RSSSemua Entries Tagged: "terorisme"

PRECISION DI GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR:

Sherifa Zuhur

Tujuh tahun setelah September 11, 2001 (9/11) serangan, banyak ahli percaya bahwa al-Qa'ida telah mendapatkan kembali kekuatannya dan bahwa para peniru atau afiliasinya lebih mematikan daripada sebelumnya. Perkiraan Intelijen Nasional dari 2007 menegaskan bahwa al-Qa'ida sekarang lebih berbahaya daripada sebelumnya 9/11.1 Emulator Al-Qaeda terus mengancam Barat, Timur Tengah, dan negara-negara Eropa, seperti dalam plot yang digagalkan pada bulan September 2007 di Jerman. Bruce Riedel menyatakan: Sebagian besar berkat keinginan Washington untuk pergi ke Irak daripada memburu para pemimpin al Qaeda, organisasi sekarang memiliki basis operasi yang kuat di tanah tandus Pakistan dan waralaba yang efektif di Irak barat. Jangkauannya telah menyebar ke seluruh dunia Muslim dan di Eropa . . . Osama bin Laden telah melakukan kampanye propaganda yang sukses. . . . Idenya sekarang menarik lebih banyak pengikut dari sebelumnya.
Memang benar bahwa berbagai organisasi salafi-jihadis masih bermunculan di seluruh dunia Islam. Mengapa tanggapan dengan sumber daya yang besar terhadap terorisme Islam yang kami sebut jihad global tidak terbukti sangat efektif??
Pindah ke alat "kekuatan lunak",” bagaimana dengan keberhasilan upaya Barat untuk mendukung umat Islam dalam Perang Global Melawan Teror? (GWOT)? Mengapa Amerika Serikat memenangkan begitu sedikit "hati dan pikiran" di dunia Islam yang lebih luas?? Mengapa pesan strategis Amerika tentang masalah ini bermain sangat buruk di kawasan?? Mengapa, terlepas dari ketidaksetujuan Muslim yang luas terhadap ekstremisme seperti yang ditunjukkan dalam survei dan pernyataan resmi oleh para pemimpin Muslim utama, memiliki dukungan untuk bin Ladin sebenarnya meningkat di Yordania dan di Pakistan?
Monograf ini tidak akan meninjau kembali asal-usul kekerasan Islamis. Alih-alih, ini berkaitan dengan jenis kegagalan konseptual yang secara keliru membangun GWOT dan yang membuat umat Islam enggan mendukungnya. Mereka tidak dapat mengidentifikasi dengan tindakan penanggulangan transformatif yang diusulkan karena mereka melihat beberapa keyakinan dan institusi inti mereka sebagai target dalam
usaha ini.
Beberapa tren yang sangat bermasalah mengacaukan konseptualisasi Amerika tentang GWOT dan pesan strategis yang dibuat untuk melawan Perang itu. Ini berevolusi dari (1) pendekatan politik pasca-kolonial terhadap Muslim dan negara-negara mayoritas Muslim yang sangat bervariasi dan karenanya menghasilkan kesan dan efek yang saling bertentangan dan membingungkan; dan (2) sisa ketidaktahuan umum dan prasangka terhadap Islam dan budaya subregional. Tambahkan ke kemarahan Amerika ini, takut, dan kecemasan tentang peristiwa mematikan 9/11, dan elemen tertentu yang, terlepas dari desakan kepala yang lebih dingin, meminta pertanggungjawaban umat Islam dan agama mereka atas perbuatan buruk para pemeluk agama mereka, atau yang merasa berguna untuk melakukannya karena alasan politik.

Islam dan Demokrasi

ITAC

Jika seseorang membaca pers atau mendengarkan komentator pada hubungan internasional, sering dikatakan - dan bahkan lebih sering tersirat tapi tidak mengatakan - bahwa Islam tidak kompatibel dengan demokrasi. Di tahun sembilan puluhan, Samuel Huntington memicu badai api intelektual ketika dia menerbitkan The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, di mana dia menyajikan ramalannya untuk dunia – ditulis besar-besaran. Di ranah politik, dia mencatat bahwa sementara Turki dan Pakistan mungkin memiliki beberapa klaim kecil untuk “legitimasi demokratis” semua negara lain “… negara-negara Muslim sangat non-demokratis.: monarki, sistem satu partai, rezim militer, kediktatoran pribadi atau beberapa kombinasi dari ini, biasanya bertumpu pada keluarga terbatas, klan, atau basis suku”. Premis yang mendasari argumennya adalah bahwa mereka tidak hanya 'tidak seperti kita', mereka sebenarnya bertentangan dengan nilai-nilai demokrasi esensial kita. Dia percaya, seperti yang dilakukan orang lain, bahwa sementara gagasan demokratisasi Barat sedang ditentang di bagian lain dunia, konfrontasi paling menonjol di daerah-daerah di mana Islam adalah agama yang dominan.
Argumen juga telah dibuat dari sisi lain. Seorang sarjana agama Iran, merenungkan krisis konstitusional awal abad kedua puluh di negaranya, menyatakan bahwa Islam dan demokrasi tidak kompatibel karena orang tidak setara dan badan legislatif tidak diperlukan karena sifat inklusif hukum agama Islam. Posisi serupa diambil baru-baru ini oleh Ali Belhadj, seorang guru sekolah menengah Aljazair, pengkhotbah dan (pada konteks ini) ketua FIS, ketika dia menyatakan "demokrasi bukan konsep Islam". Mungkin pernyataan paling dramatis tentang hal ini adalah pernyataan Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ., pemimpin pemberontak Sunni di Irak yang, ketika dihadapkan dengan prospek pemilihan, mencela demokrasi sebagai "prinsip jahat".
Namun menurut beberapa cendekiawan Muslim, demokrasi tetap menjadi cita-cita penting dalam Islam, dengan peringatan bahwa itu selalu tunduk pada hukum agama. Penekanan pada tempat terpenting syariah adalah elemen dari hampir setiap komentar Islam tentang pemerintahan, moderat atau ekstremis. Hanya jika penguasa, yang menerima otoritasnya dari Tuhan, membatasi tindakannya pada “pengawasan administrasi syariah” apakah dia harus dipatuhi. Jika dia melakukan selain ini, dia adalah seorang non-Muslim dan Muslim berkomitmen untuk memberontak melawan dia. Di sinilah letak pembenaran untuk sebagian besar kekerasan yang telah melanda dunia Muslim dalam perjuangan seperti yang terjadi di Aljazair selama tahun 90-an.

Ikhwanul Muslim AS. Jaringan

Zeyno Baran


Washington D.C. has suddenly become very interested in the Muslim Brotherhood. American policymakers are debating whether to engage non-violent elements of the Muslim Brotherhood network, both inside and outside the United States, in the hope that such engagement will empower these “moderates” against violent Wahhabi and Salafi groups such as al-Qaeda. Sayangnya, this strategy is based on a false assumption: that “moderate” Islamist groups will confront and weaken their violent co-religionists, robbing them of their support base.
This lesser-of-two-evils strategy is reminiscent of the rationale behind the Cold War-era decision to support the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet army. In the short term, Amerika Serikat. alliance with the mujahideen did indeed aid America in its struggle against the Soviet Union. In the long term, Namun, AS. support led to the empowerment of a dangerous and potent adversary. In choosing its allies, Amerika Serikat. cannot afford to elevate short-term tactical considerations above longer-term strategic ones. Most importantly, Amerika Serikat. must consider the ideology of any potential partners.
Although various Islamist groups do quarrel over tactics and often bear considerable animosity towards one another, they all agree on the endgame: a world dictated by political Islam. A “divide and conquer” strategy by the United States will only push them closer together.

Komentar: Hollow cincin untuk demokrasi

Arnaud DE BORCHGRAVE

WASHINGTON, Juni 24 (UPI) — The White House’s crusade for democracy, as President Bush sees it, has produceda critical mass of events taking that (Timur Tengah) region in a hopeful new direction.And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just toured the area, making clear at every stop whenever the United States has a choice between stability and democracy, the new ideological remedy would sacrifice stability.

Veteran Mideast hands who have dealt with five regional wars and two intifadas over the past half century shuddered. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger first among them.

For the U.S. to crusade in every part of the world to spread democracy may be beyond our capacity,” he says. Amerika Serikat. system, he explains, “is the product of unique historical experiences, difficult to duplicate or to transplant into Muslim societies where secular democracy has seldom thrived.If ever.

If stability had been sacrificed for democracy, the former national security adviser and secretary of State to Presidents Nixon and Ford could not have negotiated major Arab-Israeli disengagement agreements: Sinai I, Golan and Sinai II. Without the undemocratic, benign dictatorial figure of Anwar Sadat at the helm in Egypt, or without the late Syrian dictator and master terror-broker Hafez Assad, yet another page of war history would have been written.

With a democratic parliament in Egypt in 1974, presumably dominated by the popular Muslim Brotherhood, Sadat could not have made his spectacular, death-defying trip to Jerusalemand suddenly become the most popular leader in Israel. A peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and between Jordan and Israel were possible only because absolute rulersSadat and the late King Hussein, led both Arab countries.

Sadat knew his courageous act of statesmanship was tantamount to signing his own death warrant. It was carried out in 1981 — by Islamist extremistson worldwide television.

Rice proudly proclaims it is no longer a war against terrorism but a struggle for democracy. She is proud the Bush administration no longer pursues stability at the expense of democracy. But already the democracy crusade is not only encountering speed bumps, but also roadblocks on a road to nowhere.

The much-vaunted Palestinian elections scheduled for July have been postponed indefinitely.

Di Lebanon, the ballot box has already been nullified by political machinations. Gen. Michael Aoun, a bright but aging prospect who came back from French exile to take on Syria’s underground machine, has already joined forces with Damascus. While denying any deal with Syria, the general’s henchmen concede he was compensated munificently for his retirement years in Paris from his post as army chief of staff and his time as premier. Aoun collected $22 juta, which included compound interest.

Di Mesir, Rice, presumably attempting to confer respectability on President Hosni Mubarak’s challengers, took time out to receive a known political charlatan who has over the years been exposed as someone who forged election results as he climbed the ladder of a number of political parties under a variety of labels.

Even Mubarak’s enemies concede Ayman Nour fabricated and forged the signatures of as many as 1,187 citizens to conform to regulations to legalize his Ghad (Tomorrow) party. His career is dotted with phony academic credentials, plagiarism, a staged assassination attempt on himself, charges of embezzlement by his Saudi media employer, and scads of document forgeries.

Rice had canceled a previous trip to Egypt to protest the indictment and jailing of Nour pending trial. And before Rice’s most recent accolade, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had also gone out of her way to praise Egypt’s master political con man. Makes you wonder what kind of political reporting is coming out of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.

With this double-headed endorsement by the United States, Nour is losing what little favor he still has in Egypt. He is now seen as a U.S. stooge, to add to a long list of failings.

Ikhwanul Muslimin, which is outlawed but tolerated since it renounced terrorism, is more representative of Egyptian opinion than Nour. There is also the Kifaya (Enough) movement that groups Egypt’s leading intellectuals. But they declined to meet with Rice.

The United States is seen throughout the Arab world as synonymous with Israel. This automatically limits the Bush administration’s ability to win friends and influence people. Those making the most out of U.S. pressure to democratize are organizations listed by the United States asterrorist.Both Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon are now mining opportunities both above and underground. Islamic legislators in Jordan petitioned King Abdullah to allow Jordanian Hamas leaders, evicted six years ago, to come home. The king listened impassively.

It took Europe 500 years to reach the degree of political maturity witnessed by the recent collapse of the European Union’s plans for a common constitution. Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. But Churchill also said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.This still applies in the souks of the Arab world, from Marrakech to Muscat.

Terorisme diaspora DI ASIA TIMUR DAN SELATAN TENGAH

Shannon Peterson

David Goetze


Ever since the Bush administration’s declaration of a global war on terror after 9/11,academics and policymakers have sought ways to counter the global terrorist threat. However asJeffrey Record (2003) has noted, treating terrorism monolithically and failing to discriminatebetween terrorist groups and other actors reduces the ability to produce effectivecounterterrorism strategies. Lagi pula, it can set actors “on a course of open-ended andgratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat.” If terrorism andterrorist groups are not homogenous entities, then understanding the differences and similaritiesbetween groups is a crucial first step in constructing an effective counterterrorist response.This research seeks to better discriminate between terrorist groups by examining thegoals, tactics and images embedded in the narratives of terrorist or terrorist spawningorganizations. We define narratives as shared understandings of historical events and relevantactors that are used to justify past political actions or mobilize people for contemporary politicalactions as generally expressed through descriptions or charters issued by organizations orthrough statements of organizational leaders.2 Narrative, as noted by Benedict Anderson, formsthe underbelly of an “imagined community:” the glue binding a group of like-minded individualswho, “will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet inthe minds of each lives the image of their communion” (Anderson 6). Karenanya, we believethat narratives are excellent sources for uncovering group conceptions of “self” and “others” thatare key in attracting and maintaining ties to diaspora communities, as well as related group goals,strategies and tactics. We argue that by comparing the goals, images and tactics embedded in thenarratives of these different organizations, we can shed insight on crucial differences andsimilarities between these terrorist groups. These insights not only help discriminate betweenterrorist groups and other organizations, but also shed insight on the evolution of suchorganizations themselves.Specifically, this research examines the narratives of four groups: the MuslimBrotherhood, Hamas, Al Qaeda and the Tamil Tigers. Two of these groups, Hamas and AlQaeda, have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood and therefore can be viewed as diasporas of thelatter. Namun, while the Muslim Brotherhood takes an evolutionary and nonviolent approachto goal attainment, Hamas and Al Qaeda advocate violence and terrorism to advance their cause,tactics that are also promoted by the fourth group in the analysis, the Tamil Tigers. Since theTamil Tigers have no connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, their inclusion in ourcomparative analysis allows us to determine how much of the commonality of goals acrossterrorist organizations pertains to common roots and how much pertains to commonality oforganizational type, function or tactics.

Menilai arus utama Islam di Mesir dan Malaysia

Di luar 'Terorisme' dan 'Hegemoni Negara': menilai arus utama Islam di Mesir dan Malaysia

Januari KUATMalaysia-Islamists

Internasional jaringan terorisme Islam 'telah menjabat sebagai themost penjelasan populer untuk menggambarkan fenomena Islam politik sincethe 11 September serangan.

Makalah ini berpendapat bahwa Islam doktrinal yang memproklamirkan diri dari para militan dan persepsi Barat tentang ancaman Islam yang homogen perlu didekonstruksi untuk menemukan manifestasi yang sering ambigu dari Islam 'resmi' dan 'oposisi'., modernitas dan konservatisme.

Sebagai perbandingan dua negara Islam, Mesir dan Malaysia,yang keduanya mengklaim memiliki peran utama di daerahnya masing-masing, acara, Kelompok Islam moderat memiliki dampak yang cukup besar pada proses demokratisasi dan munculnya masyarakat sipil selama seperempat abad sejak 'kebangkitan Islam'..

Pengalaman bersama seperti pembentukan koalisi dan partisipasi aktif dalam sistem politik menunjukkan pengaruh dan pentingnya kelompok-kelompok seperti Ikhwanul Muslimin Mesir, Gerakan Pemuda Islam Malaysia (ABIM) atau Partai Islam Malaysia (TIDAK).

Kelompok-kelompok ini telah membentuk lanskap politik ke tingkat yang jauh lebih besar daripada pra-pendudukan saat ini dengan 'ancaman teroris' yang disarankan. Perkembangan bertahap dari 'budaya dialog' telah memperlihatkan pendekatan baru terhadap partisipasi politik dan demokrasi di tingkat akar rumput.