9
   

Islamist Goals: Our Shared Islanmist Enemy

 
 
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 08:17 am


Our Shared Islamist Enemy
From Boston to Israel, radicals are attempting to destroy Western culture

By Yair Shamir, Foreign Policy, May 1, 2013

Geroge Orwell wrote in his seminal tome, 1984, "The object of terrorism is terrorism
. . . Now do you begin to understand me?"

Unfortunately, we live in a world where too many still do not understand.

After the recent terrorist attacks in Boston, there was immense incredulity when the ethnic nationality of the perpetrators was made known. The act did not make sense to many, because terror has so often been explained merely as a product of national conflict, or as a logical reaction to "oppression" or "occupation." Even al Qaeda, we are told, is merely reacting to America's role in the Muslim world.

Neither the United States in particular, nor the West in general, has played a significant role in the decades-long war in Chechnya. The usual talking heads were left scratching their heads -- even after more evidence of the bomber's Islamist ideology came to light.

Modern terror connected to an extremist Islamist mindset is simply something that many in the West are unable or unwilling to truly understand. Our opinion-shapers will look into every possible angle of a terrorist's background and history to find some way to explain away, or on occasion sympathize with, the perpetrators' motives.

We ignore terrorists' ideology at our own peril. While their acts are inhuman, these people are human and we must hold them accountable for their actions -- not treat them as a mere tool of retribution for other misdeeds. Ignoring their ideology will mean that we can never fully understand the implications behind these attacks.

We would not accept Christians meting out vengeance against Muslims for massacres and church bombings in Nigeria, or the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt. Why do we accept the argument that perceived Muslim persecution in one part of the world necessitates Islamist violence in another?

In reality, our Islamist enemies' goals are aggressive by nature. Al Qaeda's ideological underpinnings are found in the writings of Egyptian Islamist theorist Sayyid Qutb, which lauded offensive jihad, or a jihad of conquest. There is little that is reactive about this belief system - it is not aimed at defending its rights, but at conquering the world of the disbelievers.

While it may seem unbelievable to most that al Qaeda's attacks on the United States are about toppling the American nation, this is at the core of the terrorist organization's goals. On March 11, 2005, al-Quds al-Arabi published extracts from al Qaeda leader Saif al-Adel's "al Qaeda's Strategy to the Year 2020." Written in the 1990s, this document outlines how the terrorist organization has attempted to undertake a series of steps that will bring down the United States and the West. This impossible goal is an integral aspect of radical terrorist belief system.

The perpetrators of the Boston attacks, while seemingly unconnected to a terror cell or organization, are examples of people imbued with this radical ideology. Where and how they became radicalized is an important question for the FBI or CIA. But there is one thing we already know: Once they became practitioners of Islamist terror, their goal, in the words of a Boston police chief, was simply to kill as many people as possible. This was not about military occupation, borders, or national aspirations.

In the West, we can understand a person who fights with every breath against tyranny and oppression. We were raised on the heroic struggles against Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. However, we cannot understand someone whose goal is to maim and murder innocents in the name of their religion.

So we avoid that conclusion at all costs. It is a concept so foreign that we reject it outright, and seek other answers more acceptable to our Western palate.

In Israel, we have fought against jihadi terrorism long before there was a single Israeli foot in the West Bank, and even before Jewish sovereignty was reestablished in 1948. In the 1920s and 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, would whip his followers into a religious frenzy who would then murder, burn, and frequently dismember innocent Jews.

Husseini's modern-day disciples are no less interested in murder for spiritual gain. While most assume that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is about sovereignty, that is not what the Palestinian terrorist groups claim.

Hamas, the most popular party during the last Palestinian elections, seeks the complete obliteration of Israel. As Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said in Gaza last December, "Palestine is ours, from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land."

Article 7 of the Hamas Charter, promises a world without Jews, where the "Day of Judgment" will only arrive when the last Jews are hunted down and killed. It is genocidal in its intent.

It is this aggressive and offensive jihad, unconnected to any particular conflict or borders, which conjoins Islamist terror groups around the world. It is this murderous and invasive mindset that drove the Tsarnaev brothers to attack innocent civilians in Boston.

If we in the West wish to stand in the way of this malevolent terror, we must first understand its vision, its true nature, and its goals. Only then can it be conquered. Sadly, at present, we are not even on the same battlefield.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 9 • Views: 5,178 • Replies: 140
No top replies

 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 08:35 am
@Advocate,
First they said this about the the Jews....

Now you are saying it about the Muslims.

It makes me wonder who is next?
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 08:54 am
@maxdancona,
Religion need persecution. It is their lifeblood---when you persecute a religion it thrives and grows-

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, not because it is closer to the sky fairy, it is because it is so reviled by its cohort religions .

Face it--it ain't no hair off the sky fairy's ass what you believe.

Rap
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 09:20 am
@raprap,
This hatred isn't being directed toward religion, it is being directed toward ethnicity. Bigots directed the same sort of hatred, not only toward Jews, but also toward Catholics and the Chinese.

But it never mattered if the victims of this hatred were religious or not. It is hatred targeted toward a group of people based on their heritage.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 10:09 am
In yet another of Advi's cut and paste jobs, Yair Shamir wrote:

The perpetrators of the Boston attacks, while seemingly unconnected to a terror cell or organization, are examples of people imbued with this radical ideology. Where and how they became radicalized is an important question for the FBI or CIA. But there is one thing we already know: Once they became practitioners of Islamist terror, their goal, in the words of a Boston police chief, was simply to kill as many people as possible. This was not about military occupation, borders, or national aspirations.


What it was about was a perceived persecution of people belonging to the perpetrators’ religion. As the younger one said it was in response to the US’ wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Shamir further wrote:
In Israel, we have fought against jihadi terrorism long before there was a single Israeli foot in the West Bank, and even before Jewish sovereignty was reestablished in 1948. In the 1920s and 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, would whip his followers into a religious frenzy who would then murder, burn, and frequently dismember innocent Jews.


Conflating the terrorist bombing in Boston with the terrorism perpetrated by the militant Palestinians against their Zionist oppressors is conniving and disingenuous. The former was perpetrated by a couple of misguided losers who took it into their heads to answer for those American wars, the latter has been perpetrated by violent zealots in response to the actual arrogation of Palestine and the oppression of the Palestinians by the Zionists—which itself has included acts of terrorism and ethnic cleansing--in the name of an ethnocentric state “for the Jews.”
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 01:20 pm
@InfraBlue,
As expected, you remain an apologist for the Muslim killers.

There is a big difference with the Muslims, they have no qualms about targeting innocents. Israel doesn't do this.

I wish I could say the same about the USA. We killed over three million, mostly innocents, in Nam, and killed a couple hundred thousands in Iraq.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 02:08 pm
I found this part of Advocate's article a little troubling (which I edited only slightly to help Advocate see how offensive his rhetoric is).

Quote:
In reality, our Jewish enemies' goals are aggressive by nature. The Zionists ideological underpinnings are found in the writings of Jewish theorists in the Protocols of the Elders of zion, which lauded offensive ... conquest. There is little that is reactive about this belief system - it is not aimed at defending its rights, but at controlling the world of the Gentiles.


I had really hoped that we had moved on from the most horrible parts of the last century.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 02:25 pm
@Advocate,
Lord you found a nice excused to be a hater just as must as those two young Boston bombers and in your own way you are just as dangerous to society as anyone calling for Jihad against the West.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 02:30 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

I found this part of Advocate's article a little troubling (which I edited only slightly to help Advocate see how offensive his rhetoric is).

Quote:
In reality, our Jewish enemies' goals are aggressive by nature. The Zionists ideological underpinnings are found in the writings of Jewish theorists in the Protocols of the Elders of zion, which lauded offensive ... conquest. There is little that is reactive about this belief system - it is not aimed at defending its rights, but at controlling the world of the Gentiles.


I had really hoped that we had moved on from the most horrible parts of the last century.


However, the "Protocols" were a forgery. I thought there is a real concept called Jihad that does have as its goal of a Caliphate, that maintains Sharia Law?

But it is interesting that Gentiles of Christian ancestry can't help but make Jews the common denominator of a totally unrelated concern. Perhaps, Gentiles of Christian ancestry are just on good behavior, due to identifying with those that affected the Holocaust?

The analysis, with its supposed correlation, is just so goyisha kup (and one isn't even ashamed of it), in my opinion, if you know what I mean.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 02:49 pm
@Foofie,
It isn't unrelated at all. The bigotry being directed at Muslims is nothing new. And the defamatory accusations are nothing new. The things being said about Muslims now are very similar to the things that were said about the Jews (and the Italians, and the Chinese).

Advocate seems to believe the only thing that was wrong with antisemitism was that the bigots were attacking the wrong victims.

I believe these defamatory attacks were wrong then, and they are wrong now. I don't want to live in a society where bigotry isn't strongly condemned.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 03:12 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

It isn't unrelated at all. The bigotry being directed at Muslims is nothing new. And the defamatory accusations are nothing new. The things being said about Muslims now are very similar to the things that were said about the Jews (and the Italians, and the Chinese).

Advocate seems to believe the only thing that was wrong with antisemitism was that the bigots were attacking the wrong victims.

I believe these defamatory attacks were wrong then, and they are wrong now. I don't want to live in a society where bigotry isn't strongly condemned.


I don't see the bigotry in speaking out about a group of people who target innocents. This is not to mention criticizing the group's abysmal treatment of women, Christians, and minorities.

I am a bit surprised that you cannot see this. Perhaps you are blinded by your hatred of Israel and Jews.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 03:17 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

As expected, you remain an apologist for the Muslim killers.

There is a big difference with the Muslims, they have no qualms about targeting innocents. Israel doesn't do this.

I wish I could say the same about the USA. We killed over three million, mostly innocents, in Nam, and killed a couple hundred thousands in Iraq.


HA! Descriptions are not apologetics.

Most of the terrorism perpetrated by the Palestinian extremists has been committed in the name of Palestinian nationalism and not Islamist jihad.

The Zionist leadership perpetrated terrorism and ethnic cleansing in its effort to establish an ethnocentric state--the latter of which it continues to do so by the systematic dispossesion of non-Jews of property in Palestine.

The US is complicit in the Zionists' repression of the Palestinian peoples.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 03:19 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
I don't see the bigotry in speaking out about a group of people who target innocents. This is not to mention criticizing the group's abysmal treatment of women, Christians, and minorities.


But, do they eat Christian babies?

Say whatever you want. Hating people based on their ethnicity is not OK.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 06:10 pm
Why is it so difficult for some people to acknowledge the religious component of Islamist terrorism?

It can be done without broadly painting all Muslims terrorists, or labeling Islam a religion of terror.

Why is it difficult for other people to discuss Islamist terrorism without bringing Israel into the mix?

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not why Islamists are attacking The US and the West. Of course they would like to see Jews driven out of the region or slaughtered wholesale, but if Israel conceded to every Palestinian demand tomorrow or if the Jews in Israel turned out the lights and all migrated to Western lands, the Islamists would not fold up their tents and give leave to their violent ways.

And it's not an ethnicity issue. There are more Muslims in Indonesia than in all of the Middle East. Pakistani and Indian Muslims would hardly find it acceptable to be considered Arabs, and even an idiot who bases all of his notions of taxonomy on complexion, wouldn't consider Uighurs to be Arabs .

The Boston Marathon Bombers are obviously not Arabs, and despite their name, neither are members of Abu Sayyaf in the Phillippines. There is clearly not a common ethnicity among Islamists, but there is a common religious affiliation.

No matter what crazy ass idea violent miscreants choose to embrace, it's idiotic to turn our gaze away from or deny that idea.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 08:27 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Why is it so difficult for some people to acknowledge the religious component of Islamist terrorism?

It can be done without broadly painting all Muslims terrorists, or labeling Islam a religion of terror.


The same reason it is so difficult for some people to acknowledge the religious component of Christian terrorism.

I have no problem with someone who lumps religious terrorism together so that the specific religion doesn't matter. If you are willing to do this, then you avoid the bigotry that tries to make one religion responsible for all the worlds terrorism and makes peaceful people pay the price.

But that is not what articles like this, and people like this, are trying to do. They are trying to pin all terrorism on Muslims and all blame all Muslims for terrorism in spite of the fact that other religions commit terrorism, and that terrorism counts for about 10 deaths per year in the US (with two exceptions).

That kind of bigotry must be strongly opposed in any civilized democracy.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 08:48 pm
@maxdancona,
There is no "Christian Terrorism" in the sense that there is Islamist Terrorism.

But then it may be my ethnic bigotry that questions the notion and so please educate me on Christian Terrorism.

BTW: What are the two exceptions to the Islamist death toll you seem to want to dismiss out of hand?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 08:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:

Why is it so difficult for some people to acknowledge the religious component of Islamist terrorism?


Quote:

The same reason it is so difficult for some people to acknowledge the religious component of Christian terrorism.


Quote:
There is no "Christian Terrorism" in the sense that there is Islamist Terrorism.


Do you see what is happening here? I could give you the list of recent atrocities committed by Christian both in and out of the US.

- Tim McVeigh
- Abortion Bombers
- Anti-gay mobs in Uganda
- The Lord's Resistance Army
- The Serbian genocide
- The current burning of children as witches.

You will ignore anything that isn't Muslim to fit your narrative. This in spite of the fact that of the 120 people killed by terrorists in the US in the past 12 years, only 33 were killed by Muslims.

The two exceptions to years in the US with more than 20 deaths to terrorism were Tim McVeigh and 9/11. Only one of these was committed by Muslims.

The real question here is why do people ignore terrorist acts by one religion while focusing on acts by another one?

You seem like someone who should be able to answer that one.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 10:02 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:


Do you see what is happening here? I could give you the list of recent atrocities committed by Christian both in and out of the US.

- Tim McVeigh
- Abortion Bombers
- Anti-gay mobs in Uganda
- The Lord's Resistance Army
- The Serbian genocide
- The current burning of children as witches.

You will ignore anything that isn't Muslim to fit your narrative. This in spite of the fact that of the 120 people killed by terrorists in the US in the past 12 years, only 33 were killed by Muslims.

The two exceptions to years in the US with more than 20 deaths to terrorism were Tim McVeigh and 9/11. Only one of these was committed by Muslims.

The real question here is why do people ignore terrorist acts by one religion while focusing on acts by another one?

You seem like someone who should be able to answer that one.



I could have won a million bucks betting that you would offer McVeigh as an example of "Christian Terrorism."

He may have been a Christian but he didn't base his act, in any way shape or form, on Christianity.

Eric Rudolph based his terrorism on abortion. I may have have missed it but I didn't see anything from him that suggested he might want to convert or kill infidels or establish a Christian theocracy. He was, clearly a terrorist, but it's a stretch to suggest that he was a "Christian Terrorist." An "Anti-Abortion Terrorist," yes, but are you asserting that only Christians are anti-abortion?

Do you even know the body count for the rest of your list?

You really had to stretch to find "Christian Terrorists," among tribal conflicts in Africa, and children being burned as witches? Hideous if true but comparable to the slaughter in NYC, London, Bali, Mumbai etc?

How conveniant that your time line seems to disregard 9/11.

"Only" 33 people were killed by Islamists in the past 12 years. Actually, your chronology is full of shite since more than 3,000 people were killed by Islamists in the past 12 years. (Hint: It's May, not October)

People are not ignoring Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Sikh, "acts of terrorism" in favor of focusing on on Islamist acts for any reason you can conjure within your Liberal confines. The plain and simple fact is that unambiguously, Islamist terrorist have been responsible for the deaths of thousands, and every other religious nut (not-with-standing the fact that your definition is highly flawed) are responsibl for the deaths of tens.

People are focusing on Muslims because Islamists are, rightly, the #1 Bad Guys

Yes, they shouldn't lump all Muslims into the category of murderous Islamist terrorists, but you just can't leave it there, you have to argue (feebly) that Islamist terrorist are no more prevalent than the miscreants of any other religious group. This however is patently false.

Todays threat from religious fanatics is overwhelming Islamist, and yet you continue to deny this truth.

Why?


maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2013 11:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You ask "why?". I will tell you Why, Finn.

Because I have seen the hateful mobs come after Italians, Chinese and Jews the same way that you are now coming after the Muslims. It is not a good thing.

We can argue about why Islamic terrorism is different than Tim McVeigh Terrorism. I could make the same arguments about Muslim fanatics that you make about Christian fanatics given the political motives... but so what? I don't really see the difference between crazy people killing innocent people. It is not an interesting argument because for whatever reason McVeigh killed people, their deaths are just as tragic as the people killed by Muslims.

The real issue here is that we don't want to live in a society that is overrun by hatred and fear. We have done this in the past and it doesn't reflect our values.

The deaths from killers (whatever their religion) are tragic and unacceptable. But spreading hatred and fear of an ethnic group doesn't do any good. The hatred Advocate is spreading and you are defending isn't going to make America a better (or even a safer) place.

I will always stand up against bigotry because you can't sell our values, and our soul, based on hatred and exaggerated fear.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2013 09:37 am
@Advocate,
Quote:
George Orwell wrote in his seminal tome, 1984, "The object of terrorism is terrorism
. . . Now do you begin to understand me?


That's funny. This quote is a lie, I just checked it (because the quote seemed off to me). Orwell did not write "the object of terrorism is terrorism".

The quote sounds like a part of the book where O'Brien, working for the "Ministry of Love", is torturing Winston (the protagonist) to explain why the military-run government grabs power and crushes dissent by running a "perpetual war".

The actual quote starts with "the object of persecution is persecution...". If it makes any sense in the context of this article is it awfully ironic.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Islamist Goals: Our Shared Islanmist Enemy
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/26/2020 at 03:06:21