Jun 08 2008

As The Sun Sets On al-Qaeda

Published by at 11:33 pm under All General Discussions,Bin Laden/GWOT

I would not have predicted, in the year or so after 9-11, that we would find ourselves 7 years later without any new terrorist attacks in the US, and al-Qaeda and their ilk fading in popularity across the Muslim community. And (if one wants to skip to the end of this post) who would have predicted Iraqi Muslims volunteering to go to Pakistan to find and destroy Bin Laden? It would have been Pollyannish to expect such great progress within such a short time. But it seems that this is what has happened, as we learn about al-Qaeda’s fall from grace among even the most extreme Islamists:

But few are aware a tectonic shift has taken place beneath the headlines in the wider war on terrorism – one that could within a few years significantly lower the likelihood of terror returning to New York’s streets.

This is because Al Qaeda has gotten itself into hot water with the one constituency that it cannot afford to alienate: its fellow jihadists.

Over the past year, a growing number of very consequential figures in the jihadist movement have publicly and vociferously repudiated Osama Bin Laden. And that is costing Al Qaeda the hearts and minds of many of those radical-leaning Muslims who might otherwise sympathize with the terrorists.

When we went into Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein (who did have ties to the organization run by al-Qaeda’s number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri) al-Qaeda found its largest enemy apparently within a trap it could not resist tripping. al-Qaeda decided to go all out and named Iraq the number one battle against America and the infidels, the beginning of a modern Caliphate that would have its capitol in Ramadi – capitol of Anbar Province. And initially the Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda against American forces.

But to garner the news headlines it required to win the war against the will and determination of America, something Bin Laden predicted would fail, something he assumed would fail, al-Qaeda started to indiscriminately massacre – killing thousands of Iraqi Muslims in the process. When the Iraqis started to raise objections, they were killed in the most gruesome ways in order to bring them back in line under the rule of al-Qaeda’s foreign thugs. It was these atrocities against fellow Muslims which turned al-Qaeda’s support base against it.

The mutiny has been brewing for a while now. Many leading figures in the jihadist movement like Benotman were skeptical of Bin Laden’s anti-American jihad even early on, concerned that violence against innocent Americans would be counterproductive. Benotman himself traveled to Afghanistan in 2000 to personally plead with Bin Laden to stop his operations against the United States, but fatefully made no headway.

Since then, Al Qaeda – which views dissenting Muslims as apostates worthy of death – has been a victim of its own “success.” Instead of trying to win over Iraq’s population, Al Qaeda went on a killing spree that alarmed even fellow insurgents.

“Anyone who criticizes them or goes against them and demonstrates their error in such actions they try to kill,” complained the leaders of the Islamic Army of Iraq in April 2007. By the end of the year, most Iraqi Sunnis had turned on Al Qaeda.

This is by no means an isolated observation. Ayman Zawahiri was left to try and defend the killing of Muslims when he recently participated in an internet open question exercise. Many Muslims demanded to know what gave al-Qaeda the right to brutalize Muslims on a scale not seen in centuries, probably since the time of the Crusades.

And the backlash has been global – anywhere that has felt the touch of Bin Laden’s Islamo Fascist oppression:

Iraq is only one front in a global backlash. Recent polls show that Al Qaeda has hemorrhaged support in places where its terrorist campaign has reached people’s doorsteps. By one measure, pro-Al Qaeda sentiment is now down to 10% in Saudi Arabia – and has dropped from 70% to 4% in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. The number of Al Qaeda sympathizers in Britain fell dramatically after the 2005 London bombings.

Now one can find clerics and mosques damning al-Qaeda and Bin Laden for their crimes:

During Friday prayers this weekend, Dr Usama Hasan stood at the pulpit of his Tawhid mosque in Leyton, east London, and delivered a sermon on the sinfulness of alcohol and drugs.

It was quite a sedate affair compared with some of the sermons the 36-year-old imam has given. He often uses his platform to rally his congregation against terrorism, condemning Osama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda leader, and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri as unIslamic criminals.

This has earned Hasan death threats from some worshippers, while others have called him a “sell-out” and a “government stooge”.

Undeterred, Hasan has vowed to continue his fight against extremists. “It’s a hard struggle,” he said last week. “I’ve had people storm out in protest, but I’ve been involved in this mosque for 20 years so the vast majority of people still respect me.”

There is another reason why many of the young worshippers respect him: Hasan was himself once a jihadi. This has, he says, given him “street cred”.

His journey is a reflection of one which is being taken by a number of leading figures in the extremist milieu. An article published recently in The New Republic, the American journal, by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank – both respected experts on terrorism – outlined a radical change in thinking on Al-Qaeda’s strategy among some of the most respected thinkers in the Islamist world.

For the first time, they reported, men whose previous pronouncements had been used as a justification for jihad were speaking out against it. They were not embracing the West, by any means, but they were questioning the ideological basis upon which Al-Qaeda, as a scattered movement, relies. In the battle for “hearts and minds” the group appeared to have scored an own goal.

LAST week saw a prime example of why some radicals are turning against Al-Qaeda and its tactics. On Monday a car drove up to the Danish embassy in a suburb of Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. Its driver detonated a bomb which killed himself and five others.

Al-Qaeda quickly claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that it was revenge for the publication of cartoons three years ago in a Danish newspaper that had caricatured the prophet Muhammad. Yet while the cartoons had inflamed the Islamic world, the reaction to the bombing was one of outrage. The reason: the victims had all been Muslims.

What has happened is the Muslim street is filled with the horror stories of the Islamo Fascists, and the stories of relief when liberation comes. This dichotomy of realities is powerful and undeniable. This is a grass roots phenomena, a natural human phenomena. The relief and happiness that comes with being liberated from the jackboot is universal to human beings. When given the choice, mankind prefers freedom from violence. Freedom to choose how to live without fear. Freedom to raise a family without worrying they will be tortured and killed as an example to others.

The Sun is setting on al-Qaeda, there last vestige of allies is turning on them publically. It is now firmly placed in history alongside some of humanities most cruel and devastating scum. Bin Laden is the modern Hitler in so many ways it would not surprise me if somehow, in the end, he shares a similar fate to one of the most infamous mass murderers of history.

And now we find Muslim leaders publicly offering to take the battle to Bin Laden himself:

The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq’s Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden’s organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: “I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it.”

Iraqis volunteering to take up arms and go route Bin Laden from his hidey-hole in Pakistan. Now who could have predicted that in 2002?

15 responses so far

15 Responses to “As The Sun Sets On al-Qaeda”

  1. ivehadit says:

    It’s a wonderful day in the neighborhood! Oh yeh!

    “When given the choice, mankind prefers freedom from violence. ”

    If the idjits on the Left cannot (or more correctly, imho, WILL NOT) see that promoting freedom from tyranny ALL over the world is in our best interest, then they deserve to be relegated to the ash bin of history.

    AJ, did you see the article at American Thinker: “The Audacity of the Democrats”? It’s just what we have discussed here many times: the dems feared their irrelevancy after George W. Bush kicked the terrorists back to their caves and become very popular. They just couldn’t let this brave man have his day….and for no good reason but their own raw political power grab.

    Well,I got news for the Left: we ain’t lettin’ go.

    G_d bless America, our magnificent Commander-in-Chief and military. And all the families and staff who serve us. Job well done!

  2. VinceP1974 says:

    While all of that is good news , great news, it’s important to realize that what got all the Muslims upset was that AQ was killing them, not us.

    As Robert Spencer writes in Front Page Mag:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=327B464C-0815-445C-8A87-55CA5B7CF246

    “Zawahiri,” says Wright, “became increasingly isolated. He understood that violence was the fuel that kept the radical Islamist organizations running; they had no future without terror.”

    That may be so for some organizations. Others, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, get along just fine without violence. In fact, the Brotherhood is the key force behind the stealth jihad agenda, which aims at (in the words of a Brotherhood operative in 1991) “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

    Oh, but they’re not blowing anything up in pursuit of this goal! And since terrorism is the only aspect of the Islamic supremacist problem that is on the radar screen of most Western analysts, most assume that any non-violent Islamic groups, even those that are working to subvert the West from within, are benign moderates.

    In any case, this particular reformist group, according to Wright, “wrote a series of books and pamphlets, collectively known as ‘the revisions,’ in which they formally explained their new thinking.” Wright met with the Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, to ask him about this.

    Wright describes Gomaa as a “highly promoted champion of moderate Islam.” Unfortunately, he’s a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam who supports Hizballah. “Gomaa,” Wright continues, “has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.” Unfortunately again, he is an advocate for Muslim women who has spoken positively of wife-beating. “His forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam,” says Wright, “have made him an object of hatred among Islamists and an icon among progressives, whose voices have been overpowered by the thunder of the radicals.” Yet his forceful condemnations of extreme forms of Islam have been accompanied by his denial of reports that he had rejected the traditional Islamic death sentence for apostates.

    Gomaa tells Wright: “We accept the revisions conditionally, not as the true teachings of Islam but with the understanding that this process is like medicine for a particular time.”

    In other words, the true teachings of Islam include the mandate to wage violent jihad against unbelievers. But jihad violence can be set aside as “medicine for a particular time.” That is, different times call for different tactics, but the overall objective remains the same.

    Significantly, Gomaa also said: “We have not come across the person who can be moved all the way from terrorism to a normal life.”

    Now there is an extraordinarily important admission, given the much-ballyhooed claims by Major General Douglas Stone and others to cure jihadists of their jihadism.

    After outlining various reasons why, in Fadl’s new view, today’s global jihad is illegitimate, Wright informs us that “Fadl does not condemn all jihadist activity.” In fact, Fadl says that “jihad in Afghanistan will lead to the creation of an Islamic state with the triumph of the Taliban, God willing,” and that “if it were not for the jihad in Palestine, the Jews would have crept toward the neighboring countries a long time ago.” And as for 9/11, Fadl asks, “what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?…That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.”

    In other words, it was tactically stupid. Not morally wrong.

    This is no rejection of jihad. It is just a change in tactics. It should make us all the more aware of, and on guard against, the stealth jihad.

  3. ph2ll says:

    AJ,

    That is great news. Probably the best I have heard in a very long time. Just how long do you think the Dems can ignore the earth shattering changes that are happening in the Mid-East?

    I was reading somewhere, I cant find the link, that it is possible that Gen. Petraus could have a massive troop draw-down starting this Sept. Now wouldn’t that change the political field for the Dems.? The blindingly partisan Dems. need to think this through or the forgone conclusion of their victory this Nov. may not happen as they envision.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    ph2ll, Flopping Aces has the link to an article where Petreaus is considering more US troop pullout. Boy, if that happens, that would sure redefine the debate!

  5. Neo says:

    Bin Laden, the leader of the Islamic pigs, has gotten trapped by his own actions. The fool.

    I laugh at him.

  6. kathie says:

    Many thought our President was way out of his depth when he stated that people want freedom as an inalienable right given from God. It can’t be imposed by military might, he doesn’t understand the middle east, people need to make their own choices, we can’t impose our values, and on and on.

    Well it seems that if people HAVE the choice, they choose freedom over death and tyranny.

    This is just the beginning, but it is a beginning.

    Thank you Mr. President, thank you to those who stood up and said never again. The world owes all a debt of gratitude.

    The Chamberlain party lost again. Now that is a good thing. The dust bin is filling up!

  7. Vince: you are EXACTLY right!

    To sum up:

    a) Muslims have NOT rejected “Jihad” and the eventual forced conversion of ALL non-Muslims as a goal, in other words, the dreams of a worldwide Caliphate, and conversion of the “Dar-al-Harb” into the “Dar-al-Islam” is alive and well…

    b) it is NOT a “rejection” of violence or “jihad”, it only is a change in tactics that is being called for…

    c) in other words, we’ve found out that we were not strong enough, to take on the United States frontally, this time……….but that does not mean, we cannot work with the Dhimmi idiots in the West (mainly Democrats, Liberals, Left (they’re all the same)) to undermine themselves…

    d) in other words, time for a “Hudna”, or lying truce, which means we take a break, pretend its a ceasefire, and come back and kick their butts later..

    e) we are not angry at Al Qaeda for killing Americans and other apostates, only for killing us!

    f) if we have to, re pretend (“Taqiyah”) to do whatever is necessary, to make it LOOK like we’re changing, but we’re not really changing, we’re just biding out time…

    That’s what is really going on; if anyone thinks this is “over”, or that Islam has changed its fundalmental nature, they’re bigger idiots than I give them credit for!

  8. ivehadit says:

    If we can get more and more in the Middle East under the freedom tent then more and more will reject the terrorists and they will have ZERO place to conference, the internet notwithstanding. However, imho, we are making it harder and harder there as well.

    One of the tenets of the Bush Doctrine is just this: Freedom all over the world is part of our security as well. Democratic countries do not attack each other. Hey leftists, DUH!

    Leftists are scared of their own shadows (which, in their psychological case, they should be, LOL!)They are paralyzed by their need to control and be perfect, imho, and therefore NEVER take a risk for the good. Liberals used to stand for the high ideals of freedom and democracy. Leftists are NOT liberals.

    But, the bottom line is, as was stated in the American Thinker article, “The Audacity of the Democrats”, the Leftists KNOW George has been EXTREMELY successful and that his popularity was going to render them irrelevant. So they set out to destroy him….The one who has kept us safe IN SPITE of them.

    So, don’t tell me this President is not the best we have ever had. He has had to defeat not only our external enemies who are non traditional, but the internal power-greed of the Left…who have EVERYTHING to lose with George’s success..

    They were and are wrong and will be shown to be the small, dishonorable people that they are.

    And as to the prosecution of the Iraq theater, who knows who was doing what to whom, ie sabbatoging the mission for the Left.

  9. dave m says:

    Wretchard wrote, over at The Belmont Club, in his famous lecture
    The Three Conjectures, that this is islam’s Golden Hour, by which he
    meant it’s last chance.
    The Three Conjectures is a rational exploration of how islam will
    destroy itself, once it acquires nuclear weapons and uses them.
    To all who say we’re not winning, in the context of this final hour,
    we are winning. If we decide to lose for a bit, then the final battle
    of civilizations will take place, within our lifetimes, probably within
    Obsama’s first short term as President.

    Roggio points out that we are NOT winning in Pakistan:

    June 8, 2008 10:17 AM ET
    By Bill Roggio

    The Pakistani government has worked to suppress all reporting of the peace agreement, which was signed in February. Al Qaeda can remain in North Waziristan “as long as they pledge to remain peaceful.”

    I told AJ you see that coming as soon as Musharraf lost the elections.

    But everybody who rejoices in the thought that the Bush isn’t totally
    winning, all they are really doing is hastening the decisive battle that
    Wretchard wrote about – the one that leaves no place on Earth for islam,
    a battle not fought out of choice but because there would be no choice.

    To have a little more time we need to do two things this year.
    Defeat Obsama and attack Iran.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    Check American Thinker about the terrorists now waiting for the next US president; instead of dealing with the Bush administration.

  11. Neo says:

    AJ, the one question that begs to be answered (that would give me great joy if the answer is .. no) ..

    Can it be safely said that the Bush/America policy is still generating more terrorists than it is subduing ?

  12. […] AJ Strata at The Stratasphere has a post today echoing my thoughts, but sans the solicited “exercise” I propose here.  But to […]

  13. kathie says:

    THIS IS JJUST TOO GOOD NOT TO REPRINT. FOUND AT “FLOPPINGACES”.

    9
    Jun
    Sunni Sheik on meeting GWB
    Posted by: MataHarley @ 3:13 pm in Uncategorized
    Viewed 72 times, 72 so far today
    Excerpts from Eli Lake’s NY Sun article on Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi today.

    “Al Qaeda is an ideology,” Sheik Ahmad said. “We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country.” The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq’s elected government.
    Of his meeting with Mr. Bush, Sheik Ahmad said he was impressed. “He is a brave man. He is also a wise man. He is taking care of the country’s future, the United States‘ future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq.”
    When asked if he would send military advisors to Afghanistan to assist US troops, he said… “I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it.”
    And that is the stuff that makes up an Arab ally…

  14. kathie says:

    THIS IS JJUST TOO GOOD NOT TO REPRINT. FOUND AT “FLOPPINGACES”.

    9
    Jun
    Sunni Sheik on meeting GWB
    Posted by: MataHarley @ 3:13 pm in Uncategorized
    Viewed 72 times, 72 so far today
    Excerpts from Eli Lake’s NY Sun article on Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi today.

    “Al Qaeda is an ideology,” Sheik Ahmad said. “We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country.” The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq’s elected government.
    Of his meeting with Mr. Bush, Sheik Ahmad said he was impressed. “He is a brave man. He is also a wise man. He is taking care of the country’s future, the United States‘ future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq.”
    When asked if he would send military advisors to Afghanistan to assist US troops, he said… “I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it.”
    And that is the stuff that makes up an Arab ally…

  15. […] Yesterday I posted on many diverse articles that indicate a rapidly declining al-Qaeda as their credibility has been destroyed through their fascist efforts to violently oppress their fellow Muslims, resulting in innumerable stories of atrocities and the creation of Muslim heros in those who fought back against al-Qaeda.  Today we get another report on the decline of al-Qaeda from The Financial Times: Between 1998 and 2001, the US suffered three serious terrorist attacks: against its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; against the USS Cole, a warship docked in Aden, in 2000; and, most devastatingly, against New York and Washington on September 11 2001. Since then, nothing. […]