Analysis: The Arab League's Revolutionary Strategy

Two Men by the Sea - Caspar David Friedrich

There are many types of revolutions. The most obvious kind is the one we have recently witnessed in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and in Ukraine. However, there are other sorts of revolutions that are more subtle although they may also result in bloodshed.  
During the course of my research on terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict and on delegitimising campaigns, I couldn't avoid realising the concatenation of events from late 1990's onwards, when a true revolution subtly sprouted. 

In 1997, the Arab League, in a well thought out strategy, decided to revive (near the UN General Assembly) the Resolution 181 as a basis for the Arab-Israeli peace agreement, knowing that it had been considered void after their utter rejection of the 1947 Partition Plan. What is interesting about the timing of this move is that it seems to be linked to other events, that can't be coincidental (since coincidences do not exist): in 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania suffered a bombing attack; in 2000, the the USS Cole in Yemen suffered yet another bombing strike. These events were attributed to Al-Qaeda (AQ) but, according to Christopher M. Blanchard (in Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology), Bin Laden had always denied its authorship despite saying that whomever did it had his support and shared motivations. 
The United States till this day attribute those attacks to AQ, but what if the official account is partially misleading (for political considerations)? 
Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, in 2001, had the following goals:
  • To deliver a destructive strike against America in retaliation for its aggression in the Islamic world (i.e. to implement a strategy of intimidation: the US didn't change your policy vis-a-vis the Islamic nations, so we attacked her)
  • To indicate and support the "emergence of a new virtuous leadership" dedicated to opposing "the Zionist-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant coalition" 
  • "To prompt [the US] to come out of its hole." (i.e. to implement a strategy of provocation and attrition: to cause America to retaliate and, thus, to attrit its economic, political and military power). 
Thereafter, the AQ's leadership served as an inspiration to several Islamic causes and, in June 2005, Ayman Al-Zawahiri laid out the three foundations of AQ (Sharia law-based government; liberation of Islamic homelands and liberation of the people through the rejection of rulers who violate Islamic laws and principles) and although many Muslim organisations distance(d) themselves from radical Salafist causes, they all abide by the same Big Satan-Little Satan doctrine and aim at the same: attrit by all means necessary the US, Europe and Israel (the synecdoche of Jews) to the point of making the two first bleed economically [in order to accept the massive Arab investment, pushing them to engage in wars that will cause mass Muslim migration into their borders (i.e. the refugee strategy)]; and to the point of destroying the latter. 

By any means deemed necessary...
The Arab League, after 1997, decided to use the UN as a platform from which it would start its political war of attrition. 
Al-Qaeda, its affiliates and other Islamic terrorist groups, act as the Arab League's unofficial armed wing and the wagers of the military war of attrition.
The BDS movement (born in July 2005, a month after Al-Zawahiri laid out the three pillars of Al-Qaeda) and its many associates were charged with the cultural and economic war of attrition. 

I take my hat off to the Saudi-led Arab League of Nations for the way they carried out one of the most well organised revolutions this earth has ever had the pleasure to witness. They were smart and played the game well. But...

For every revolution there is a counter-revolution. 


  1. We should not be surprised at this as Muslims, nations and people, obey the "al-Wala' wal.Bara" doctrine as explained by Professor David Bukay:

    "The al-Wala’ wal-Bara’ doctrine is portrayed as a defensive policy. Given that Muslims are peaceful tolerant human beings, while non-Muslims are aggressors, imperialist-colonialist occupiers, their victims and even their potential victims, i.e., all Muslims must fight to defend themselves and retaliate against the Kuffar (non-believer), who always instigate war."

    For more:

    As long as we refuse to submit to Sharia they will always be at war with us, it's that simple. Now go and explain this to leftists and pacifists!

    1. Hi Pietr :D!

      I wasn't aware of this doctrine, thank you for bringing this information to the table. Is this a wide spread doctrine; I mean, does every Muslim believe in it or is it only the political leadership?

      We will never submit to Sharia, you know that. They have tried once and lost. They are trying now and will lose again.

      Pietr, thank you so much for your input and for adding a new topic to the debate :D.


  2. I don't think the Saudis or the Arabs in general are that smart to pull something like this off! I think these groups are all separate and their actions were a coincidence! And what do you mean by reviving the resolution 181? It's ridiculous!!!! This post sounds racist to me!

    1. Hi Celia :D!

      Why, you are underestimating people, which is never good. Arabs, Persians etc, are extremely intelligent and I am surprised at your reaction, really.
      I mean that the resolution 181 had been rendered dead, void, and after 1997 that's when the Arab League started its campaign to make it relevant again - after realising their silly mistake. And the west fell right into the web through Leftist groups.

      Yes, prior to that, everybody wanted peace between the Arabs in Palestine and Israel but...did they really? Look at the agreements previously signed...deep down we all know the truth, however political considerations force us to make hypocritical choices...

      Celia, thank you so much for your input :D.


  3. I think this may be an unfair assessment as Saudi Arabia has helped the west to fight against terrorism, the jet toner cartridge comes to mind and it has deradicalization programs to rehabilitate terrorists and all. Do you disagree these things happened?

    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      I do not disagree that Saudi Arabia has assisted the West in countering terrorism; especially when it suits them (in the cartridge bombing case, they wanted to stop the individuals who dared to attack a Prince, a member of the royal house). Like a friend of mine would say: enough said.
      I would like them to tackle the Wahabbis that sponsor madrasas (where people are indoctrinated towards violence) and release the numbers of their success cases in the deradicalisation programmes. Their refusal to do so is suspicious.

      Anon, thank you so much for your input :D.


  4. I tend to view the overall strategy as something determined by spiritual forces that are beyond mankind's comprehension. Thus, the Arab League, together with the EU, Russia and the US are all witless pawns in another game.

    At another level, America has embraced Total Depravity as its national religion, Insanity as its national philosophy, and Kleptocracy as our preferred form of governance. The costs of our wars are nothing compared to this self-inflicted damage.

    The latest news is that our overall defense spending will be moving to the level of 1940. (pre- WW2 for us.) We are going to use the money to make a major national investment to help drug heads to get high and drunks to go to the bar. This way they can make a further contribution to the economic recovery.

    1. Hi Looney :D!

      Which game would that be exactly? Now I'm curious.

      It's not only America; I think it is the western world in general.
      I heard of the Pentagon's plans: but I ask whether the US is trying to tell us that its army will become more specialised (i.e. Special Forces), other than sending the more obvious message that "our non-intervention policy will be implemented"? It's a possibility.

      Looney, thank you so much for your great input :D.


    2. Max, the "special forces" are basically composed of the more experienced elements of the regular forces who stay on. The combination of experience and outstanding performance along with extra training is what makes them special. They must also continue on in the military beyond the initial terms, which many won't do even if they excel at military things. Thus, it is impossible to shrink the military and simultaneously increase the special forces, unless we drastically water down standards.

    3. Looney, you have presented valid concerns. I shall ponder on them, thank you.
      Lowering the standards would be tragic.

  5. It makes sense. But my favorite part is the last sentence: for every revolution there is a counter revolution! And the time is coming to kick butt!

    1. Hi Mike :D!

      Amen to that!

      Michael, thank you so much for your input, mate :D.


  6. Oooh, I couldn't agree more! Those guys are on to us for a long long time and it's shameful that we actually fell for it over money.
    Thought of the week: if I had the power to decide, pedophiles would be put to death! They'll never change and chances are they will attack a child again despite their chemical treatment. Yeah, instead of fighting against gays, who have consensual sex among themselves, we should focus now on pedophiles! Good work, Max!

    1. Hi Carl :D!

      You know what? I agree with you. Paedophiles should be put to death.
      Thanks, mate.

      Carl, thank you for your input :D.



Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers