Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Root Cause of International Terrorism


Speakers at the General Assembly’s 6th Committee raised the issue of causation, invoking unstated false premises:

  • International terrorism can be eliminated by removing a few root causes.
  • The root causes of international terrorism do not include ideology.

Examine Qatar’s statement, which approaches the Acme of arrogance. [All emphasis added.]

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that a large part of international efforts to
combat terrorism is limited to reactions to terrorism and its symptoms, rather than
discussing and addressing its root causes and eliminating the factors that feed it. For
international efforts to eliminate terrorism to succeed, it is imperative to address its
root causes, as recognized by the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,
and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. This includes several aspects,
including improving the living conditions of the poor and unemployed youth and
people living under political and historical oppression and foreign occupation. We
must also prevent the incitement to hatred, including incitement to violence and
hatred of minorities of ethnic groups, religions and foreigners. In this connection, we
note that attempts to link terrorism with any particular religion or a particular ethnic
group are themselves provocative and contributes to the spread of terrorism.

poverty & unemployment

Yeah, that’s the ticket! Usama bin Ladin formed al-Qaeda because he was impoverished and unemployed. A construction engineer with inherited wealth, bin Ladin was motivated by something else, not poverty.

political and historical oppression

Were the medical, law & engineering students who were studying in European universities motivated to mount terrorist acts by oppression?  Were they oppressed by the European nations they attacked or were they oppressed by dictatorships in Arabia & Asia?

foreign occupation

Exactly what foreign nation was America occupying & oppressing September 11,2001?  We were protecting Kuwait & Saudi Arabia from invasion and enforcing UN resolutions in Iraq, we were not engaged in occupation & oppression.

link terrorism with any particular religion

I provoke terrorism by publicizing the fact that Islamic terrorism flows directly from Islamic doctrines enshrined in the Qur’an & exemplified by Moe’s sunnah.  Yeah, right.

“We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve”, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved”, “deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind “, “to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah”, “Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.”, “Indeed, you strike more terror in their hearts than their fear of God”.

Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.”  “I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)”

Lets strip off the chaff and review what Allah & Moe said.

  • I will cast terror
  • to strike terror
  • Allah cast terror
  • you strike more terror
  • victorious with terror

Surah At-Taubah 120 contains the smoking fuse, a statement which confirms the rest in the worst possible way. Muslims earn Brownie Points by terrorism: “That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness.”

Of course, it could not possibly mean that, could it.  But two of the most respected exegetes agree: Tafsir Ibn Kathir & Tafsir al-Jalalayn.
http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//9.22174.html

(nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers), by strategies of war that would terrify their enemy,

(nor inflict), a defeat on the enemy,

(but is written to their credit) as compensation for these steps that are not under their control, but a consequence of performing good deeds that earn them tremendous rewards,

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=%209&tAyahNo=%20120&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

nor tread they any tread (mawti’an is a verbal noun, meaning wat’an) that enrages the disbelievers, nor gain any gain from the enemy, of God, be it through slaughter, capture or plunder, but a righteous deed is therefore recorded for them, that they may be rewarded for it. Truly God does not leave the wage of the virtuous to go to waste, that is, the wage of those [mentioned], rather He rewards them.

Focus on the most significant elements again:

  • Exactly what part of 9:120 do you not comprehend?
    • raise the anger of disbelievers
    • enrages the disbelievers
    • good deeds that earn them tremendous rewards
    • a defeat on the enemy
    • slaughter, capture or plunder
    • righteous deed is therefore recorded for them

Lets put it together to make the pattern crystal clear.

  • Do Allah’s words and Moe’s bragging match up in a congruent pattern or not?
    • I will cast terror
    • strike fear
    • strike terror
    • Allah cast terror
    • you are more of a terror
    • victorious with terror.

Lets take a closer look at the concluding clauses of 8:57 & 59:2 to make the pattern stand out.

  • What do these ayat have in common?
    •  so that they may take admonition
    •  so that they may be admonished
    • will always be aware of the threat of your power
    • so that they take a lesson
      • So learn a lesson, O ye who have eyes!
      • take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
      • Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

Brigadier General S.K. Malik wrote a strategy manual for Pakistan’s army. It is called “The Qur’anic Concept of War“. What role might terror play therein?

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only
a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely
cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes
of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness
of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s
Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary;
spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be
produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the
spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy,
it is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An
invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads
to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur’an has
the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable
us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of
strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,
be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy
that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks
and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule
is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is
equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion
today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence
must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.

If the first sentence in the quote from page 59 of The Qur’anic Concept of war did not clue you in, you should do the world a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool; you are too stupid to reproduce, much less vote.

October 6, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , | Leave a comment

UN Can’t Define International Terrorism


While the United Nations pretend to condemn and eliminate international terrorism, they don’t know what they are condemning and eliminating.  The United Nations are unable to reach consensus on a definition of international terrorism.   In this post, I will delve into  the divisive issue of defining international terrorism.

Mr. Yousef Sultan Laram, Deputy Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations raised the issue of definition of terms.

An important step to combat terrorism would be to find a clear and realistic  definition to this phenomenon. In this regard, we must distinguish between terrorism and legitimate resistance movements against foreign occupation.

When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation?  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?

The Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan on behalf of the OIC Group worded the same concept a bit differently.

We reaffirm our determination to make every effort to reach a consensus agreement on the draft convention, by resolving the outstanding issues including those related to the legal definition of terrorism, particularly on the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for the rights of self-determination by people under foreign occupation, and colonial or alien domination, as well as on the scope of the acts covered by the draft Convention.

China approaches the issue very carefully, by indirection.

SCO Member States emphasizes that counter-terrorism cooperation should be conducted on the principle of respect for international law including state sovereignty and without any “double standards” .

The “double standards” reference must be to Islam’s arrogant implication that  their bloody murders ain’t terrorism.  When they blow up an Israeli school bus or a British subway, that ain’t terrorism, its “legitimate resistance”.  Their arrogance is exposed by two logical fallacies.

When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation? No, it was both.  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?  The resistance was legitimate, the attack was terrorism. If we accept Islam’s definition, the bombing of the King David Hotel was not terrorism.

Israel is occupied by Arab Muslims, not occupying them. The Levant belongs to Jews, it is their homeland, not the Arab’s.  Caliph Umar’s conquest in 638 does not confer legitimate title; Israel’s recovery of Judea & Samaria as a consequence of Islam’s genocidal attack in 1967 conveys legitimate title.

Afghanistan is occupied by NATO forces as a consequence of its complicity in the Accursed Abomination. Resistance to that invasion and occupation is not legitimate.

October 6, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

Un: Eliminating International Terrorism


Eye on the UN published links to three statements to the UN’s 6th Committee on the subject of  measures to eliminate international terrorism. This post will concentrate on publishing those links, which appear below.

In view of the recent 10th anniversary of the Accursed Abomination and several recent foiled plots, the subject absolutely must be moved to the front burner.

Instead of republishing each of the statements, I will let you read them, then I will tear them apart point by point in a series of posts.  Here are the links to those pdf files.

Those statements contain references to external documents, which, in turn reference others.  So that the inordinately curious may explore the issue in greather depth, I present a list of what I consider to be the most important of those references with the links I was able to find.

October 6, 2011 Posted by | GWOT, Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: