al-Qaeda releases online magazine

[mosfeld]

I was reading Al Jazeera and stumbled upon an article called "Chilling tips in al-Qaeda magazine (http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2010/10/2010101254836321101.html)" which talks about how to kill American soldiers, according to al-Qaeda.

The magazine is called "Inspire" and the slogan is "...and the believers". The second copy was recently released, Im skimming through it right now. It has 74 pages and has a pretty neat design and cute illustrations, like on page 22. Nothing too professional, but I was expecting underground xerox style collage art like you see in shitty pretentious anarchist vegan zines and stuff like that, but al-Qaeda dodged that fucking bullet, so Im fairly impressed.

The content includes includes an alternative account of a shootout in Yemen, which claims that al-Qaeda actually killed 40 soldiers and injured dozens with no casualties on their side, in contrast the media claimed that al-Qaeda lost a bunch and their members. So Im guessing al-Qaeda went like "what no dude we need to correct this shit". You can see photos of their operation on page 27 and forward. Gruesome shit but evidence either way.

It has a bunch of other articles but I haven't read too much.

You can download it here (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HDTIY1TC). The password is Hu.&hGgi/HlM*hgYsghL (thanks go to this (http://occident.blogspot.com/2010/10/al-qaida-in-arabian-peninsula-releases.html) guy.)

(Note: im not "endorsing al-Qaeda" or something, so don't go for that bait please. Just thought RevLefters would be interested.)

[mosfeld]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=773&pictureid=6742

[Dimentio]

Salafism... *sigh*

The nearest equivalent within the marxist tradition of thought would be the Red Brigades and the Weathermen.

[penguinfoot]

The nearest equivalent within the marxist tradition of thought would be the Red Brigades and the Weathermen.

Except, they are not equivalent whatsoever, in any way, and even those two examples operated from different ideological bases. What a silly comparison.

[mosfeld]

Both of them conduct/ed isolated struggles separated from the masses. Why is it such a bad comparison? :)

[Queercommie Girl]

Theocrats are infidels.

[Dimentio]

Except, they are not equivalent whatsoever, in any way, and even those two examples operated from different ideological bases. What a silly comparison.

Generally, what I mean with an "equivalent" is not identical in terms of ideology, but identical in terms of methodology in this case.

There is a much more obvious case though, regarding the split in the Sunni-vs-Shi'ite schools of Islam (*cough* Stalin vs Trotsky *cough*)

[thriller]

"Open Source Jihad" lol, I didn't know there was closed source jihad :P

[penguinfoot]

At a basic level, it's a bad comparison because there are any number of organizations and historical movements that have "conducted isolated struggles from the masses" - you could say that was true of the Soviet armies that imposed state capitalism on large parts of Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2 in the sense that the changes that were imposed on those countries occurred without the involvement of the large part of the working class (with the possible exception of Czechoslovakia) and were in some instances resisted by the main bulk of the working population, you can say that was true of the coups that have taken place in Latin American governments ever since Latin America emerged as a continent of independent states because a coup d'etat is almost by definition a change in the personal composition of a state apparatus that occurs without substantial mass involvement, or, if there is mass involvement, only as an accompaniment to struggles that take place at the apex of society and do not involve the transformation of socio-economic structures. If a description can be applied to such a huge number of historical phenomena, I don't see why you would single out two of those phenomena for specific comparison. It's actually a basic principle of comparative social science that the more general your criteria for case selection are, the less informative or detailed conclusions you can draw. This isn't to say that we should treat Al Qaeda as a historically unique phenomenon or as something that simply can't be explained but if we do make comparisons it needs to be on the basis of something more than a struggle being waged without mass involvement - it needs to be made between Al Qaeda and another organization or movement that has based itself on an idealized conception of religious community or which makes use of the most modern technology at the same time as rejecting much of what is distinctive about modernity.


There is a much more obvious case though, regarding the split in the Sunni-vs-Shi'ite schools of Islam (*cough* Stalin vs Trotsky *cough*)

That's, again, an utterly immature comparison - it's making a comparison just for the sake of being able to do so without acknowledging what is specific about either of those events. How can you possibly compare a struggle for religious succession in pre-modern Arabia where there were not even two simple alternatives as you seem to suggest to the degeneration of a socialist revolution in the conditions of advanced capitalism?

[Dimentio]

That's, again, an utterly immature comparison - it's making a comparison just for the sake of being able to do so without acknowledging what is specific about either of those events. How can you possibly compare a struggle for religious succession in pre-modern Arabia where there were not even two simple alternatives as you seem to suggest to the degeneration of a socialist revolution in the conditions of advanced capitalism?

Firstly, because it shows exactly how stupid the conflict between stalinists and trotskyists is.

Secondly, it irritates douchebags.