Why the jihad is doomed

DATYdude

Puttin' in Face Time
Oct 8, 2003
3,762
0
36
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/761845.html

Why the jihad is doomed
By Bradley Burston

Even before the American Century drew to a formal close six years ago, the Age of Jihad had already taken its place.

The extraordinary triumph of radical Islam achieved its greatest victories without firing a single shot, hijacking a single jetliner, closing a single belt detonator.

Armed at first only with words, the world holy war conquered the imagination and loyalty of disciples from Tehran and Tampa, from Jabalya and Germany, by taking aim at the ultimate soft target - the West.

The message of a fiery pure Islam - noble in purpose, uncorrupted in practice, egalitarian in its praise for the devout, its splendorous offer of an afterlife available regardless of color, class, or immigration status - galvanized Muslims for whom fate had seemed to hold out only the promise of fresh forms of injustice, deeper humiliation, a more ashen sense of alienation.

For generations following World War II, millions of Muslims, some refugees, some self-displaced persons, sought a better life in distant Western lands. But the rapid changes, loudly trumpeted advancements, and just-beyond-reach prosperity of adopted countries - where foreigners were invited to work hard and do everything to fit in, only to be shunned - served to set the immigrant generation and its children further adrift.

In "guest worker" neighborhoods across Western Europe, in immigrant neighborhoods across North America, in college towns throughout the West where bright, hopeful, ultimately dismayed students from the Muslim world came to study, the anchor and the buoy of a timeless, vigorous, welcoming, sheltering, socially-conscious, supportive Islam came as succor to the downhearted.

For some of the young, well-versed - as are all children of immigrants and brain-drain wannabees - in the moral deficiencies of the host country as well as the way-uncool cultural baggage of their parents, the anti-Western message of the New Jihad gave names, context, and validation to their nagging sense of the stranger in an all-too-familiar strange land.

A few made the leap. They took training in Afghanistan. They took up arms. They set up charitable organizations which funneled donations both to the Muslim needy and the Muslim armed.

Through it all, they studied the glaring vulnerabilities of the societies of America, Europe, and Israel. The conclusion was clear. In the cyclical worldview of Islamic history, the historic victories of the past were about to be echoed with stunning, irresistible force. The West would be baited to destroy itself.

And so it is today, the prophecies of the likes of Bin Laden and the Iranian ayatollahs, much as they may revile each other, seeming to come true in the U.S.-British nightmare in Iraq, and in the Israeli nightmare in Lebanon, the Galilee, and on the Gaza border.

How could it be otherwise? The Koran is behind them. Mohammed's history and prophecy is behind them. Martyrdom is a sacrament, and the portal to paradise. Even death is victory. Death is behind them as well. The Trade Center, the Cole, Bali, Madrid, Faluja, all is victory.

They can't lose, they reason, these young people. These soldiers of Allah. There is nothing to stop them.

Nothing, that is, except time.

There is a reason that the jihadist movement in Iran and elsewhere is in such a hurry. It's time is about to run out.

The New Jihad, for all of its sense of The Future Belongs to Me, is subject to the same general principles that have governed all great revolutions in modern times. It is the biological clock that may be called the Generations of Abraham Effect.

The model, of course, derives from Genesis and from our common ancestor, the prototype of the contemporary revolutionary, the shatterer of idols.

The Bolshevik revolution, the Zionist revolution, no less than the Puritan revolution of the 17th Century and the settler revolution of our own day, flowered, conquered, and withered according to the same dramatic, ultimately tragic road HEWN by Abraham, his dutiful, duped, over-burdened and self-sacrificing son Isaac, and Isaac's neurotic, holier-than-thou mama's-boy of a son, Jacob.

These, then are the generations of Araham, the family bell-curve of the rise and ruin of revolutions:

The movement is founded by Abraham-like prophets who were raised within the traditions of a decaying regime. Their children, the generation of Isaac, are born under the sign of sacrifice, giving their lives, often literally, for the sake of their parents' cause.

The third generation, the quirky, feisty, dualistic generation of Jacob, often determines whether a revolution will turn into a lasting institution, as in the case of the United States and France, or end its reign in the dustbin of history, as in the Soviet example.

In the last years of the 20th century, the Abrahams of the New Jihad, men like the Ayatollah Khomeni, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and the prodigy patriarch Osama Bin Laden, ordered their Isaacs into the field. The generation of Abraham/Ibrahim extolled suicide bombings as the weapon of choice against a vastly better-armed West.

What is beginning to trouble the New Jihad now, however, is the rise of the generation of Jacob, a personality split between the personas of the wily, selfish, faith-conflicted youth who wrestles with the burdens of revolution, and the CEO who takes a revolution and begins its transition to a stable institution, a nation willing to co-exist in prosperity and stability with others, rather than a force to impose and spread revolutionary doctrine.

Look closely at Iran, Hamas-ruled Gaza, and Hezbollah-ruled Shi'ite southern Lebanon. Listen to the voices of discord. increasingly, voices in Iran call for reform, for a change of course which favors domestic social and economic well-being over exports of the raw materials of revolution.

For the first time, residents of Gaza are beginning to openly say that much of the current economic disaster in the Strip is the result not solely of the Israeli occupation, but also of Palestinian mismanagement and partisan cronyism.

Listen, also, to the criticism leveled by rival jihadists at one another. This week, former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami condemned "the barbarous acts" of September 11, as well as Bin Laden, "First, because of the crimes he conducts - and second because he conducts them in the name of Islam, the religion which is a harbinger of peace and justice."

Revolution is a dream which shatters in the course of coming true. Islam is timeless, but the unbridled terrorist groups who operate in its name, are not.

In the end, moderate Muslims will prevail over the jihadists, who have sullied their name, the name of Islam, and, indeed, even the word jihad.

In the end, moderate Muslims will gain the upper hand over hothead spokesmen in the West, if only to save Islam, and its good name, from Islamists.

Note from Dd:
LUCKILY I CAN STILL EDIT THIS POST EVEN AFTER smyth HAS POSTED A TOTALLY IRRELEVANT REPLY TO HIJACK MY THREAD, WHICH I HAVE POSTED SINCE IT CHAMPIONS MODERATION. smyth YOU ARE A TOTAL A-HOLE.
 
Last edited:

smyth

New member
Apr 22, 2006
305
0
0
In the Beginning There was Terror

http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html

The Original Sin



Israel's original sin is Zionism, the ideology that a Jewish State should replace the former Palestine. At the root of the problem is Zionism's exclusivist structure whereby only Jews are treated as first-class citizens. In order to create and consolidate a Jewish State in 1948, Zionists expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and never allowed them or their descendants to return. In addition, Israeli forces destroyed over 400 Palestinian villages and perpetrated about three dozen massacres.[3] In 1967, the Israelis forced another 350,000 Palestinians to flee the West Bank and Gaza as well as 147,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.[4] Since 1967 Israel has placed the entire Palestinian population of the Territories under military occupation.



The effects of the dispossession of the Palestinians and other Arabs are with us to this day, in the shattered lives of the millions of people directly affected and also as a sign of the West's war against the entire Arab nation and Muslims everywhere. Arguably, the original sin of Zionism and its effects on the peoples of the Middle East were central to the motivation behind the events of 9/11, the most important consequence of which is the ongoing "war on terrorism" that is smothering our political landscape.


Assassinating the Peace Negotiator



One of the most notorious acts of Israeli terrorism occurred during the 1948 war when Jewish forces, members of the LEHI underground (also known as the Stern Gang) assassinated Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, a U.N. appointed mediator. Bernadotte was killed on September 17, 1948, a day after he offered his second mediation plan which, among other things, called for repatriation and compensation for the Palestinian refugees.



The assassination of Bernadotte highlighted one of the biggest policy differences at the time between the United States and Israel, namely the fate of the Palestinian refugees. By that time, Jewish/Israeli forces had already forced more than half a million Palestinians from their homes. The resultant international outcry focused attention on the implications for Middle East peace as well as on the suffering of the refugees. Moreover, the fate of hundreds of thousands of Jews who resided in the Arab world, mainly in Iraq, Morocco, Yemen and Egypt, was placed at risk because of Israeli expulsion policy.



The day before the assassination, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett publicly accused Bernadotte of "bias against the state of Israel and in favor of the Arab States". Stephen Green points to evidence that the Israeli Government was itself directly involved in the killing. On the night of the assassination the Czech Consulates in Jerusalem and Haifa were busy processing some 30 visas for Stern gang members "who had been rounded up for their involvement in the planning and execution of the assassination. Between September 18 and September 29, most if not all of the 30 left Israel on flights for Prague, Czechoslovakia. The “scale, precision, and speed of the evacuation-escape” made the State Department “suspicious that the Stern gang was not involved alone.” The U.S. wondered if the “operation might have been planned and prepared in Czechoslovakia, and that a specially trained squad had been flown into Israel from Prague for that purpose.” [5] In addition, historian Howard Sachar notes that Yehoshua Cohen, a friend of Ben Gurion, is widely believed to be the triggerman.[6]



Eight months later, in May 1949, the Israelis revealed to the U.N. that the majority of the Stern Gang members rounded up in the purge had been released within two weeks. Those not released were held until a general amnesty was granted on February 14, 1949. No one was ever put on trial for the killing.



The assassination of Bernadotte made international headlines and for a time more attention was paid to the issue of the Palestinian refugees. In the end, pressure to repatriate them was never successfully mustered. Arguably, from the point of view of Israeli expulsion policy, the assassination was a success since none of Bernadotte's successors was able to focus sufficient pressure on the Israelis to make any concessions. Had Bernadotte lived, he might have succeeded where others had failed. At the least, his murder was a warning to any who might have tried to follow his activist example.

Dynamiting a Public Building


One of the most notorious examples of Jewish/Zionist terrorism in the post-war period 1945-1948 was the bombing of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946. The bombing developed out of an atmosphere where the Zionists were enraged when the British Labor Party's sweeping victory in the summer of 1945 did nothing to liberalize the previous government's policy on Jewish immigration. British insistence on maintaining their restrictive immigration policy led to the unification of the three major factions of the Jewish fighting forces into a United Resistance. The three forces comprised the Jewish Agency's Haganah led by David Ben Gurion, the LEHI, the Stern Gang led by Nathan Yellin-Mor, and the Irgun led by Menachem Begin, who in his book The Revolt bragged that he was "Terrorist Number One". At the end of October 1945, they formally agreed to cooperate on “a military struggle against British rule.” [7]



Their joint attacks, including the Night of the Trains, The Night of the Airfields, the Night of the Bridges and other operations, were so successful that they led finally to forceful British retaliation. Immediately after the Night of the Bridges, June 17, 1947, British Army searches for terrorists were conducted, arrests were made and Jews were killed and injured in clashes. A much larger British operation that came to be known as "Black Sabbath" began two weeks later. Thousands of Jews were arrested. British troops ransacked the offices of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, seized important documents, arrested members of the Jewish Agency Executive, and carried out searches and arrests in many kibbutzim.



As a direct result of the Black Sabbath operation, the Haganah command decided on July 1 to conduct three operations against the British. The Palmach (the elite Haganah strike force) would carry out a raid on a British army camp to recover their weapons. The Irgun would blow up the King David Hotel where the offices of the Mandatory Government and the British military command were located. (The LEHI task, blowing up the adjacent David Brothers building, was never carried out.)



Just at this moment came an appeal from Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization, urging that the armed struggle against the British be halted. As a result of his appeal, the supreme political committee decided to accede to Weizmann's request. However, Moshe Sneh, the Haganah liaison with the Irgun and LEHI, strongly opposed the Weizmann request and did not inform Begin of the committee resolution but merely asked him to postpone the action.[8]



The King David Hotel was brought down by means of 50 kilos of explosives, placed beside supporting pillars in the hotel's "La Regence” restaurant. Timers were placed for 30 minutes. After the bombers made their escape, telephone messages were placed to the hotel telephone operator and to the Palestine Post. The French Consulate, adjacent to the hotel was also warned to open its windows to prevent blast damage, which it did.[9] Some 25 minutes later, a terrific explosion destroyed the entire southern wing of the hotel, all seven stories. The official death toll was 91 dead: 28 Britons, 41 Arabs, 17 Jews, and five others.

Bombing British, U.S., and Egyptian Property


http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html

Massacring Villagers


http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html

Assassinating the Peace Negotiator

http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html

Raiding a Camp in Gaza

http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html


Controlling Lebanon

http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html

Dissolving the Arab States

http://desip.igc.org/InTheBeginning.html
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,233
6,648
113
Discussion about the future of Jihad gets responded to by the past of Israel. I don't get it.



actually I do. Most of Smyth's post are about the "evils" Jews do
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
Good article DATY. I hope they’re right. However, from what I’ve learned about Islam, I don’t think it’s reformable. Islam is too rigid. It’s more that a religion. It’s a political doctrine and a lifestyle. The forces that caused the reformation of Christianity failed in the Islamic world.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,233
6,648
113
Christianity was pretty rigid too, around the same time that Islam was comparatively moderate. At some point, the Muslim moderates might decide en masse to stop listening to the fundamentalists (like the reformation) and set up shop on their own.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
Christianity was pretty brutal at points throughout history. that’s for sure.

There’s a huge difference between Christianity and Islam.

Christianity’s founder advocated peace and tolerance. At points in history, there were some religious nut cases in the church that warped those peaceful teaching for their own agenda. The reformation was a return to the original teachings of the founder.

Islam’s founder was a blood-thirsty warlord and pirate. His teachings were hateful, demented and designed to serve his agenda. Throughout the entire Islamic history, the religious nutcases were just following the intent of their founder.


That’s why I believe it can’t be reformed. The majority of peaceful Muslims, the ones that know the difference between right and wrong, aren’t the true believers.
 

sorely

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,994
1
0
The only natural rule to live by ,"do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is not religion, just common sense.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,233
6,648
113
Or do unto others so no one can do it unto you. To me this seems more consistant with human history.
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
Other Wanderer said:
Cinema Face - I'm always amused by your posts on Islam. Perhaps you can return the translation of the Quran that only you seem to have.

Let me ask you a very simple question -

Muslims ruled the Middle East, India, Indonesia, Spain, parts of China, major sections of Eastern Europe, North Africa, etc. for centuries.

If your view of Islam as a murderous religion is true, why are there any Christian or Jews left alive in Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon?

Why are there so many Hindus left in India?

Why were there so many Catholics left in Spain?

Why isn't everybody on Bali a Muslim?

Why are any Christian Serbs left alive after years of Ottoman rule?

Why were the Crusader kings and their armies allowed to return home?

In every example I've given you, nobody can deny that Muslims ruled these countries for decades, if not CENTURIES. If they ruled the countries, had a massive military advantage in them for 100s of years, and were truly what you say ... how come all these people who are not Muslim lived at all?

Perhaps you might contrast to what happened to the Jews in Spain after the Catholics retook control ... and ask those who survived why they fled to Morroco (again, Muslim controlled) and lived there to this day.

As far as your attacks on Islam's founder, perhaps you might ask yourself, as someone who claims to know history, how a man whose first followers were a woman older than him, a 12 year old, and old man, a cousin, and a slave, might be able to "force" tribes who were run by people with more soldiers, weapons and so on than he had to follow him.

But we'll leave aside the history of Arabia, as I'll forgive you for not knowing it ... try instead sticking to Europe, Africa, India and Asia for starters.

And yes, I believe Christianity's founder advocated peace and tolerance, as did the founding fathers of Judaism, all of whom suffered the tremendous oppression that the founder of Islam did too. Moses reacted to the torture and persecution of his people by leading them in revolt ... as he should have.

It is surprising, if you admire the teachings of Christ or Moses, that you demonstrate none of the wisdom that inspired them both.

Hey Wanderer,

I’m glad my posts are a source of amusement.

That’s hardly a simple question, but I’ll try to answer.

First of all, you make it sound like I’ve got this imaginary Qur’an. I’m taking my quotes from either Ahmed Ali or the Noble Qur’an which are considered the 2 best English translations of the Qur’an.

I’ve also looked at Pickthal, Shakir and Yusef Ali translations too.



I’ve made a point of studying the life of Muhammad which I’ve found to be fascinating and revolting at the same time.

Most people don’t know Muhammad and take what Muslims say about him at face value. The type of person he was is one of the best kept secrets in history. The Muslims are either ignorant or in denial of who he really was.

When you understand Muhammad you understand Islam, since he created this religion for his own personal agenda.

So, you’re asking me, why are there so many non-Muslims living in countries with high Muslim populations? Just because they haven’t killed everyone yet, does that mean that they are not killing them?

Hitler didn’t kill all the Jews so maybe he wasn’t such a bad guy?

I’m sorry, I don’t really understand your point.

Muslims have killed more than 3 million non-Mulsims in Sudan over the last 20 years.


Here’s a few examples of the religion of peace’s activities:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1742920.htm

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17724017.htm

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52004



There’s no question that Christianity did some horrible things in the past for example, the Inquisition. However, we don’t do that stuff anymore. We’d never tolerate anyone doing that stuff today, so why do we tolerate it from Islam?
Islam is the only religion on earth today that still kills blasphemers and apostates.

As far as your attacks on Islam's founder, perhaps you might ask yourself, as someone who claims to know history, how a man whose first followers were a woman older than him, a 12 year old, and old man, a cousin, and a slave, might be able to "force" tribes who were run by people with more soldiers, weapons and so on than he had to follow him.

Reading the Qur’an, there is a huge difference between the early Meccan Surrahs and the Medina Surrahs. The early Meccan teachings were peaceful because Mohammad was powerless and incapable of making war. While they were peaceful, they were deeply disturbing. It’s all about, “I’m the Messenger of God, bow down and worship me or else my God will burn you in hell.” Type of stuff. It’s no wonder after 10 years of preaching that garbage he had only his wife, two slave boys he adopted as sons and 11 others as followers. Compare that to Jesus who preached to the multitudes after only a few short years of preaching

It wasn’t until Mohammad left Mecca in disgrace and went to Medina did he meet a bunch of mercenaries called the Khazraj and he convinced them to fight on his behalf. In turn, Mohammad promised them their share in the loot they can steal plus paradise in the afterlife. Their promise to fight for Mohammad became “The Pledge of Aqabah.”

It goes like this:

Tabari VI:133 “We pledge our allegiance to you and we shall defend you as we would our womenfolk. Administer the oath of allegiance to us, Messenger of Allah, for we are men of war possessing arms and coats of mail.”

“‘O Messenger, there are ties between us and the Jews which we shall have to sever. If we do this and Allah gives you victory, will you perhaps return to your own people and leave us?’ Muhammad smiled and said, ‘Nay, blood is blood, and bloodshed without retaliation is blood paid for. You are of me and I am of you. I shall war against whomever you fight.’”

Tabari VI:134 “‘Men of the Khazraj, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes,’ they answered. ‘In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging ourselves to wage war against all mankind.’”

The pledge of Aqabah is a declaration of war against all mankind. It’s what the terrorists recite before they blow themselves up.


The Medina Surrahs are full of hate, violence and some of the worst atrocities I’ve ever read. Mohammad and his gang of thugs looted and plundered caravans to finance their war machine. Then they converted everyone they could, killed everyone they couldn’t and stole their property.

As for persecution of Mohammad, Muslims habitually portray themselves as always the victims. Muhammad was no exception. There was no evidence that he was persecuted but he was ridiculed severely as you’d expect for someone who calls himself the messenger of God.

The people who knew him best said, “Surely he is a demon possessed madman, a sorcerer, a charlatan, a deranged soothsayer.”

After he was raiding caravans the Meccans were out to get him but it was too little too late. Muhammad rode back into town and killed his own family and tribe.

Finally, I can only hope that I might someday have the wisdom of Moses or Jesus. I know that neither of those men tolerated evil. Jesus had some scathing criticisms about the religious leaders of the day.

They stood up to evil and so should we.
 
Toronto Escorts