Thursday, September 3, 2009

from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind the News







from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News


Link to Sultan Knish








Is Islamic Terrorism Reactive or Proactive?


Posted: 02 Sep 2009 07:57 PM PDT


In the conventional politically correct narrative,
terrorism is a kind of desperate activism taken in reaction to oppression
or some form of action taken against it. So for example, Osama bin Laden
carried out 9/11 in reaction to US foreign policy. A Fatah or Hamas
suicide bomber blows up an Israeli bus in reaction to the assassination of
their leader. In reaction to their participation in the War on Terror,
Spain and England suffered bombings.

Cars are torched in Paris,
gang rapes happen in Oslo, rockets are fired in Lebanon, teachers are
beheaded in Thailand and journalists are beheaded in Pakistan all because
something made them do it. Within this narrative, each terrorist atrocity
is a reaction to a provocation that can be prevented by nullifying the
provocation. So the "Reactive Theory of Terrorism" argues that if the US
improves its image with Muslims, Israel gives up territory to the
terrorists, England and Spain withdraw from the War on Terror-- terrorism
will no longer be a problem for them.

The "Reactive Theory of
Terrorism" consciously or unconsciously dominates most talk of terrorism.
Reactivists push for negotiations and commonly use phrases such as "We
need to explore the root of the conflict", which is Reactivistspeak for,
"We need to understand what we've done to make them hate us." Reactivists
further argue that fighting terrorism is essentially useless, because
terrorism is itself a reaction to the measures we take against it. Kill a
terrorist, and "in reaction ten more will rise in his place". The
Reactivist position is that only addressing the source of the terrorists'
grievances can bring peace.

But is any of that actually true? The
Reactivist assumption hinges on the supposed power imbalance between the
terrorists and the nations they target. They argue that since the nations
have more freedom of action and more power than the terrorists do, they
function as proactive players, while the terrorists react to their
actions. This conveniently fits into left wing ideas about class and their
need to romanticize third worlders as "Noble Savages" who cannot originate
plans of attack, but only respond to oppression. It also fits into the
ideas of some isolationists on the far right.

Their understanding
of the power imbalance itself however is altogether wrong. For one thing
Reactivists routinely treat a terrorist group as an entity apart, while
leaving their sponsor countries out of the equation. Thus they evaluate Al
Queda in conflict with the US and Europe, without adding Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan and the UAE. into the equation. Just as when it came to the
PLO vs Israel, the Reactivists ignored the backing of the Soviet Union and
various Arab countries who stood behind Arafat. Similarly too Hamas is
used as shorthand for "the People of Gaza" without acknowledging that Iran
stands behind Hamas. So too in conflicts with Islamists in Europe, their
organizations are treated as being entirely separate from their Saudi
sponsors.

But by looking at terrorist groups not only as individual
organizations, but as proxies in larger regional and even global
conflicts, the power imbalance changes a great deal. But the imbalance of
power is itself not a moral or political test of responsibility for the
conflict. A facile form of such a test might be to ask which party is
seeking to perpetuate the conflict and which party is seeking to end it.
But a deeper test is to seriously examine the motives behind the proxies,
are they really defensive or offensive, do they seek to be left in peace
ot to expand their power base into an enemy country?

The
politically correct narrative in the West denies that Islam is
expansionistic, that it seeks to seize more land and followers for itself
today, and that it has done so throughout history. Instead the politically
correct narrative transcribes the numerous crimes of Islam worldwide, as
class warfare and a reaction to oppression. And that is where the reactive
vs proactive interpretations of Islamic terrorism collide.






The politically correct Reactivist narrative insists that there
is no larger Islamic thrust to conquer and colonize. That there are only
"extremist groups" made up of Muslims who feel disenfranchised by
discrimination. That Islam is a religion of peace whose violent elements
have been brought forth only because Muslims are being oppressed by
non-Muslims, directly and indirectly.

The problem with the
Reactivist narrative is that it ignores who the terrorists are and where
their origins lie. Al Queda and Hamas, for example, are joined at the hip
as products of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was and is an
Islamist organization whose goal is to forcibly impose Islamic law. The
Muslim Brotherhood grew in tandem with the rise of Nazism in Europe, and
drew inspiration from the Nazi ethos. It has branches and cells all around
the world, some open and some disguised behind various front groups. Its
operatives engage in assassination and terrorism. Its goal is the
Caliphate.

Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
put it plainly enough in his treatise "
On Jihad",
citing Muslim religious authorities;



People have been for some time stigmatizing Islam
because of the religious ordinance of jihad and the [divine] permission
to wage war until the [message of] the precious Qur'anic verse is
fulfilled: "We shall show them Our signs in the farthest horizons and in
themselves, until it is made clear to them that it is the Truth"
[Q.41:53]. (That is until they become Muslims)

God ordained jihad
for the Muslims not as a tool of oppression or a means of satisfying
personal ambitions, but rather as a defense for the mission [of
spreading Islam]...

"Jihad in its literal significance means to
put forth one's maximal effort in word and deed; in the Sacred Law it is
the slaying of the unbelievers, and related connotations such as beating
them, plundering their wealth, destroying their shrines, and smashing
their idols.

The desired aim is to strive to the utmost to
strengthen the faith by such means as fighting the inhabitants of the
Dar al-Harb and the tolerated Scripturaries (People of the Book, Jews
and Christians) ((if they rebel)), as well as the apostates, who are the
vilest of unbelievers, for recanting after they have affirmed [their
belief], and oppressors. It is initiated by us as a communal obligation,
that is, it is obligatory on us to begin fighting with them after
transmitting the invitation [to embrace Islam], even if they do not
fight against us. It is incumbent on the Imam to send a military
expedition to the Dar al-Harb every year one or two times, and it is
incumbent on the subject populace to aid him.


The idea is plain and simple enough. Jihad, as viewed by
the Muslim Brotherhood, is an obligation on every Muslim in order to
spread Islam to the infidels and subjugate Jews and Christians who refuse
to live under Islamic law.

Through its political arms and military
arms, the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is worldwide conquest. This is a
plan that extends not only throughout the Middle East, but into Europe,
Australia and America and Canada as well. The Muslim Brotherhood's
general
strategic goal for North America
was defined as follows,




"Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning:
establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the
Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and
globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at
unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a
civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever
it is."


The role of "the Muslim Brother in North America" was
defined as follows;



The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist
Process" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their
work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying
the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable
house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is
eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other
religions.


This is not a plan formulated by oppressed people reacting
to events beyond their control. This is a plan of conquest. It is being
carried forward by an organization that is now nearly a century old, that
has committed countless murders, that is behind some of the most notorious
terrorist organizations in the world.

And if you think that any of
this is theoretical, next time you hear the name of a Muslim organization
in America, the odds are that it will be CAIR, ICNA, MSA or ISNA; all of
them fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Only Western arrogance
could view Islamic terrorism as reactive. The ugly truth is that Islamic
terrorism worldwide is part of a much greater project that believes that
Islamic law as implemented by a Caliphate is the only moral and legal form
of authority. To misunderstand Islamic terrorism as a reactive response,
is to ignore the reality of Islamic terrorism as a proactive assault on
every nation in the world that is not ruled by Islamic law.

Islamic terrorism is not a response to oppression.
Like Communism it sees itself as the ultimate answer to all of mankind's
question. An answer that unlike most religions today, it is determined to
impose by force. It is not simply a reaction to events in the 20th
century, but a continuation of a political and religious process begun by
Mohammed over a thousand years ago. That process was not reactive, it was
proactive. The Islamic terrorism of today has extended that process
further than Mohammed or his immediate successors were able to, but the
goal of the process has never changed.

To view the attacks of Al
Queda or Hamas, the terrorism by Muslim insurgents in Kashmir, Thailand,
the Philippines, Israel, Spain, England and all across the world as
"reactive" mimics the claims in the 1930's that Nazi Germany was only
reacting to the unfair settlement of WW1. Islamic terrorism is an
aggressive proactive entity. Its long term plans are not motivated by
outrage over civil rights, but by the rejection of all rights and laws
that do not extend from Islam.

That is the true face and the true
goal of Islamic terrorism. It is not a goal that we have forced it to
adopt. It is what Islamic history and belief demand of their followers.
Terrorism is not a cry for help, it is the devout duty of Muslims to
implement an Islamic kingdom on earth.










No comments:

Post a Comment