominantly Islamic countries is in short, "Empathy but not sympathy" or "I understand why they do it, but I don't agree that they should do it". Very few Muslims will ever say that OBL was wrong about American foreign policy, only that his reaction was immoral. They'll cite a verse from the Quran or Hadith against killing innocents, to counter verses encouraging it, and insist the religion has a peaceful (though not pacifist) intent, that Jihad has bounds, rules, and that only enemy combatants are legitimate targets.

Pro-Jihadists regularly press the point that either AQ doesn't kill innocents, if it does it isn't intentional, or that the guilt rests with the aggressor. But nothing, in the decade since 9/11, has overcome the widespread Muslim gag reaction to terrorism. The ordinary Muslim can not defend the mass killing of unarmed, ignorant, powerless nobodies.

AQ hit the WTC and Pentagon as a part of a stategy that is arguably working. The US is bleeding until bankruptcy, and if it continues it will eventually be unable to pursue the polices that provoke such attacks. But killing commuters in London and Madrid, or desk monkeys in NYC has made the Jihadist cause far too unpopular.

Of the 430 companies in the WTC, and the agencies in the Pentagon, few had any say in implementing the pattern of American intervention in the Muslim world.

If AQ targets America because it wants to end American offenses, such as support for Israel and secular despots, bombing and invading, CIA coups, etc... Why doesn't it target the firms and individuals responsible for these policies? Why does a random secretary or accountant die in a towering inferno, while think tanks and lobbies who brain birth wars remain untouched? If Mohammed Atta was so upset with the billions the US pours into Tel Aviv, didn't he know where to find AIPAC? Why try to bring an airliner down with an underwear or shoe bomb, in revenge for the Iraq war, when KBR executives and investors are walking about freely and happily?

I'm not advocating any such action (FBI/NSA internet watchers), but I wonder why it hasn't happened. AQ could retain, regain, and increase their popularity with Muslims if it chose its targets more wisely, targets who couldn't be mistaken for innocents, and it would be more effective in ending the problems that motivate them. Why don't they hit the PNAC, why don't they come after Xe, why don't they take it to Exxon and the boys who from their homes in Texas dreamed to bomb Baghdad?

I have two possible answers; the truthers are right about AQ being false flag agents meant to provide casus belli to these same people I'm so perplexed haven't shed a drop of blood... or AQ just isn't thinking sharp enough and is stuck in a silly RISK view of the world, where they must take down nations because nations bear the collective responsibility for their foreign affairs.


Consider that Al-Qaeda are probably only interested in recruiting hardcore Muslims, not moderate pussies.

Also note that Al-Qaeda was appointed by an angry God to punish America, not just a few dorks at some neocon think-tanks who were also appointed to punish America. There's no point in crying about the victims of Al-Qaeda. They're in Hell already.



I've wondered the same thing about far-right domestic terrorists. Why did the Order target a radio shock jock when Hollywood is filled with culture-destroying targets? Or the SPLC? Why did McVeigh bomb a building filled with innocents when he was a trained sniper who could have gone after individuals with actual culpability?


Yes, and why didn't Ted Kaczynski target robots instead of humans?