Did You Know Terrorists Don't Care What We Do to Our Freedoms?

According to many liberals, with the advent of the Patriot Act, the terrorists have "won" because of the "changes" in America that they argue have eroded our freedoms. It is a common phrase that has sprung up in liberal thought, taking momentum especially after the London terror bombings, arguing that a shift in behavior means that terrorists have "won the day", so to speak. However, one has to inquire how they've "won", if their objectives have absolutely nothing to do with us changing our security measures or domestic policies.

If we are truly interested in knowing what defines victory for "the terrorists" (since the Global War on Terror was largely declared against Islamic extremism, and al-Qaeda as its focal point, we'll use them), we have to look at their actual play book. According to Osama bin-Laden himself, the goals of al-Qaeda are:

The liberation of the al-Aqsa Mosque and the removal of all Western influence over Muslim lands for the creation of a reborn Islamic Caliphate. In order to meet this goal, Muslims are authorized to kill Americans, both civilian and military, until their demands are met, and anyone who does not heed this call is declared an apostate - and apostasy is considered a capital crime in Islam, something that is heavily enforced in many Muslim countries.

Therefore, assuming the worst case liberal scenario, with a total clamp down on all freedoms of movement, press, free speech, thought, and behavior in the United States and Great Britain, we have to ask ourselves: would this move al-Qaeda closer to its end goal of liberating the al-Aqsa Mosque and re-establishing the Caliphate?

Let's consider what these two things mean.

The "liberation of the al-Aqsa mosque" is actually something of a misnomer, as it is not currently being occupied. In effect, what's gotten up all the terrorists' skirts is that the "Zionist Entity" (Israel) currently has legal claim to both ends of Jerusalem following the Six Day War. Part of this territory involves the Temple Mount, where Solomon's Temple once stood - at its foot is known as the "Wailing Wall", the last relic of that old age.

On the Temple mount exist the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque, the latter of which is a shrine built there following the misinterpretation of a Quranic passage whereby Muhammad dreamed he flew to "the furthest mosque", and then ascended into Heaven. The Muslims violently guard this area, to the point that when Ariel Sharon dared to visit, it began an Intifada that killed thousands. By and large, most people just leave the Muslims to it, while the Jews attempt to pray at the Wailing Wall, where they are frequently attacked with rocks, verbal abuse, and even sometimes attempts at legislation as the Muslims protest that the Jewish praying is "disrupting Muslim praying".

There is a common myth perpetuated in the Islamic, especially in the Gaza Strip, that Muslims are forbidden to go to the Temple Mount and pray at the mosque, however this is actually 100% false, as Muslims pray there every day. In fact, until 2003, a ban actually existed discriminating against non-Muslims, preventing them access to the site. The entire area is put under the jurisdiction of a Muslim group.

Therefore, liberation effectively amounts to a thinly veiled desire to destroy "the Zionist Entity" - not something entirely uncommon in the Muslim world, as even secularists such as Saddam Hussein expressed an intense religious desire to destroy Israel. If blindly racist and potentially genocidal goals don't seem self-evident from this behavior, comfort yourself in knowing that the official fatwa that outlined al-Qaeda's goals was signed by a group that labeled itself "the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders".

The second stated objective is the return of the Caliphate - which was officially smashed in World War I, although the idea had largely been dead for some time. The Caliphate is essentially the united embodiment of Islam, with a Caliph as the head, in some ways like a Pope, in other ways like an Emperor. Perhaps where the Pope and Caliph differ the greatest is the declaration that the Pope is the living embodiment of God, and only through him can Catholics hope to receive salvation, whereas Muslims don't believe this of their Caliph.

The position of Caliph is one that has always been a hot topic amongst Muslims - after all, the current Sunni-Shi'ite rift has its foundation in a dynastic dispute between Ali and Abu Bakr over who was to inherit Muhammad's empire.

A Caliphate can be as political as it can be spiritual too, as the Caliph is largely seen as the head of a unified Islamic state. The territory that Osama bin-Laden hopes to control is anywhere that is considered "Muslim land" by holy decree - and holy decree essentially believes that anywhere ruled by Muslims at any point constitutes "Muslim land". Therefore, logically, this Caliphate would stretch from very possibly parts of China, to Afghanistan, to Chechnya, to the entire Middle East, northern and Central Africa including Sudan and Somalia, Anatolia, Greece, Sicily, Spain, Rome, and most of Italy.

It is up for scholarly debate what else may be considered "Islamic land" once a Caliphate has been established.

So then it must be asked once more:

If, as many state, the terrorists "have won" based on domestic policy shifts, which part of the Patriot Act has moved Osama bin-Laden closer to liberating the al-Aqsa Mosque, or abolishing Middle Eastern nation states, and creating a borderless Islamic empire?