Comments on: Zia Sardar on intelligence http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2006/06/25/zia_sardar_on_intelligence Politics, tech and media issues from a Muslim perspective Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: thabet http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2006/06/25/zia_sardar_on_intelligence#comment-3504 thabet Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:26:48 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/ijwp/mt.php/2006/06/25/zia_sardar_on_intelligence#comment-3504 Thersites If we use the word "Islamist" for all and sundry, it becomes a meaningless word, devoid of any particular usage. In fact, there is a marked difference between most Islamist groups and the likes of "al-Qa'ida" (I'm not convinced it's one group a la the IRA, more a nihilistic ideology under which all acts of Muslim terroris or violence are shoved). Islamist groups have specific political and social aims and try and achieve through some kind of political process (of course, doesn't mean they're beyond criticism; just that they're not al-Qa'ida et al.) Thersites

If we use the word “Islamist” for all and sundry, it becomes a meaningless word, devoid of any particular usage.

In fact, there is a marked difference between most Islamist groups and the likes of “al-Qa’ida” (I’m not convinced it’s one group a la the IRA, more a nihilistic ideology under which all acts of Muslim terroris or violence are shoved). Islamist groups have specific political and social aims and try and achieve through some kind of political process (of course, doesn’t mean they’re beyond criticism; just that they’re not al-Qa’ida et al.)

]]> By: Thersites http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/mt.php/2006/06/25/zia_sardar_on_intelligence#comment-3503 Thersites Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:26:51 +0000 http://www.blogistan.co.uk/ijwp/mt.php/2006/06/25/zia_sardar_on_intelligence#comment-3503 I don't think that the current intelligence raids are wholly unjustified. One important difference between the IRA and the islamist terrorists is that the latter regard anyone except themselves as a "legitimate target". The IRA had to kill enough "legitimate targets" to attrit effectively over a period of years, but they also had to avoid turning their "war" into a war of extermination or lose support or acquiescence among their base population. The odd "accidental" atrocity was useful, but it had to look like an accident so it couldn't happen often. They lost because attrition wore them out first. The islamists believe that there is a war of extermination going on and they would like to make it overt. As a result, the possible consequences of not stopping an islamist plan at an early stage are much worse. With an IRA attack you could just send a patrol another way, set up a roadblock so the attack couldn't take place, substitute dud detonators or cartridges etc. A suicide bomber is a much less sophisticated and much more effective way of finding and attacking the target and the fact that the target is anywhere where the militant happens to be makes it more complicated. That the IRA was much more closely inegrated also made a difference- denouncing someone to the army or SB was a standard way of dealing with personal disagreements, and- equally- letting it be known that someone was an agent, even- or especially- if they weren't, was a good way to get the IRA to kill their own members. Islamists seem to be small bunches of nutters who only actually join al-Qaeda posthumously, so the only way to tell who they are before they're dead is to look at the characteristics, and being enthusiastic muslims is the most obvious characteristic. Equally, not seeming to be an enthusiastic muslim could be a way of concealing the fact, so they're both equally suspicious. Even when they get information networks up and running- which won't take long if they go about it effectively- the security services are going to have to act much earlier and on flimsier evidence than with the IRA. I don’t think that the current intelligence raids are wholly unjustified. One important difference between the IRA and the islamist terrorists is that the latter regard anyone except themselves as a “legitimate target”. The IRA had to kill enough “legitimate targets” to attrit effectively over a period of years, but they also had to avoid turning their “war” into a war of extermination or lose support or acquiescence among their base population. The odd “accidental” atrocity was useful, but it had to look like an accident so it couldn’t happen often. They lost because attrition wore them out first. The islamists believe that there is a war of extermination going on and they would like to make it overt. As a result, the possible consequences of not stopping an islamist plan at an early stage are much worse. With an IRA attack you could just send a patrol another way, set up a roadblock so the attack couldn’t take place, substitute dud detonators or cartridges etc. A suicide bomber is a much less sophisticated and much more effective way of finding and attacking the target and the fact that the target is anywhere where the militant happens to be makes it more complicated. That the IRA was much more closely inegrated also made a difference- denouncing someone to the army or SB was a standard way of dealing with personal disagreements, and- equally- letting it be known that someone was an agent, even- or especially- if they weren’t, was a good way to get the IRA to kill their own members. Islamists seem to be small bunches of nutters who only actually join al-Qaeda posthumously, so the only way to tell who they are before they’re dead is to look at the characteristics, and being enthusiastic muslims is the most obvious characteristic. Equally, not seeming to be an enthusiastic muslim could be a way of concealing the fact, so they’re both equally suspicious. Even when they get information networks up and running- which won’t take long if they go about it effectively- the security services are going to have to act much earlier and on flimsier evidence than with the IRA.

]]>