The West Needs to Understand Islamist Paradigm of War
Western civilians and Lefties in particular need to understand that a new “paradigm” needs to exist in the fight of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The Western thought of the rules of engagement are far different than the Islamic thought.
Western thought is to wage war if possible with the least possible collateral damage to civilians. In Western history, the nations that warred with disregard to the collateral damage of civilians had their political and military leaders prosecuted for War Crimes when they lost.
Islamic thought is to wage war with the full inclusion of the civilian populace as the army of Allah and Mohammed. The civilian populace may not be trained militarily or even wish to be involved in the actual fighting; however their deaths are considered glorious for Allah and not at all as collateral damage.
This is why on September 1, 2001 after radical Islamic terrorists crashed jets into buildings murdering thousands of Americans, a media pan of Islamic Arab and Iranian conclaves saw Muslims dancing in the streets shooting weapons in the air like fire works in celebration. This was particularly the case among Arabs that call themselves Palestinian.
As Alan Dershowitz points out, radical Islamists (and increasingly Middle Eastern Muslims in general) are death oriented and Western Culture is life oriented.
The U.S. Military and America’s coalition of the willing must change their rules of engagement to match the enemy’s ruthlessness. This way the false accusations of the Leftist media of massacres such as never happened in Haditha, Iraq cannot disrupt America’s goal of eradicating radical Islamist vermin in the GWOT. It will not be a case of striking fear in Middle Easterners, it will be a case that Middle Easterners will understand and America will derive respect as an opponent. Thus Middle Easterners that do not appreciate horrid measures of radical Islamists murdering their own as punishment will move from respect to believing that America is a friend and not a foe. In essence this is why The Surge has brought on an Iraqi Awakening and Iraqis are ejecting their support for al Qaeda Iraq (AQI) and aiding the American military and the new Iraqi Government in defeating AQI.
Act For America has sent an email excerpt of Dershowitz’s The Wall Street Journal article entitled, “Worshipper’s of Death.” Dershowitz writes of this paradigm of death among Middle Eastern Muslims. Dershowitz eloquently demonstrates Islam’s culture of death. (Unfortunately Act For American did not provide WSJ link for me to cite so you will have to go SlantRight.com at the end of this post to read Dershowitz’s article which I am referring to or wade through a WSJ search.)
JRH
Comments
and seriously, do u really believe america is gaining respect in iraq. man u must be crazy... in a recently conducted poll, iraqis were united in one cause and that cause was against the americans. so best of luck in trying to "beat sense" into the iraqis. cuz thats wat u seem to be suggesting. throwback to the colonial ages, wont u say? white man's burden of beating sense in to the world.
kudos mister on ur policy.
salam and peace.
Talha if you have not figured it out yet, I am a good old fashioned Islamophobe that believes the faith is a theo-political cult and has been from its inception in the early 7th century.
So yes I bash the negative aspects of Islam and negative appears to be the majority in its considered holy writings. I should say negative from a Western point of view. I view Islam as a theo-political movement as Communism was a political movement. Both movements though diametrically divergent in their thought had one thing in common; viz. the violent taking over an Empire that will be ruled by intolerance at the cost of immense lives. I don't have to back that up with a link, simply Google Islamic history and Communist history.
I back up what I say with the links you can check out; however if you are committed to Islam you will not view the facts as truth.
man i think i should begin a counter blog or something, cuz i am tired of bringing the facts to the table all the time. maybe if u r committed to ur beliefs, u dont see the facts, cuz i am yet to receive a reply thats deals with facts or counters my arguments rationally.
the religion is called islam, btw. and started in the 7th century. u would agree that if a religion's theosophy is to be analyzed the best source would be the very early history of the religion. so, here is wat happened. when the Prophet (s.a.w.) conquered makkah in a bloodless coup, i repeat, a bloodless coup, he annouced general pardon in the area. this was a general pardon to all the habitants of makkah who had terrorized the muslims for over a decade. but he pardoned them all. no vengeful strikes were made. no one was told to convert or face death. the muslims and non-muslims continued to live side by side in peace.
also, present were jewish tribes in makkah who entered into a treaty with the muslims and saw that the treaty was respected.
india was under muslim rule for over 500 years. the hindu population far outnumbered the muslim populance. however, the muslims controlled the military and chief executive offices. sounds like a perfect recipe for disaster under an "intolerant" and "violent" cult, doesnt it. the 500 years under muslim rule were the most prosperous in indian history. there werent mass (or small scale) hindu executions or forced conversions.
so u go read google history and next time instead of providing sweeping statements deal in facts. but ofcourse, if u r committed to ur beliefs, no matter how shamelessly illogical and nonfactual they may be, u wont view the facts as truths. be an islamophobe by all means, just look good doing it and deal in facts by not providing arguments designed for 7-year olds. thats all i ask of u.
salam and peace
Talha obviously my view of history is skewed through the eyes of Christianity; however since there is tolerance in the West in this day and age History is examined and analyzed based on facts not faith.
Doing a Google search I came across this WEBSITE that provides a brief history of Mohammed and the conquests of Islam. If one can say anything it is NOT bloodless.
So if you can provide any history that objectively examines the facts from a Mohammedan point of view, bring it on. The key is OBJECTIVELY.
"With the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, he agreed to a truce with the Meccans, whereby Muslims would be allowed into the city. Two years later, the truce was broken, but rather than fight, the city of Mecca simply surrendered to Muhammad. He declared amnesty for the inhabitants, gave generous gifts to the leading Quraysh, and instituted some major changes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca#Muhammad
"Cannibalism
Maarat was not as rich as the crusaders had hoped and they were still short of supplies and food as December progressed. Most of the soldiers and knights preferred to continue the march to Jerusalem, caring little for the political dispute between Bohemond and Raymond, and Raymond tried to buy the support of the other leaders. While the leaders negotiated away from the city, some of the starving crusaders at Maarat resorted to cannibalism, feeding on the dead bodies of Muslims.
A year after the event, one of the crusader commanders would write to Pope Urban II, explaining their actions as compelled by the lack of food:
Other chroniclers, such as Radulph of Caen, who participated to the siege of Maarat, describe such scenes without a hint of moral justification:
Talha you still don't get it!
Muslims do atrocities in line with their scriptures (Quran, Hadith or whatever).
When Christians do atrocities it is in violation of scriptures (Bible).
And besides the Crusaders brutality toward Muslims is a result of the atrocities of hundreds of years of Mohammedan blood baths in the Christian World. The inexcusable atrocities were committed against Jews and fellow Christians who were Eastern Orthodox instead of Catholic.
The Christians were not the only victims of Mohammedan blood lust. The Hindus and Buddhists probably suffered even more.
"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
~ Winston Churchill
I get this statement. You learn from history and move on. Try living in 2008 and not 1098.
this isnt meant to sound harsh or anything. just a linguistic remark. the statement of learning from history, if my english does not fail me, precisely means reading history and learning from the past. ur statement "Try living in 2008 and not 1098." is an exact antithesis of ur chruchill's quote.
however, lets live in the 2008, try explaining iraq afghanistan to me. wat is the champion of freedom and peace (a.k.a. United States of in-god-we-trust America) doing by causing bloodbaths in this region. and plz dont give me that tell me that there is al-qaeda in iraq, there wasnt any! ur president and the CIA both confirmed this. also, no WMD found in iraq too.
ok dearie theway2k, prove through one of ur good old google links that any atrocity committed by muslims had scriptural backing. in simpler english for u, show me one hadith or ayat of the Quran which justifies bloods baths of the proportions of the crusades carried out by ur very catholic army of god, or in any proportion for that matter.
as for the bible, how many christians actually "turn the other cheek." seriously, did america turn the other cheek post 9/11, post-peral harbor, post-british rule in america? the golden rule might be wonderful to read and put up as a poster line for ur religion, but the truth is that it is as obsolete as an IBM 386. it just isnt in use anymore!
as for christian atrocities, go look at the entire of africa in colonial times. look latin america in colonial times. look at india under british rule. look at the chinsese opium wars. if i was to use history as an excuse for committing atrocities, as u seem to do, then every atrocity in the world would be justified cuz so much ruin has been brought about in the past. however, thats an erroneous judgment.
did i also mention in the crusade links that despite richard the lionheart's massacres of muslims in acre, maraat, etc. salahuddin pardoned the general population of Jerusalem when he conquered it. that should have set the right precedent for further crusaders to follow, right? only it didnt.
live in the present or learn from the past, the christian and jews cant deny their bad deeds. the muslims cant deny theirs. to say one is scriptually indoctrinated to terrorize while the other is clean, is a plain simple lie.
all three r religions of peace, its only that none's followers have a completely clean history. i being a muslim accept my fault, when its committed. u, however, dont.
salam and peace
Merry Christmas Talha:
The devious blood lust of Old Mo: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina41019.htm.
Fantastic! A Baha’i website has tons Qur’anic blood lust, pillaging, rape and violence that are Muslim Scripture.
Here are Tons of Qur’anic and Hadith Muslim Scriptures of the same nature as above at TheReligionOfPeace.com.
the arabic word for "fighting" is jihad. jihad has its root in mujahida, which refers to striving for something. read the hadith adn u'll find that jihad is of two kinds. one involves physical fighting and the other involves fighting against one's desires. so not all verses quoted on ur website r related to fighting. some r abt internal discipline of the mind.
rape, btw, categorically is not allowed, period.
as for fighting, i'll rather use war to be more unambigous, it is allowed in islam. it is also allowed in judaism, btw. i christianity forbids all violence thru the redundant golden rule, but just look at the history of world wars and major wars in the past century and more often than not its a christian affair, so christianity aloows it too. so, lets be done with the myth that islam allows war while no other religion does so. infact, EVEN THE UN CHARTER ALLOWS WAR (remember afghanistan in 1999?)
THE ISLAMIC PARADIGM OF WAR:
4:90 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then God Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).
i feel to see y u have a problem with the law of equality in murder cases. that is int'l law, isnt it? whats more is that islam prescribes the acceptance of blood money from the murderer, since it saves life. SO MUCH FOR BLOODLUST
2:178-9 O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty. In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding; that ye may restrain yourselves.
the holy prophet declares the following as protected entities in case of war:
- innocent civilians
- women and children
- places of worship of other religions
- water (it cannot be contaminated for the enemy)
- green trees
- elderly and sick
- those who surrender should be protected
general principle of war: forgiveness should prevail over revenge, as demonstrated in the vicotory of makkah (a general pardon was declared), and in the POWs from badr (they were given jobs and the literate were employed as teachers)
TRY FINDING SIMILAR TREATMENT IN THE WEST'S "HIGHLY CIVILIZED" WAR IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. TWO WORDS FOR U:
"ABU GHARAIB"
salam and peace
Touhe Mohammedan scriptures in my previous comment seem to contradict what you have said. Also the actions of Mohammed seem to contradict what what you have said.
It is noted that Mohammedans rape non-Mohammedan women for the mere excuse of not dressing according to code: meaning violence is ok if you perceive scantilly clad women ask for it.
You have a habit of repeating yourself. Again violence and murder is forbidden in Christianity, yet is validated in Mohammedanism. When people commits acts of violence in the name of Christianity they are violating God's Word; When Mohammedans commit acts of violence in the name of allah and Mohammed, they are following the letter to the tee.
There are peaceful Mohammedans however they are not following the commands of their own scriptures. The violent radical Islamists are following the direction of their scriptures and even publicly quote that they are.
"Daniel Pearl"
Peace in Jesus name.
christianity does not allow any violence, period.
islam gives one the right to fight.
if u have problem with the very point of people engaging in fighting at all, then WWII, japan, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan and iraq again, r gross violations of christianity. then u'll have to abolish the death penalty. then, saddam hussein should have lived, along with the entire hamas leadership. hitler should have lived, too.
but us see, sometimes it is necessary to fight in order to keep / restore peace. islam does not deal in doctrines that r unviable. u cant always turn the other cheek.
so having established the necessity for war, islam seeks to rein it in with proper standing procedures that ensure that cruelty and vengeful measures dont become the norm in war.
in simplest terms, as soon as war is necessitated for a christian nation, religions has to be chucked out the window, cuz ur religion doesnt tell u wat to do in such a situation. islam, on the other hand, gives u procedures regarding war and ensures that excesses r not committed even in war.
back in the 600s, when women werent considered full citizens in any nation of the world (the US only gave them voting rights in the 1920s).
does rape occur in muslim nations, yes.
is there any country in the world which is completely free of rape? no.
does rape occur in america? yes.
does christianity allow rape? no.
so u see violations occur all around, which is not to say this is right. it is very, very wrong!!! but u also need to see, it is a violation, both of christianity and of islam.