Until we fight Islam instead of Jihadists we will lose the civilization war. Thats the truth that the West is not willing to accept. What is the point of stopping them on the battlefield if we allow them to infiltrate our countries and wreak havoc on our values. Ted Belman

Modern jihadists

Clifford D. May, Israel HaYom

A secret CIA plot was revealed last week: Beginning almost 10 years ago, the agency set in ?motion a plan to make Osama bin Laden action figures. Over time, the paint on the faces would ?fleck off, revealing a demon beneath. The idea was to dissuade children in the Muslim world ?from seeing al-Qaida’s leader as a hero.?

The CIA eventually decided not to proceed with the scheme, and there is reportedly only one ?two-faced prototype Osama doll left, sitting in some Langley office. But don’t count me among ?those making fun of this aborted “influence operation.” My only quibble: We should be targeting ?not just individuals but also the ideology that motivates them.?

Both U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry recently spoke of the dangers posed by ?the “jihadists” now carving a blood-soaked trail through Syria and Iraq. In the past, they ?have generally talked instead of “violent extremists,” apparently in the belief that for most ?Muslims, “jihadist” has a positive connotation, and that it would be counterproductive to ?reinforce that by calling them what they call themselves. ?

But sound policymaking requires conceptual clarity. Besides, can it really make any difference ?how non-Muslims refer to those Muslims who claim they are killing (and being killed) for the ?sake of their fellow Muslims? ?

Having come this far, Obama and Kerry should now ask some probing questions. ?Among them: What are the central pillars of jihadist ideology? Where does it fit within the ?history and theology of Islam? What are the jihadists’ goals? What are they prepared to do to ?achieve them? ?

They could begin to find answers in “The Mind of Jihad,” a book written seven years ago by the ?late Laurent Murawiec for the Pentagon’s director of net assessment. Murawiec explained that ?jihad implies “warfare with spiritual significance.” He added that the concept “stems irrefutably ?from the Quran,” and that jihad cannot be seen – as so many of its apologists contend – as “a ?response to “colonial aggression,’ ‘imperialist encroachments,’ ‘Zionist intrusion’ or “American ?crimes.’” ?

Jihad was the primary means by which the great Islamic empires of antiquity expanded their ?borders until, starting in the 1100s, European scientific and military developments began to shift ?the power equation, and Christian empires started to encroach “into lands that had long been ?conquered and ruled by Muslims.” ?
Over the centuries that followed, Islamic warriors increasingly found themselves on the ?defensive. “But as soon as some in the umma [the transnational Muslim community] could ?nurture again the belief that jihad could be victorious again, that the balance of forces would ?again favor the umma, sizeable groups and schools of thought went …read more
Source: Israpundit


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here