2005-04-30 USA

StefanKrempl cites from the Country Reports on Terrorism¹:

Al-Qa’ida’s public statements have sought to promulgate the following tenets of its ideology:

This is a clash of civilizations. Militant jihad is a religious duty before God, and therefore necessary for the salvation of one’s soul as well as for the defense of the Muslim nation.
Only two camps exist. There can be no middle ground in an apocalyptic showdown between Islam and “the forces of evil,” defined not merely as “the West” but also Muslims that do not share al-Qa’ida’s vision of “true Islam.”
Violence by Muslims in the defense of Islam is the only solution. Peaceful existence with the West is a dangerous illusion.
Many of the theological and legal restrictions on the use of violence by Muslims do not apply to this war. Given that the stakes are high, compunctions against violence only assist “the infidel.”
US power is based on its economy. Therefore, large-scale, mass-casualty attacks — especially focused on US and other Western economic targets — are a primary goal.
“Apostate” regimes must go. Muslim governments that cooperate with the West and that have not imposed Sharia law are religiously unacceptable and must be violently overthrown.

The scary part is how close this is to Bush himself. Here’s how I tried to read it:

This is a clash of civilizations. Militant interventions are a religious duty before God, and therefore necessary for the salvation of one’s soul as well as for the defense of the West.
Only two camps exist. There can be no middle ground in an apocalyptic showdown between the USA and “the forces of evil,” defined not merely as “Terrorists” but also regimes that do not share our vision of “true democracy.”
Violence by the USA in the defense of the West is the only solution. Peaceful existence with the axis of evil is a dangerous illusion.
Many of the theological and legal restrictions on the use of violence by our own do not apply to this war. Given that the stakes are high, compunctions against violence only assist “the terrorists.”
Al-Qa’ida’s power is based on its popular appeal. Therefore, large-scale, shock-and-awe attacks — especially focused on dictators and other Western puppet regimes — are a primary goal.
“Apostate” regimes must go. Muslim governments that cooperate with religious fanatics and that have not implemented democratic institutions are morally unacceptable and must be violently overthrown.

How did you react? It’s weird, and it’s bullshit. But a lingering feeling tells me that “we” should not only be just as good or as bad as the idiots we’re fighting against, we should be *better*. And this is where the hazy uncertainty begins. How much better off is world with the USA invading countries and leaving one ruined nation after another behind? Basically drug producing, warlord run, poverty stricken, sources of violent uneducated malcontents... And how much better would the world be with the West spending similar amounts of money on peace and development?

Right now, we’re spending tax money on weapons by supporting their development, their sale, their export, their deployment, and their use, and we raise puppet regimes to protect our interest that soon enough turn into brutal tyrannies protecting our interest. Well, “our” interest because usually the benefits of spreading war and commerce is not reaped by all the tax payers, it is reaped by the weapon industry, by the military consultants. The military-industrial complex still exists. And it doesn’t just secure some jobs. It also helps to redistribute money from our own working class via taxes into the hands of the dogs of war.

#USA