Does any one knw what WAHABBI means
redvalkrie
10-30-2001, 11:52 AM
Understanding the Wahhabite Threat
Ray Pierce
Sunday, Oct. 28, 2001
Try as they may, our leaders fighting the War on Terrorism are thinking "in the box," seeing only the small picture. I am most troubled by the banal and facile assessment of the threat to our civilization promulgated by our government and by "experts" in the media.
I believe that this mis-identification of the threat is due to the philosophical concept of "corresponding truths" – the idea that Western pluralistic minds see what they expect to see, not what exists within the realm of epistemological circumstance.
The fact that religion is not a major part of our Zeitgeist is hampering the understanding of the threat we face and the response needed for its defeat. Indeed, we are only chasing after a symptom of the threat.
It is always useful, when dealing with any bureaucracy, to consider the book called "The Cybernetic Theory of Decision," by John Steinbrunner. This book, used in the study of international relations, examines the interactions of bureaucracies within nations. The people who rise to the top of most bureaucracies are normally goal satisficers, i.e., those who think and behave in a conventional manner, living "within the box."
Their opposite, goal maximizers, seldom rise in a bureaucracy, as they threaten those around them. When Gen. Patton stated that he could turn his army around during the Battle of the Bulge and relieve Bastonge, the other generals scoffed. Patton, a goal maximizer, saw opportunity where they saw unacceptable risk. When Patton actually did what he claimed could be done, he was hated all the more.
Steinbrunner explains it in a different way: If the standard is three widgets, the goal satisficer will make three, the maximizer more than three. Eventually, the goal maximizer will feel group pressure to either make three widgets, or leave. This is why the majority of policy elements within the government think "in the box."
In my view, the root of the actual threat we face is Wahhabite theology and the way in which it manifests itself throughout the Sunni world. Yet much of the media and elements within the government portray the terrorists as "Islamic Fundamentalists." As a secular people, we view Islam as a monolith rather than a series of sects that are offshoots from the two main branches of Shiite and Sunni.
Wahhabism originated in Saudi Arabia during the 18th century. Wahhabite theology is best manifested today by the Taliban and bin Laden. Saudi Arabia exports this brand of Islam throughout the world in the form of funding for schools and Mosques. Indeed, "Islamic terrorists" from the Philippines, Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the southern part of the former Soviet Union, and Western China are all adherents of Wahhabite thought.
It was a great miscalculation of the threat for the administration to marginalize bin Laden, as he is mainstream to the Wahhabite worldview, as demonstrated by his global support amongst Wahhabite sects. This point seems lost on all and sundry, with the media constantly shocked when reporting large bin Laden demonstrations and the sale of bin Laden posters and pamphlets.
The government plainly denies that the support exists, preferring to view bin Laden not as a Wahhabite Muslim but as a leader of a terrorist holding corporation. This vacuous mantra, masquerading as deeply thought-out threat analysis, will lead to our defeat as a people.
Sadder still is the government line that "this is not a war against Islam." This is doubly sad, as the key to the Wahhabis' defeat in the "big picture" can be found in that very phrase. The salient method to defeat "Islamic terrorism" is to attack Wahhabite theology itself. This needs to be done with non-Wahhabi Islamic scholars working with the CIA.
Contradictions within Wahhabism need to be found and exploited. In the long term, schools need to be funded that teach a non-Wahhabite theology within the Islamic world that prepares and allows for the introduction of modernity. While it is doubtful this will result in democracy, it should negate the appeal of violent totalitarian theocracies.
At the same time, we must also attend to the symptom in a more timely and ruthless fashion. Bin Laden and other Wahhabi terrorists are only limited by capability. Time is on their side, unless we fight a Total War now, as their capability will increase. The Powell doctrine is not new but rather a repeat of the military thinking of Gen. McClellan, with nearly equal results. We must leave this defeatist doctrine behind and, like Patton, be daring in the protection of our survival.
Finally, our resolve to survive must not falter. If CNN had existed during the Bataan Death March or the bombing of Dresden, how different history's outcomes would have been.
The greatest strength of our civilization is that we view things in shades of gray. This is also our greatest weakness, when confronted with an enemy that has as its philosophical underpinning an absolutist continuum of metaphysical dimension.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/28/135836.shtml
Ray Pierce
Sunday, Oct. 28, 2001
Try as they may, our leaders fighting the War on Terrorism are thinking "in the box," seeing only the small picture. I am most troubled by the banal and facile assessment of the threat to our civilization promulgated by our government and by "experts" in the media.
I believe that this mis-identification of the threat is due to the philosophical concept of "corresponding truths" – the idea that Western pluralistic minds see what they expect to see, not what exists within the realm of epistemological circumstance.
The fact that religion is not a major part of our Zeitgeist is hampering the understanding of the threat we face and the response needed for its defeat. Indeed, we are only chasing after a symptom of the threat.
It is always useful, when dealing with any bureaucracy, to consider the book called "The Cybernetic Theory of Decision," by John Steinbrunner. This book, used in the study of international relations, examines the interactions of bureaucracies within nations. The people who rise to the top of most bureaucracies are normally goal satisficers, i.e., those who think and behave in a conventional manner, living "within the box."
Their opposite, goal maximizers, seldom rise in a bureaucracy, as they threaten those around them. When Gen. Patton stated that he could turn his army around during the Battle of the Bulge and relieve Bastonge, the other generals scoffed. Patton, a goal maximizer, saw opportunity where they saw unacceptable risk. When Patton actually did what he claimed could be done, he was hated all the more.
Steinbrunner explains it in a different way: If the standard is three widgets, the goal satisficer will make three, the maximizer more than three. Eventually, the goal maximizer will feel group pressure to either make three widgets, or leave. This is why the majority of policy elements within the government think "in the box."
In my view, the root of the actual threat we face is Wahhabite theology and the way in which it manifests itself throughout the Sunni world. Yet much of the media and elements within the government portray the terrorists as "Islamic Fundamentalists." As a secular people, we view Islam as a monolith rather than a series of sects that are offshoots from the two main branches of Shiite and Sunni.
Wahhabism originated in Saudi Arabia during the 18th century. Wahhabite theology is best manifested today by the Taliban and bin Laden. Saudi Arabia exports this brand of Islam throughout the world in the form of funding for schools and Mosques. Indeed, "Islamic terrorists" from the Philippines, Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, the southern part of the former Soviet Union, and Western China are all adherents of Wahhabite thought.
It was a great miscalculation of the threat for the administration to marginalize bin Laden, as he is mainstream to the Wahhabite worldview, as demonstrated by his global support amongst Wahhabite sects. This point seems lost on all and sundry, with the media constantly shocked when reporting large bin Laden demonstrations and the sale of bin Laden posters and pamphlets.
The government plainly denies that the support exists, preferring to view bin Laden not as a Wahhabite Muslim but as a leader of a terrorist holding corporation. This vacuous mantra, masquerading as deeply thought-out threat analysis, will lead to our defeat as a people.
Sadder still is the government line that "this is not a war against Islam." This is doubly sad, as the key to the Wahhabis' defeat in the "big picture" can be found in that very phrase. The salient method to defeat "Islamic terrorism" is to attack Wahhabite theology itself. This needs to be done with non-Wahhabi Islamic scholars working with the CIA.
Contradictions within Wahhabism need to be found and exploited. In the long term, schools need to be funded that teach a non-Wahhabite theology within the Islamic world that prepares and allows for the introduction of modernity. While it is doubtful this will result in democracy, it should negate the appeal of violent totalitarian theocracies.
At the same time, we must also attend to the symptom in a more timely and ruthless fashion. Bin Laden and other Wahhabi terrorists are only limited by capability. Time is on their side, unless we fight a Total War now, as their capability will increase. The Powell doctrine is not new but rather a repeat of the military thinking of Gen. McClellan, with nearly equal results. We must leave this defeatist doctrine behind and, like Patton, be daring in the protection of our survival.
Finally, our resolve to survive must not falter. If CNN had existed during the Bataan Death March or the bombing of Dresden, how different history's outcomes would have been.
The greatest strength of our civilization is that we view things in shades of gray. This is also our greatest weakness, when confronted with an enemy that has as its philosophical underpinning an absolutist continuum of metaphysical dimension.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/28/135836.shtml
DVSNCYNIKL
10-30-2001, 12:12 PM
And that my friends in a nut shell, is something that the media and the government, fail to inform the viewers of.
Moppie
10-30-2001, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL
And that my friends in a nut shell, is something that the media and the government, fail to inform the viewers of.
Absofuckenlutly!
redvalkrie: That my friend is possibly one of the best post's I have ever seen here. I hope other come and read it, and understand it.
Can I ask how you came to find it?
And that my friends in a nut shell, is something that the media and the government, fail to inform the viewers of.
Absofuckenlutly!
redvalkrie: That my friend is possibly one of the best post's I have ever seen here. I hope other come and read it, and understand it.
Can I ask how you came to find it?
redvalkrie
10-31-2001, 09:55 AM
I have been jumping around the net on conspiracies & came about this on some weird web site & read & thought this would be great for the guy's @ AF.
Here is the website I go to to find other items www.artbell.com he has great stuff on missing links, UFO's, conspiracies & alot of other intresting items, you will find sean mortan in whats new items from there you will find what you need.(wahabi is under quickening news)
There is a sweet conspiracy about hitler in there that I am fascinated with!
Enjoy:D
Here is the website I go to to find other items www.artbell.com he has great stuff on missing links, UFO's, conspiracies & alot of other intresting items, you will find sean mortan in whats new items from there you will find what you need.(wahabi is under quickening news)
There is a sweet conspiracy about hitler in there that I am fascinated with!
Enjoy:D
redvalkrie
10-31-2001, 10:36 AM
Here is the other site I have found! http://www.delphiassociates.org/
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025