| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| The battle for the soul of Islam |
| 2004-09-11 |
| If there remain any doubts about what 9/11 means on this, its third anniversary, they should be quelled by the horror perpetrated in Beslan. Here children, the most vulnerable in society, totally innocent of any responsibility for history's wrongs, were slaughtered by killers in the service of an ideology, Islamism, that has perverted a noble faith into a cult of death. The meaning of 9/11 in its Chechen variation was spelled out by the killers of Beslan's children. Here is how the Washington Post described that motivation on Sept. 7, quoting from an apperance on Russian state television by one of the captured Chechen terrorists: "'We gathered in the forest and the Colonel -- it's his nickname -- and they said we must seize the school in Beslan,' said the man, who had short, dark hair and no beard. He said the orders came from (Shamil) Basayev and another Chechen commander, Aslan Maskhadov, and that his group included Arabs and Uzbeks as well as Chechens and people of other nationalities. When we asked the Colonel why we must do it, he said, 'Because we need to start war in the entire territory of the North Caucasus.'"The children of Beslan -- like the victims of 9/11 in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania and casualties in other cities (Bali, Jakarta, Karachi, Istanbul, Casablanca, Madrid, Jerusalem, Moscow) -- were merely quarry in a larger design of Islamists, according to their ideology, to precipitate a war between dar al-Islam (abode of Muslims) and dar al-harb (abode of infidels). Islamists are brazen about their goals. They seek power irrespective of cost, like their totalitarian counterparts of the previous century, to transform existing Muslim countries into Islamist societies. How would such an Islamist society appear in our time? The Taliban regime in Afghanistan provided the world with a glimpse of an Islamist utopia. The Islamist agenda, now a global monstrosity, cannot be traced to some root cause located in poverty or some wrongs done in history; nor can Islamists be appeased through negotiation. Islamist terrorism is a calculated means to achieve absolutist ends. What is least understood and hotly denied by many Muslims, is that Islamism was embedded in Muslim history from its beginning. While Muslim civilization flourished and remained healthy, Islamism, as an absolutist politics of violence, was contained. Once decadence extinguished the creative dynamism of Muslim societies and internal rot laid waste to them, Islamism in its various guises -- Wahhabi sectarianism in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and beyond, Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan, Khomeinism in Iran, Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia -- became the most visible face of Islam. In contemporary times, during a past half-century financed in large part by rising oil revenues, Islamists steered the politics of the Muslim world and of many Muslims immigrating to the West. Osama bin Laden and his followers are merely Islamists in a bloody-minded hurry relative to Wahhabi ideologues, impatiently pummelling history to move in the direction of their desired goal. This explains why the West does not often hear from so-called "moderate" Muslims contending with Islamists for the soul of Islam. There is no organized body of moderate Muslims. Islamists have intimidated, coerced and silenced Muslims who might otherwise have organized opposition to Islamism. Many individual Muslims occasionally break through this silence, often risking their personal safety and security, and bravely contend with the Islamists to expose their hate-filled politics. But individual Muslims operating without any organized public support in their own communities, despised for breaking the tribal code of honour-shame and frequently ostracized by fellow Muslims, cannot be a substitute for a political party or movement, which is required to isolate Islamists, reclaim Islam and revive the comatose civilizational impulse that flows throughout Muslim history. Such a turnaround might still be possible. It will only happen, however, when Muslims in sufficiently large numbers repudiate Islamism for what it is -- an ideology of killers. The first task, along with making the world safe for children everywhere, is eliminating Islamists by winning the war on terror. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #14 'Neoconservatives' are spilling American blood See documentary video clip at URL below. www.A D LUSA.com [censored link, delete spaces] |
| Posted by: UFO 2004-09-11 9:52:07 PM |
| #13 Just a couple of hints about who is at the throat of Islam. "We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own." - Maurice Samuel 'You Gentiles', P. l55 Harcourt, Brace. 1924 "You have not begun to appreciate the depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest great war, but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone." - Marclis Eli Ravage, Century Magazine February, 1926 |
| Posted by: UFO 2004-09-11 8:57:36 PM |
| #12 Just a couple of hints about who is at the throat of Islam. "We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own." - Maurice Samuel 'You Gentiles', P. l55 Harcourt, Brace. 1924 "You have not begun to appreciate the depth of our guilt. We are intruders. We are subverters. We have taken your natural world, your ideals, your destiny, and played havoc with them. We have been at the bottom of not merely the latest great war, but of every other major revolution in your history. We have brought discord and confusion and frustration into your personal and public life. We are still doing it. No one can tell how long we shall go on doing it. Who knows what great and glorious destiny might have been yours if we had left you alone." - Marclis Eli Ravage, Century Magazine February, 1926 |
| Posted by: UFO 2004-09-11 8:57:36 PM |
| #11 A couple of things I'll comment on from the article and from some of the response. First, Islam has NEVER been a nobel faith. The way they view women alone screws that deal. Second, as far as not provoking any "NBC" type attacks I agree we should show some restraint, but I also have to believe that the freaking second these monsters have the ability combined with the opportunity to unleash something hellish in one or more of our cities THEY WILL! Of that I have absolutely no doubt! Just my 2 cents. |
| Posted by: RJB in JC MO 2004-09-11 11:54:48 PM |
| #10 Tom, without wishing to be unnecessarily pedantic, are you aware of the "retaliation in kind" doctrine? I am concerned that you do not fully appreciate what America "taking the gloves off" would entail in terms of inviting the very worst sort of terrorist attacks. Retaliation in kind is a sagacious policy implemented by the United States armed forces for some half a century. Our military is committed to avoiding first use of NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) weapons without having had them deployed against us already. This policy is in place for all the right reasons and I concur with its basic tenets. Be reminded that if America is attacked with any portion of the NBC arsenal, we have the option of going nuclear in response. #8 In the event of a suitcase nuclear attack on the USA I've been given to understand we may never know the source of the attack. This is a very mistaken notion, Mark Z. Through a sophisticated isotopic identification method known as "signature analysis," scientists are able to identify a majority of fissile material, right down to the particular reactor the enriched transuranics came from. Any given reactor imparts a unique ratio of such exotic elements as Americium, Francium et al to the weapons grade material it breeds. Through nonproliferation pacts, a large majority of reactors have been profiled. Significantly, Pakistan, North Korea and (presumably) Iran refuse to submit samples of highly enriched weapons grade material for signature analysis. All this means is that if America is hit with a nuclear device which cannot be traced back to a unique source, we may well be obliged to destroy all of the noncompliant states mentioned above. No big shakes with the arsenal remaining in our silos. The technology to manufacture a "suitcase" atomic bomb is not trivial. Compact form factor lensing and fail-safe mechanisms are more than a little difficult to fabricate reliably. The close proximity of the non-critical assembly to other components in the suitcase package causes them to undergo accelerated deterioration. The radioactive material emits sufficient heat to thermally cycle ancillary circuitry and promote corrosion of the mechanical parts as well. Suitcase devices have a projected shelf life of only a few years if not serviced on a regular schedule by skilled maintenance personnel. I'm also pretty confident that diplomatic back-channels have already been used to make clear how rogue nations will appear at the top of our Christmas list in the even of a terrorist nuclear attack. As mentioned in my preceding post, I feel we should also have a credible deterrent in place to discourage all Islamic states from sponsoring international terrorism. A specific calculated price should exist for a given transgression according to a graduated scale of response. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-11 11:24:14 PM |
| #9 [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted] |
| Posted by: UFO TROLL 2004-09-11 9:52:07 PM |
| #8 In the event of a suitcase nuclear attack on the USA I've been given to understand we may never know the source of the attack. Perhaps it might be wise to discreetly advise each Muslim country on earth that should such an attack take place on US soil they should consider themselves ripe for retaliation. At the very least it would give said countries an incentive to thrwart such an attack if they had prior knowledge of the plan to hit the USA. I for one am not convinced that NO Muslim gov't on earth had prior knowledge of 9-11. |
| Posted by: Mark Z. 2004-09-11 9:50:57 PM |
| #7 "...without making the conflict no-holds-barred"??? No terrorist with a nuke is going to hesitate to use it. And any delay would risk losing it before using it. Terrorists have no "no first use" doctrine. Take your gloves off. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-11 9:37:48 PM |
| #6 Tom, I fully comprehend the import of providing the Iranians, and the entire Middle East in general, with the sort of I trust that you completely understand why I oppose first use of nuclear weapons. Once the atomic genie is out of the bottle, any terrorist group on earth will feel as though they have been given license to counterattack America with nuclear weapons as well. I know that glassing and Windexing Iran would provide a lasting impression for other Arab rogue nations and terrorism sponsors. Fortunately, we have conventional weapons that can achieve the exact same ends without making the conflict no-holds-barred. What I have advocated here at Rantburg is a retaliation-in-kind protocol. Whereby, if America is attacked with chemical weapons, we then dust Medina or Mecca with the same toxin. Bio-attacks = same spores or virus, right before the haj. Nuclear attack = glass Medina then Mecca next. I feel this would be much more productive than rushing the gate with a needless nuclear attack upon Iran as opposed to a conventional one. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-11 9:33:21 PM |
| #5 Iran is our greatest current threat. The Saudi royals will think twice about letting their fanatics mess with us - once they see a mushroom cloud or two off to their northeast. Right now they are only cracking down gingerly to avoid upsetting their internal status quo. When they truly have to choose between the rich, pampered, oil-financed life and the Taliban-style life, I'm betting they'll opt for oil. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-11 9:14:35 PM |
| #4 Well Tom, The guys really needing a lesson in fear and respect are the Saudis they thing they have the whole world fooled. We should make an example out of them. |
| Posted by: Fawad 2004-09-11 8:54:10 PM |
| #3 I just wannah say Muslims clean your bathroom because it is stinking the neighborhood or we will demolish your house. I mean who has the fucking time to decide that this is a good Indian and this is a bad Indian. The only Good indian is a dead one. |
| Posted by: Fawad 2004-09-11 8:49:34 PM |
| #2 Well, Zenster, that pretty much supports my suggestion to nuke Iranian nuclear and military facilities to make the Islamic world at least fear us if they won't respect us. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-09-11 8:47:12 PM |
| #1 It will only happen, however, when Muslims in sufficiently large numbers repudiate Islamism for what it is ... This is just one way of doing it. If moderate Muslims refuse to participate in the salvaging of their faith, others will halt the inroads that Islamists are making by killing them. What moderate Muslims need to remember is that outsiders, bereft of more finely tuned discriminative and insightful powers that Islam's faithful might have, will probably be a lot less sensitive about distinguishing between those who truly are fanatical and other Muslims who are merely reticent to criticize those same fanatics. Can you say c o l l a t e r a l - c a s u a l t i e s ? Very good, I knew you could. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-11 8:39:32 PM |