War in Pieces: The Blood Feud

http://www.techcentralstation.com/070805LH.html ^ | July 8, 2005 | Lee Harris

[mal]

When 9/11 happened, no one asked me to write an article about it the next day, because no one, outside my immediate circle of friends, had any interest in my opinion. This was fortunate, because I did not need to make a snap judgment about the significance of that fateful morning. Had I rushed my violent first impressions into print, I might have found it difficult to ever get around to having any second thoughts -- second thoughts like the ones that finally came together in the essay "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," published in Policy Review a full six months after 9/11.

[ReadyNow]

Blood feud. More evidence that Arabs are animals.

[Critical Bill]

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM: Blood is splattered 10 metres high on the wall (R) of the British Medical Association near to where a suspected terrorist bomb was exploded on a bus in Woburn Place and Tavistock Square in London 7 July 2005. Explosions ripped through three underground trains and a bus in London Thursday, killing at least 33 people and injuring more than 340 in a wave of "terrorist attacks" a day after the capital won its bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games and as G8 leaders met in Scotland.

[SMARTY]

They cannot live without discord... they never have. It is the war inside the war...Americans need to see this and that it began long ago and has hemorrhaged into the secular extra-Muslim arena. While we in the West congratulated ourselves on our success after Versailles, our successes against Fascism and finally, Communism and the cold war, terrorists were working out their blood feud in their own spheres and after the second war, in the secular arena under the guise of an anti-Israeli program. Technology and recent political shifts have permitted them to extend their campaign outside their traditional geography. It is the same hatred, ignorance and brutality as ever it was.

[agere_contra]

...an excellent article. Really helpful, thanks for posting.

[UncleSamUSA]

This is a very interesting point of view from a very insightful writer.

I think there is a lot of merit to thinking of the "war on terror" as a non-western-style blood feud with sporadic and unpredictable attacks on random civilians rather than a tradtional uniformed soldier/sailor army/navy war.

However, one point I would raise is that the islamo-fanatic terrorists probably WOULD like to make their attacks far more often and far more potent, but are being successfully deterred and prevented by improved US and worldwide security systems.

Thus I do not believe that al Quada and its cohorts "have no interest in bringing their enemy [i.e. the West] to its knees".. which is what Harris says typical blood feud participants believe. I think Osama and his band of terrorists GREATLY DESIRE to crush the west and would do so as quickly and as often and as effectively as they could if they were not actively prevented.

To them, I think it IS a war in which the object is to destroy the enemy either physically or spiritually so they give up the will to resist. The "sporadic and random" nature of the attacks so far is more a product of their inability to do more and the prevention efforts of security agencies thankfully thwarting most of their plans.

[Americanexpat]

He is right about one thing, after decades of terrorists attacks on Americans all over the world we were made to feel impotent and accepted these attacks as normal. Not until GWB did we really strike back and that feeling of helplessness end.

This "blood feud" concept, if that is what it is, can backfire on these people and their culture. We may not be able to infiltrate their homes and neighborhoods to exact revenge the way they do, but we can take out the whole city to get at the neighborhood.
I think the author is wrong about one thing. He says this isn't like our normal wars where we fight for conquest and territory. I think he is wrong. Most of these Mullahs who preach Jihad have said on numerous occasions that they mean to rule the west. They can't do that with a "blood feud" mentality and they can't take us on with any military force. However, they can conquer us by infiltrating into our society, use or laws against us to protect their movements and global guerrilla warfare.

[browardchad]

By intermittent and infrequent attacks, on the other hand, they are able to injure and wound their enemy, without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by their enemy's desperate desire to be rid of them once and for all. Even better, such sporadic violence permits the enemy to discount their own suffering, by realizing after each fresh attack that life goes on -- as indeed it does for those who chance to survive.

And in the interim between attacks, the enemy lays low, increases its numbers behind their adversaries lines, and demands protected status from their adversaries' governments in the name of tolerance.

When another attack occurs, the enemy secretly rejoices and demands increased protection.

A viscious cycle that plays the Western world like a violin.

[jocon307]

"...an excellent article. Really helpful, thanks for posting."

Dittos!

[papadoc1945]

Blood feud? I like the analogy better than war, although I think 'war' works better in the political arena. If non-islamists do not wake up and if Islamists who do not participate in the feud do not take the feuders in hand this is going to be a very long bloody process. All those not involved in the feud must apply all the pressure necessary. Hearts and minds? OK. Wipe them out? OK. But it must be done because the alternative is to stay at an unsustainable state of alert which only encourages cells of terrorists to pop up and kill some more.

[Louis Foxwell]

There are aspects of terrorism that can be understood in the context of "blood feud." It is not true, however, that the actions of Islamic terrorist organizations are purely an exercise in vengeance.
Radical fundamentalist Muslim organizations such as the Taliban are intent on establishing theocratic government institutions. The writings and practices of Al Queda teach a process of cultural infiltration and intimidation aimed at bringing societies in line with Muslim theocracy.
The terrorists are engaged in a process of random and infrequent violence aimed at producing the kind of appeasement displayed in Spain following the Madrid train bombing. This model also explains the occasional aspect of terrorism. It is not intended to produce a war against Islamo-fascism. It is intended to create an emotional environment in which steps of appeasement are taken to avoid further violence.
This technique is especially useful in cultures where there is a dearth of conservative moral fiber. Certain municipalities in the US are actively engaged in an appeasement process of allowing civil society to be dominated by traditional Muslim practices such as public calls to prayer. These are the same communities that have vigorously opposed any public expression of Christian practices. Clearly these are not the actions of an open-minded citizenry, but an intimidated one without the moral courage to stand up to insinuated threats.
Muslim extremists look back to a golden age of Muslim supremacy. They induce guilt in their enemies by dredging up canards about prior injustice. Their goal, however, is not vengeance. It is the establishment of Muslim theocracy throughout the world.

[tobyhill]

The newest Islamic Rumor from the mill is that US or UK planned the attacks in London to harm public opinion against Muslims. This rumor originated from a group of Clerics in Pakistan. The Muslim world will continue the circle until we confront and destroy this rhetoric and ideology.

[wildbill]

Blood feud. As good a theory of Muslim action as any. But you have to add in the religious aspect which makes this feud different from mere antipathy between clans, tribes or ethnic groups.

Because the religious blood feud can be passed on and assimilated by converts, such as the Muslims (largely black)converted in our prisons.

[Northern Alliance]

I completely disagree with this analysis.

First of all, it is a standard tactic of extremists to always claim they are reacting to an injustice, not initiating the action themselves. Even the Japanese had some supposed justification for Pearl Harbor. The Cole bombing was in reaction to US troops in Saudi Arabia. This is standard fare, and does not mean the enemy is orientated to the past.

In spite of 717, our real enemy is not hit and run terrorists, but suiciders and their handlers - the people that recruit them; train them; pay them; and organize them like Bin Laden, the PLA, the PA, Hamas, Syria, Iran and the like.

I believe the suiciders are primarily motivated by what they believe are the rewards of martyrdom: a heaven with 74 young virgin sex slaves and all the rest; cash for their families; respect of peers, etc. For their handlers it is most definitely a territorial war. The goal is not US out of Saudi but Sharia law in New York and London.

This is a war of conquest, not simply a war of hatred.

[tet68]

Thus I do not believe that al Quada and its cohorts "have no interest in bringing their enemy [i.e. the West] to its knees".. which is what Harris says typical blood feud participants believe. I think Osama and his band of terrorists GREATLY DESIRE to crush the west and would do so as quickly and as often and as effectively as they could if they were not actively prevented.

I'm certain that the terrorists greatly desire to crush the west, but they cannot no matter how hard they try....by themselves.

What they are attempting to do is to goad the West into abuse and revenge of the muslims in our midst.
Thus providing the Umma with the proof of their claim to
be the protectors of Islam, at which point THEY will control
the two holy cities and have the resources and an enormous
pool of willing recruits with which to wage the war they seek.

[Valin]

Good point. Remember they (Islamic terrorist) first attacked rulers in the middle east Egypt, Algeria Saudia Arabia...etc., when they were unsuccessful there they turned their attention to "The West".

[Valin]

What they are attempting to do is to goad the West into abuse and revenge of the muslims in our midst.
Thus providing the Umma with the proof of their claim to
be the protectors of Islam, at which point THEY will control the two holy cities and have the resources and an enormous pool of willing recruits with which to wage the war they seek.


Amazing how many people here don't get this point.