What is the logical consequence of noting the fact that the terrorist groups that make a difference on planet Earth—such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the PLO, Colombia's FARC—are extensions of, respectively, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and Venezuela? It is the negation of the U.S. government's favorite axiom. It means that when George W. Bush spoke, and when Barack Obama speaks, of America being "at war" against "extremism" or "extremists" they are either being stupid or acting stupid to avoid dealing with the nasty fact that many governments wage indirect warfare.

International relations professor Angelo M. Codevilla argues that Osama bin Laden is not quite influential, not quite relevant, and probably dead. (multipage version)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane on Mar 27, 2009 - 33 comments

The age of horrorism. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Martin Amis analyses - and abhors - the rise of extreme Islamism. In a penetrating and wide-ranging essay he offers a trenchant critique of the grotesque creed and questions the West's faltering response to this eruption of evil.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese on Sep 19, 2006 - 66 comments

Now, as an increasing number of detainees mount legal challenges to their incarceration, TIME is making the record of al-Qahtani's treatment available to the public in its entirety [pdf]. Also read the companion Time article about Mohammad al-Qahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker."
posted by rxrfrx on Mar 3, 2006 - 12 comments

The anonymous author of Imperial Hubris has been revealed.
posted by sixpack on Jul 2, 2004 - 12 comments

The danger is less that a state will sponsor a terror group and more that a terror group will sponsor a state—as happened in Afghanistan Zakaria: Stepping away from the partisan screaming going on these days, the 9/11 commission hearings and—far more revealing—the panel's staff reports paint a fascinating picture of the rise of a new phenomenon in global politics: terrorism that is not state-sponsored but society-sponsored. Few in the American government fully grasped that a group of people without a state's support could pose a mortal threat. The mistake looks obvious in hindsight, but was, sadly, understandable at the time of 9/11. What is less understandable is that this same error persists even today.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly on Mar 28, 2004 - 46 comments

"Any further strikes against Americans will thus be a painful reminder that the war has not been won. Sadly, a main reason will be America's reluctance to focus on the political roots of the terrorist atrocity of Sept. 11." opinions on this piece from the original sponsor of the Mujahideen? username: metafilter46 password: metafilter
posted by specialk420 on Sep 1, 2002 - 23 comments

How Al Qaeda Slipped Away "American officials concede that there was a mass escape from Tora Bora—as well as a broader exodus by various routes into Pakistan and Iran—but insist that Al Qaeda now is crippled and too busy running to do much damage. “Perhaps we could have got them wholesale,” says one senior Defense official. “Now we’re doing it retail. In the end, it doesn’t make much difference. We’re getting them.”" We might want to take care of this before we "invade" Iraq.
posted by owillis on Aug 14, 2002 - 14 comments

An excellent piece of media analysis by Michael Wolff in New York Magazine looking at the current summer-movie-plot version of Al Qaeda being artfully constructed by the NY Times ...
Then, perhaps most disconcertingly, the overall narrative itself is patently a dumbed-down rehash. It's Cold War stuff. There is the ubiquitous and yet unknown and unknowable enemy. There's the international jihad, which, with only minor adjustments, replaces the international communist conspiracy. There's the sudden purported hegemony of the Muslim world -- a new Soviet-bloc-style ideological monolith. There is the otherworldly dedication of operatives bent on overthrowing the West. There are the cells. There is the myth of superhuman discipline. There is now, even, the developing Kremlinology of the next tier of men who replace Osama. And at the center of the story, of course, is the bomb. Whether in massive retaliatory form or as a dirty-bomb package, it serves the same effect.
(link cribbed from Altercation)
posted by mantid on Jul 1, 2002 - 8 comments

"Peaceful Tomorrows" launches tomorrow (Feb 14th). "Peaceful Tomorrows continues the work of family members who took part in the Walk for Healing and Peace from the Pentagon to the World Trade Center (winter 2001) as well as those who met with Afghan families affected by the subsequent bombing campaign (January 2002). Our goal is to facilitate dialogues on alternatives to war that utilize all of America's collective wisdom, skills and talents. "

Good luck Peaceful Tomorrows!
posted by crasspastor on Feb 13, 2002 - 1 comment

Here's what American Muslims think. What do you think? They come off modestly better than they did in a poll conducted in England a month back. But then, no embarrassing questions were asked this time.
posted by Real9 on Dec 22, 2001 - 6 comments

A story that seems to be good news no matter what side of the 'war' you're on. The dragnet around Bin Laden is reported to be closing quickly, and currently stands, says the Sunday Times, at about 30 squares mile. So, what happens next? (via Plastic.com)
posted by Hildago on Nov 18, 2001 - 13 comments

Stop the War. 50-100,000 people marched on Trafalgar Square today to protest against the ongoing situation in Afghanistan.. (lil bit more inside...)
posted by Mossy on Nov 18, 2001 - 57 comments

More Q & A on Terror and War
"A number of folks feel that current events -- particularly in the last few days -- have dramatically changed the logic and morality of what has been done in Afghanistan, calling into question much of the analysis and assessment that has been offered by critics of the war. Here are some of the questions we have been asked, and our brief replies."
posted by mapalm on Nov 18, 2001 - 60 comments

From a piece in the NYTimes today, Home Front Is Minefield for President: "The lesson we're learning," one administration official said today, "is that you can bomb the wrong place in Afghanistan and not take much heat for it. But don't mess up at the post office."

Leave it to the White House to come away with exactly the wrong interpretation. But the facts are there, too -- most Americans are more concerned about the (relatively slight) risk of getting Anthrax than the rather significant risk that, if we screw up in Afghanistan, we might lose the current coalition against terrorism, Bin Laden, and any hope for "homeland security" for a long time to come....
posted by mattpfeff on Oct 25, 2001 - 12 comments

Top 10 contradictions regarding the US bombing of Afghanistan.
posted by Rastafari on Oct 22, 2001 - 35 comments

Biden to propose reconstruction if Afghanistan attacked. Sounds good to me.
posted by donkeyschlong on Oct 3, 2001 - 13 comments

Leaking troop movement? This new report says the U.S. has had special forces troops inside Afghanistan for two weeks now. I understand "everything" is leaked in Washington, but shouldn't there be something sacred about the locations of troops?
posted by owillis on Sep 27, 2001 - 30 comments

Infinite Justice is out, Enduring Freedom is in. "The change was made after the initial name -- 'Operation Infinite Justice' -- last week ran into objections from some Islamic scholars on grounds that only God, or Allah, could mete out infinite justice in their view."
posted by swerve on Sep 26, 2001 - 24 comments

Operation Infinite Mercy : Emergency relief for Afghan refugees fleeing Taliban rule and/or threats of American attack. Amid the scores of funds, accounts, websites, banner ads, and buttons that have popped up advertising ways to 'help the victims', it's been near-impossible to find somewhere online to make a donation to assist some of the other people affected by the aftermath of September 11th...
posted by SenshiNeko on Sep 25, 2001 - 19 comments

We may end up not needing to attack Afghanistan at all. The Taliban seem to be doing a marvelous job of destroying themselves just worrying about what we might do.
posted by aaron on Sep 20, 2001 - 5 comments

The Cost of an Afghan 'Victory' an article from 1999 asks Did the founders of US policy in Afghanistan during the Carter Administration (1977-1981) realize that in spawning Islamic militancy with the primary aim of defeating the Soviet Union they were risking sowing the seeds of a phenomenon that was likely to acquire a life of its own, spread throughout the Muslim world and threaten US interests?
posted by LeLiLo on Sep 16, 2001 - 3 comments

What America needs now is ... Rambo! Fighting off the Russians, shoulder to shoulder with the Mujahedeen in Afghanist...fighting the...against...oh hell.
posted by argybarg on Sep 16, 2001 - 10 comments

The Pakistani government will ask the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden in three days. Why didn't the USA make such an obvious move?
posted by arf on Sep 16, 2001 - 42 comments

Russia not willing to help? Meanwhile, Nikolai Kovalyov, the former head of the Russian FSB security service, warned the US that an attack on Afghanistan would fail to capture Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the atrocities, and would backfire on the US. "In Afghanistan's mountainous terrain it takes a trainload of explosives to destroy three militants," he said. "The chance of hitting bin Laden is zero."
posted by rushmc on Sep 15, 2001 - 17 comments