podpolia

Power Line finds yet another excellent article, this one on a recent Al Zawahiri speech criticizing Bush’s State of the Union address. These guys seem to have a lot more time to read than I do — I rarely feel that I have time to read very much more than what they’re already posting.
A couple of thoughts on the article. The speech makes clear that Al Qaeda is starting to hurt from all the attention it has been getting from the US. The very fact that they feel they have to enter into dialogue with moderate Muslims (and perhaps win over a few westerners at the same time) shows that they need to increase their base of support. As this moves into a propaganda and media war, the countries of the middle east (which generally don’t get too much information from more than one source) could become even more radical. This is also a time when American media that takes a dim view of America can do the most damage. Without strongly opposing views on Al Qaeda’s cause, this sort of propaganda could easily win over a lot of people, particularly people who are sympathetic to the idea of restoring the Caliphate already. The best response to this sort of argument is to argue for Muslim democracy.
In commenting on Al Zawahiri’s attempt to pacify human rights groups, Mr. Braude makes a good point (“Al Zawahiri, to be sure, can only pay lip service to these ideas because, as evidenced by his anti-Coptic and anti-gay references, there isn’t exactly a place for all mankind in the political union his movement envisions.”) However, it is important to point out how easily pacified many of the “left-wing and human rights movements in the West” are easily swayed to side against America. These ARE the groups, after all, who supported the impeccable human rights record of Saddam Hussein, and opposed the United States’ attempt at establishing a liberal democratic system instead, replete with human rights protections. They have a slightly better record on the Taliban — they opposed Afghanistan’s destruction of large stone Buddhas (statues of humans have human rights too, right?) but then halfheartedly opposed the US-led overthrow of the Taliban. They’re currently complaining about how said Taliban are being treated.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical, but it still seems fairly ironic to me.

Power Line finds yet another excellent article, this one on a recent Al Zawahiri speech criticizing Bush’s State of the Union address. These guys seem to have a lot more time to read than I do — I rarely feel that I have time to read very much more than what they’re already posting.
A couple of thoughts on the article. The speech makes clear that Al Qaeda is starting to hurt from all the attention it has been getting from the US. The very fact that they feel they have to enter into dialogue with moderate Muslims (and perhaps win over a few westerners at the same time) shows that they need to increase their base of support. As this moves into a propaganda and media war, the countries of the middle east (which generally don’t get too much information from more than one source) could become even more radical. This is also a time when American media that takes a dim view of America can do the most damage. Without strongly opposing views on Al Qaeda’s cause, this sort of propaganda could easily win over a lot of people, particularly people who are sympathetic to the idea of restoring the Caliphate already. The best response to this sort of argument is to argue for Muslim democracy.
In commenting on Al Zawahiri’s attempt to pacify human rights groups, Mr. Braude makes a good point (“Al Zawahiri, to be sure, can only pay lip service to these ideas because, as evidenced by his anti-Coptic and anti-gay references, there isn’t exactly a place for all mankind in the political union his movement envisions.”) However, it is important to point out how easily pacified many of the “left-wing and human rights movements in the West” are easily swayed to side against America. These ARE the groups, after all, who supported the impeccable human rights record of Saddam Hussein, and opposed the United States’ attempt at establishing a liberal democratic system instead, replete with human rights protections. They have a slightly better record on the Taliban — they opposed Afghanistan’s destruction of large stone Buddhas (statues of humans have human rights too, right?) but then halfheartedly opposed the US-led overthrow of the Taliban. They’re currently complaining about how said Taliban are being treated.
Perhaps I’m being too cynical, but it still seems fairly ironic to me.