al-Qaeda and its motivations

A place for more serious off-topic discussion and debates.
Posts: 26113
Joined: February 2010
Location: Texas
We have to understand although al-Qaeda members are motivated to fight against foreign intervention, they are also motivated by religious extremism. So although the US involvement in the Middle East may be adding fire to the flames, the extremist philosophies in al-Qaeda and other similar groups despise Western lifestyles and non-Islamic tradition as well. This is not about all of Islam, nor about religion in general. This has to do with their very narrow view of how the world should be and how everyone who doesn't adhere to their own principles is considered lesser or even considered a threat. It's just radical reasoning that's the root of all of this.

Posts: 11410
Joined: August 2010
Location: Texas
They wake up on another side of the Earth. Day to day bombings and death are common. We here will never really know their motivations. We can just limit our interference.

It's not like if America had never stepped foot in the middle east things would be peachy over there.

Posts: 264
Joined: February 2011
Skyab23 wrote:
My entire paper is about showing how suicide terrorism (including 9/11) is done to propel a foreign occupant from the terrorists' homeland. Here is an excerpt, from the paper, that is just a tiny marcel that proves, quantitatively, that our presence in Lebanon in the 1980's not only sparked suicide terrorism, but that it also had nothing to do with a radical religious agenda
Sorry but that is slave talk. You are basically saying that human beings have no free will or intellect of their own and that the shit poor environment strictly and absolutely dictates all sequence of events without a break in the cycle. I genuinely and truly appreciate the influence of context in the choices people make, but to go as far as to say that the vengeful and belligerent thinking that follows war, invasion or oppression is WARRANTED or NECESSARY is utter 'blasphemy.' War is a test of character- no doubt.. war is ugly- no doubt... war FORCES us to go kill innocent civilians that have an infintisimal proportion of investment in the war- WRONG.. DEAD WRONG! any army, militia or paramilitary group that operates on such flimsy motives is destined to fail and will only end up spectating a natural recoil/back-lash as an ode to the futility of their ill intensioned motive (revenge).

"Al-Qaeda" is a scapegoating label that the United States has conveniently put on a bunch of human beings motivated by a radical ideology that fight proxy wars funded by drug money or by the expenditure of various politically active groups that can benefit in the elections (both in the United States and overseas). Of course SUPERFICIALLY we see a bunch of ungrateful bearded nomads redundantly shouting "Allah u Akbar" but the real MOTIVE behind most terrorist acts is a political one that
few of culprits carrying the weapons are actually aware of. But maybe we are sacred to think of these folk as human beings. Maybe we remain indifferent and forget that like any standard college club terrorist groups require funding and subscriptions. Where do they get arms and ammunition from?

Maybe you can link these up in your research article:

election date ---- acts of terrorism (with respect to country).

p.s. terrorism is not an effective form of negative feedback (and terrorists who are motivated by permutated religious doctrine themselves realize this), if anything it makes the situation worse.

Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Viral114 wrote:
Skyab23 wrote:
My entire paper is about showing how suicide terrorism (including 9/11) is done to propel a foreign occupant from the terrorists' homeland. Here is an excerpt, from the paper, that is just a tiny marcel that proves, quantitatively, that our presence in Lebanon in the 1980's not only sparked suicide terrorism, but that it also had nothing to do with a radical religious agenda
Sorry but that is slave talk. You are basically saying that human beings have no free will or intellect of their own and that the shit poor environment strictly and absolutely dictates all sequence of events without a break in the cycle. I genuinely and truly appreciate the influence of context in the choices people make, but to go as far as to say that the vengeful and belligerent thinking that follows war, invasion or oppression is WARRANTED or NECESSARY is utter 'blasphemy.' War is a test of character- no doubt.. war is ugly- no doubt... war FORCES us to go kill innocent civilians that have an infintisimal proportion of investment in the war- WRONG.. DEAD WRONG! any army, militia or paramilitary group that operates on such flimsy motives is destined to fail and will only end up spectating a natural recoil/back-lash as an ode to the futility of their ill intensioned motive (revenge).

"Al-Qaeda" is a scapegoating label that the United States has conveniently put on a bunch of human beings motivated by a radical ideology that fight proxy wars funded by drug money or by the expenditure of various politically active groups that can benefit in the elections (both in the United States and overseas). Of course SUPERFICIALLY we see a bunch of ungrateful bearded nomads redundantly shouting "Allah u Akbar" but the real MOTIVE behind most terrorist acts is a political one that
few of culprits carrying the weapons are actually aware of. But maybe we are sacred to think of these folk as human beings. Maybe we remain indifferent and forget that like any standard college club terrorist groups require funding and subscriptions. Where do they get arms and ammunition from?

Maybe you can link these up in your research article:

election date ---- acts of terrorism (with respect to country).

p.s. terrorism is not an effective form of negative feedback (and terrorists who are motivated by permutated religious doctrine themselves realize this), if anything it makes the situation worse.
Don't argue with him. He has facts and data cuz he studied this. Reminds me of the guys studying politics and then arguing on them like studying them makes you completely understand everything all of a sudden.

Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
Here's the main issue I have with people like RIFA (who constantly condescends people who he disagrees with) and the user who posted above him: both of you disagree with me (which is fine), yet you give ZERO, and let me repeat, ZERO empirical evidence to back up your claims or your theory. When I give various demographic information such as how the members of Hezbollah in Lebanon who attacked the Americans and their allies, of them only 21% identified with Islam, 71% as socialist or communist and 8% as Christians, why do you disregard this information as if I just conjured it out of thin air?

Don't take my theory and just blatantly agree or disagree: take my numbers, if you do not believe them, and prove them wrong. The numbers, not my opinion, empirically dispel the common perception that this particular terrorist movement is comprised of a radical Islamic ideology. All of the suicide attacks ended after the troops left.

How many suicide attacks happened in the history of Iraq before the U.S. got there? ZERO. Geographically speaking, very important patterns are observed from the data available. The overwhelming majority of the suicide attacks that occur are concentrated in a few, select places. These attacks occur primarily in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Palestine, and Chechnya. The patterns show that the vast majority of the attacks are occurring from Muslims. However, there’s a reason why Islamic fundamentalism is not the driving catalyst behind the annual rise in suicide terrorism. That reason is because it is nearly mathematically impossible. Suicide terrorism increased from an average of three attacks per year in the 1980s to over 500 in 2007, meaning that in order for Islamic fundamentalism to be the driving catalyst behind these attacks, the number of radical Muslims would have had to increase by over 16,000 percent.

I challenge anyone here to dispel the information I have been happy to share with you all. I welcome a good cordial debate and dialogue. But this information I am providing isn't opinionated or from a persuasive paper. It is from quantitative analysis of the terrorists themselves, empirical data that is definable and testable. Essentially, it's the equivalent to science vs religion. Science is based on hypotheses which are grounded in reality from testable data. Religion is based on an idea or a belief that is largely untested, but is pushed by a popular narrative from the masses. I choose the former when coming to my conclusions.

So by all means Rifa and Viral, prove any of the data that I have given to you as incorrect.

Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Skyab23 wrote:Here's the main issue I have with people like RIFA (who constantly condescends people who he disagrees with) and the user who posted above him: both of you disagree with me (which is fine), yet you give ZERO, and let me repeat, ZERO empirical evidence to back up your claims or your theory. When I give various demographic information such as how the members of Hezbollah in Lebanon who attacked the Americans and their allies, of them only 21% identified with Islam, 71% as socialist or communist and 8% as Christians, why do you disregard this information as if I just conjured it out of thin air?

Don't take my theory and just blatantly agree or disagree: take my numbers, if you do not believe them, and prove them wrong. The numbers, not my opinion, empirically dispel the common perception that this particular terrorist movement is comprised of a radical Islamic ideology. All of the suicide attacks ended after the troops left.

How many suicide attacks happened in the history of Iraq before the U.S. got there? ZERO. Geographically speaking, very important patterns are observed from the data available. The overwhelming majority of the suicide attacks that occur are concentrated in a few, select places. These attacks occur primarily in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Palestine, and Chechnya. The patterns show that the vast majority of the attacks are occurring from Muslims. However, there’s a reason why Islamic fundamentalism is not the driving catalyst behind the annual rise in suicide terrorism. That reason is because it is nearly mathematically impossible. Suicide terrorism increased from an average of three attacks per year in the 1980s to over 500 in 2007, meaning that in order for Islamic fundamentalism to be the driving catalyst behind these attacks, the number of radical Muslims would have had to increase by over 16,000 percent.

I challenge anyone here to dispel the information I have been happy to share with you all. I welcome a good cordial debate and dialogue. But this information I am providing isn't opinionated or from a persuasive paper. It is from quantitative analysis of the terrorists themselves, empirical data that is definable and testable. Essentially, it's the equivalent to science vs religion. Science is based on hypotheses which are grounded in reality from testable data. Religion is based on an idea or a belief that is largely untested, but is pushed by a popular narrative from the masses. I choose the former when coming to my conclusions.

So by all means Rifa and Viral, prove any of the data that I have given to you as incorrect.
Well, first of all you have a serious problem looking at things from different perspectives. Second of all, you have another serious problem when you bring up numbers and data that only satisfy your point, ignoring at the same time the other amount of contradicting data and historical events that work against your own theory. You say I disagree because what you say doesn't match my theory. I say I have no theory and I disagree with you because I disagree on biased theories, I disagree of people that talk about facts and say half-truth in order to support their theories, I disagree with statistical manipulation (which you do), I disagree with the basic idea of creating a thread about al-Quaeda's motivations yet ignore the history of al-Quaeda in the first place. You want data? I'll bring data. You say al-Quaeda operates like this since U.S. got in Iraq... I say al-Quaeda operated like this before U.S. had anything to do with Iraq. I say al-Quaeda uses tactics of intimidation used along centuries by groups or political movements that wanted to SEEK ATTENTION from the dominating empires in the world and wanted to DEMAND things. Their approach is as old as the way the U.S. approached it's intervention in Iraq. In a war there are no rules, but terrorism is sitting pretty outside the accepted rules of war. Why? Because terrorism has nothing to do with people, terrorism has nothing to do with retaliating against offensive or dominating empires. Terrorism is used ONLY for SEEKING ATTENTION and DEMANDING THINGS. It's "give us this and we won't blow up this truck full of babies". Now you're saying they're doing this because of U.S.' intervention there. I'm gonna ask a single, simple question... what would any empire do in it's pursue to conquer the world, if some group of bandits out there would threat to kill innocent people if they don't move back? What would any empire do in it's purse to conquer the world, if some group of terrorists out there bombed a square and killed 50 innocent people? Would that empire back down? I doubt it. Because at that point they'd be a failed empire. An empire with too much heart and no balls to be short. Or would that empire strike back and try to get these bandits/terrorists? It might sound dramatic but that's how the world was, is, and will be as long as it will exist. Empires will conquer, the conquered will retaliate in various forms, some more bloody and deadly than the others, empires will sink, and new ones will arise. That does not give any fucking legit motivation for al-Quaeda to do what it does to innocent people. Especially against a behavior like this, backing down in your nest ISN'T an answer. If U.S. would retreat from Iraq you think al-Quaeda would stop? When they know their only power is in the acts of terrorism? No. al-Quaeda wasn't formed to retaliate against U.S. in Iraq in the first place... al-Quaeda is actually one of the newest terrorist organizations on the globe that was formed for the purpose of fighting against the Westerns involvement in Middle-East. The whole fucking Middle-East. Why? Because they didn't want their Middle-East to be ran by democrats, capitalists, or any other sort of religious/political form of government besides Muslim/Islamic regimes. Terrorism existed in Middle-East long before U.S. set their foot there. You have Hezbollah, Palestinians, Israeli, Jihadists, Lybians, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the various tribes from the 15th-18th centuries... there are so many examples of acts of terrorism there between these factions in Middle-Easy and you whine and cry about fucking U.S. interference there and how that led to acts of terrorism? You must be on some huge bullshit my friend. Communists did acts of fucking terrorism long before U.S. ever interfered in communist countries. Japanese did acts of terrorism. Asia's full of this shit for more than 2 thousand years now. Europe? Terrorism happened because of U.S. and Britain interference in fucking Middle-East? Are you kidding me? What about the bombs in Spain? How does that explain anything? At least Carlos had some fucking sense when he used terrorist tactics and had some "legit" targets... not innocent people walking out of a fucking Mall. What about french terrorism? Heard of that? South America terrorism. Heard of that? It's so easy, so fucking easy to be biased, and to point out the finger and say America is the bad guy in all of this. Look at what America does. That's why they act how they act. That's some fucking horseshit and you know it. Terrorism, al-Quaeda, and everything related to this god damn subject is not present in this world because of America and Britain and all that western crap theory. Terrorism is present, especially in this nonsensical form, cuz it's not even organized against some legit targets, it's just people... This fucking form of terrorism was always present, is present, and will be present, as long as people will be greed enough to seek for attention, to use historical events in their favor to justify their actions when they're nothing more than a bunch of bandits who just demand things and want things to happen because they say so. No fucking sane person would back-down against that, and especially no fucking empire will back-down against that. All that "empirical data" while avoiding the truth, all that half-truth nonsense you talk about is true on it's own, but that is like taking half the history you like and promote it as the true history of the world. You said you studied this? how the hell you studied this and you come up with a thread that has "al-Quaeda" and "motivations" in the title and not even talk about al-Quaeda really is and how was that formed? How the hell could you create a thread like this and ignore centuries of history of terrorism before al-Quaeda? This is sickening... that's why I avoided so much to answer to you and that's why I sounded and probably still sound arrogant or whatever... because I'm sick of bias and I'm sick of people on the internet trying to put on their little show talking about history or conspiracy theories pointing out only what they like and suits their little agenda. It's a war there. Difference is one has specific targets while the other side has no such thing and attacks civilians randomly. It's all for god damn attention and not for their people or their country. If it was, they wouldn't have had something against a peaceful democracy there in the first place. But they don't want that. Seek attention and demand. That's their motto. It's basically what N.K. does but obviously 100x times serious. N.K. does the same... seeks attention and demands. And you could easily make an argument how they terrorize their own people ffs. Now good luck with your data and continue to point out how everything increased in the last 25 years. Of course it god damn increased. Everything increases if you give it time to develop. That's the problem... Not U.S. interference. In Middle East they fought against each other for centuries... In Middle East they fought against outsiders for centuries. You had Russians... they complained about that. What happened? They got help. From fucking who? Now what happened? They complained some more... They don't know how to handle their own shit... Talk about the whole truth before calling people out with your biased data. You can't resume this whole situation to some data you caught up in college. That's insulting to centuries of history. Sigh.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
The tabloid medias anti-US propaganda is doing good, sadly. If the rest of the world only knew what Russia and China has been up to..

Posts: 3014
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
RIFA, I know you don't like me, or my opinions, but I'm going to take the high road here and say I appreciate your long and detailed response and I'll answer a few of those points you brought up here, even though I'm sure it won't make any difference to you or change your mind.

bin Laden's words on why he has declared war specifically against the United States:
“The call to wage war against America was made because America has spearheaded the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques (Saudi Arabia) over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target” (Pape 2005 p. 119).

Of course there has been terrorism in the past for centuries. But I'm speaking of suicide terrorism in particular, and that of radical Islamic terrorism against the United States. Yes, these terrorists have a religious ideology that states that western civilization isn't compatible to their view of religion, and that they do not belong on their holy sites in the Middle East. Religion does play a factor there. But again, specific to Islamic fundamentalism, they declared no war against the West and no suicide attacks against them until the United States began a heavy military presence in the region. From what I read, you don't deny this, but you basically state that we the empire (the U.S) have a right to expand our power around the world? And no where have I ever stated that al-Qaeda and its attacks are legitimate. Of course killing innocent people isn't legitimate in any circumstance. I'm just giving you the motivating factors to why seemingly ordinary people (and yes, many of them are very ordinary before they join the movement, just like the Boston bombers were very much ordinary before becoming radicalized) would strap bombs to themselves against a country thousands of miles away.

You stated that I should not ignore the history of al-Qaeda and how it formed...I haven't, I have written about it, but for obvious reasons, I didn't want to post my entire 40 page paper here, but here is an excerpt about the formation of al-Qaeda:

The group’s origins trace back to the jihad against Soviet invasion in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Famously, the United States intervened in this conflict as well, siding with the “mujahideen,” also commonly referred to as “the freedom fighters.” The jihad against Soviet occupation was successful, and even though the United States offered a hand in their victory, mainly through the transfer of arms and financial resources, the jihad against the United States was soon to follow.
Al-Qaeda’s rise can be traced back to the Afghan war of the 1980s, and the Muslim fighters that coalesced to ward off an occupying force in the Soviet Union. The United States did arm and financially assist these fighters against Soviet invasion. So in many respects, the United States’ intervention led to what many refer to as “blowback,” or unintended consequences. However, in this particular instance, intervention in that conflict didn’t necessarily create Al-Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri did indeed create Al-Qaeda during the conflict, but these fighters did not simply defeat the Soviets and then “pivot and aim its U.S.-provided training and material at its former infidel benefactors” (Pape 2010 p. 102). Instead, the terrorist organization had deeply invested roots in an Islamic social movement, and the Arab faction formed with imported members of the Islamic jihad of Egypt, many of which were not even a part of the fight against the Soviets. So in short, the Afghan freedom fighters and their movement merely helped to provide the ability for bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to meet and form the terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda.
However, it would take something highly significant to mobilize this group and recruit new and passionate fighters. This is where the foreign occupation of the United States and the beginning of a highly strategic terrorist campaign would collide. According to former CIA Operations Officer Marc Sageman, “The 1990-1991 Gulf War brought U.S. troops to the Arabian Peninsula. The movement that became the global Salafi jihad might have faded but for the continued presence of these troops. The Salafi mujahedin interpreted this presence as an infidel invasion of the Land of the Two Holy Places. It became the focus of Salafi resentment against the West and breathed new life into the movement” (Sageman 2004). This statement from a highly decorated former CIA officer is eye-opening and reasserts the theory that foreign occupation drives terrorism. His first-hand experience working closely with the mujahedin from 1987 to 1989 makes his statement even more credible and reliable.


Let's look at Michael Scheuer, who was the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, who hunted bin Laden for years and knows him as well as probably anyone in the world who wasn't directly affiliated with him. Scheuer states, with 100% certainty that, American experts will mislead their audience by claiming that religion has emerged as the predominant impetus for terrorist attacks rather than acknowledging that U.S. foreign policy, from the perspective of millions of Muslims it directly affects, is interpreted as an attack on Islam and Muslims and is drawing an armed response as a matter of self-defense and scriptural requirement.....The motivation for attacking America comes directly from the mouth of the perpetrators, the belief that U.S. policy threatens Islam’s survival. This makes “America’s Islamist enemies infinitely more lethal, patient, and enduring than a foe who is motivated simply by hate for elections, R-rated movies, and gender equality” (Scheuer 2007 p. 296).

You preemptively state that my information is misleading or half-truths yet you still can't point out one mistake I've made, you just make general statements. I pointed out a specific instance in the 80's with Hezbollah that gives the demographic information of the suicide terrorists, and that information dispels any notion that they are motivated by religious animosity. Christians were among the suicide terrorists, as were 71% of those who identified with communism. Only 1 in 5 identified with Islam. Nothing about those statistics is misleading.

My argument has always been that their recruitment of individuals and their main objective has been to inflict pain on America because of their continued presence in the Middle East and their bombings that have resulted in innocent civilians. It's not about disagreeing with our way of life (even though in their view the two aren't compatible), because that's not enough for them to recruit tens of thousands of indivduals to strap bombs to themselves. That's fine if you disagree with me and the data sets that I provide (which you still won't refute or attempt to prove how they're wrong, you'll just say they are and move on), but do you know more than the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit? He agrees with my view on the subject.

So RIFA, it's unlikely that either of us is going to change the others opinion on the matter, and I welcome you challenging specific data and numbers that I've supplied if you think they're inaccurate or purposely misleading, but for the sake of this thread, it's probably better that the two of us squash our banter with each other.

Posts: 277
Joined: December 2011

I've been doing some thinking and i'm pretty sure i'm against Al-Qaeda.

Post Reply