Today's the big day for President George W. Bush's speech on his new way forward in Iraq. Politicians have already taken 50 paces, turned and drawn their weapons, ready to fire away at each other even before they know the entire contents of the speech.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said 'it was time for Congress to reclaim its rightful power to decide whether the United States goes to war.' Democratic Congressional leaders Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California have come out against any new troops for Iraq.
Bush is expected to ask for an increase of about 20,000 troops, who are apparently already in Kuwait and ready to move out. Messrs. Kennedy, Reid and Pelosi do not speak for the majority of Americans. Nor do they speak for the majority of Democrats. Meanwhile, success is being made in more than one front.
More than 50 people were killed by American air strikes in Somalia, most of them Islamist leaders fleeing in armed pick-up trucks across the Kenya-Somalia border, thanks to an American AC-130 gunship.
At least 50 militants were killed in Iraq, thanks to more than 1,000 American and Iraqi troops, backed by Apache attack helicopters and F-18 fighter jets, battled insurgents all day Tuesday and late into the night in downtown Baghdad, in one of the most dramatic operations in the capital since the invasion nearly four years ago.
Let's not forget that we have Islamists here in the United States. Isn't it truly better to fight them anywhere over there, and not here on our own soil?
Al-Muhajiroun (the emigrants). Founded in London in February 1996 by Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed as a radical offshoot of Hizb ut-Tahrir, this group wished to establish a Caliphate, a system of centralized Sharia rule.Al-Muhajiroun was officially disbanded in October 2004, but it has continued under other names. ...
In this, it has succeeded. It established a foothold in the United States, and had a base in Pakistan. Even though the parent group has been abolished, its members continue to promote its message of jihad both in Britain and North America. ...One member of Al-Muhajiroun in the US was Lebanese-born Zakaria Mustapha Soubra. During a two-year stay in London, he joined the group and its leader, Omar Bakri Mohammed. He then went to the United States, where in 1999, he set up a branch of Al-Muhajiroun in Phoenix, Arizona.
You can go here to read names, dates, history.
Other places in the United States with connections are Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott; Tempe mosque Arizona; Phoenix; Scottsdale; New York; Queens; mosque in Jackson Heights; City University of New York; Seattle; Oregon; Maryland, just to name a few. Universities, mosques, bookstores and reading rooms, all easy recruiting and breeding grounds for terrorists here in or own country.
Right out of today's news, 'a British Muslim arrested in Iraq for running guns to insurgents has ties to an Islamic extremist group with agents operating in the New York City borough of Queens, WorldNetDaily. I'm with President Bush in trying to kill them over there, before they get a chance to kill us here.
Tim Roemer says, "Adapt, Change Or Die". That is what we must do, whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan, or here in the U.S. If what we are doing isn't working, then change course, adjust.
Linked with:
Woman Honor Thyself, The Ji-had or is it Jew-had
Pace University Dhimmitude Attitude
Somali Handiwork, Right Wing Guy
Chief Beer Officer, 123Beta
Confused Americans for Truth - The Misunderstood Christian, Conservative Cat
SpeaK AmericaN, Woman Honor Thyself
When Good Christian Conservatives Act Like the Devil When It Comes to Immigrations, The Pink Flamingo
Listen to BlowOUT with Layla on Barack Obama, The HILL Chronicles
Senator Turban Visits the Wizard of Kos, Big Dog's Weblog
OTA Color of my Blogroll - Woman Honor Thyself, Planck's Constant
Hollywood Outside the Beltway
Mastermind Of Embassy Bombing May Be Dead, Right Voices
Bush's relentless pursuit of terrorists is vindicated in Somalia, Piglito
GWOT comes to Somalia, Gathara's World
Somalia: a Battle Won in the War on Terror. (America, America we dump our prejudices on thee.), Zot Media Inc.
The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel – Initial Response to an Extraordinary Document & The Left in Israel and the Danger of a Palestinian Civil, Reuven Kaminer
Kill the bad guys where they are, Biga's Rants
Wednesday OTP/Oh, please, let it be so!, Third World Country
New Wave of Troops Set for Iraq, Stop the ACLU
WTW: DUmmies Say GWOT Bad, Pirate's Cove
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson's Website, Mark My Words, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Pursuing Holiness, Rightwing Guy, third world county, The HILL Chronicles, Wake Up America, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Renaissance Blogger, Right Voices, The Random Yak, Adam's Blog, Don Surber, basil's blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Mensa Barbie Welcomes You, Jo's Cafe, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Blue Star Chronicles, Planck's Constant, Dumb Ox News, High Desert Wanderer, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Dr. Megalommatis, thank you for leaving your latest articles here and a link to their original publishing sites.
Your articles are always very thought provoking.
Posted by: Debbie | January 10, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Islamic Terror Societies: an Anatomy of the West's Lethal Enemy – Part 1
In a previous article we analyzed why the term 'Islamic Terrorism' is wrong and why it should be replaced by “Islamic Terror Societies”. Before entering into details about the lethal plans of the Islamic Terror Societies against the West, we will focus and describe extensively their structures – a subject viciously kept secret in the West.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Definition
What are the Islamic Terror Societies?
The Islamic Terror Societies are groupings of Muslim individuals whose commonly shared behavioural, linguistic, educational, cultural, religious, theological, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, academic, political and economic elements and patterns, either at the individual or at the organized/institutional level, either as system components and aspects or as independent factors, tend to generate an overwhelming support for, and materialization of, unjust, iniquitous, inhuman choices, barbaric options, and ultimately terrorist acts of all scopes, as humanly justified revenge against, or divinely demanded castigation of, parts or the totality of the Western World.
Within the sociological study of societal evolution, which involves four successive stages, namely hunting/gathering bands (also called egalitarian community), tribal society, stratified structured society, and social hierarchy of institutional civilizations, the Islamic Terror Societies have no place.
They actually consist in a new, fifth stage of decadent, decayed, decomposed civilization that, interacting within infiltrated (in various parts of the society and through different ways) foreign behavioural, linguistic, educational, cultural, religious, theological, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, academic, political and economic elements and patterns, ends up, either at the individual or at the collective level, in utmost shocks, which occur repeatedly and ultimately are the reason of the generation of the overwhelming support for, and materialization of, unjust, iniquitous, inhuman choices, barbaric options, and ultimately terrorist acts of all scopes.
As new, fifth stage of decomposed civilization, the Islamic Terror Societies are realms of absolute barbarism whereby former values and virtues, ideas and concepts, ideals and principles are misinterpreted and misunderstood in a way to fit the determinedly inhuman character that emanates out of all the different, decayed elements and/or patterns.
As type of societal collapse, the Islamic Terror Societies consist in an unprecedented type, as contrarily to historically known examples, they do not tend to either die or (re)adapt, but rather threaten to expand and diffuse their inhuman character and part of or all their decayed elements and patterns worldwide, due to the advanced globalization of the human societies; doing so, the Islamic Terror Societies are the historically unique model of expanding collapsed society, causing therefore reasonably greater fears than those provoked in the past as consequence to barbaric invasions (Huns, Vandals, Goths and others).
Identification
The Islamic Terror Societies can be mainly (but not exclusively) identified with the so-called Arab societies, encompassing countries as varied as Syria, Kuwait, Qatar, Mauritania, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Bahrain, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc. This is the nucleus, the real core of the Islamic Terror Societies. One could also call them Major Islamic Terror Societies. It is not by accident that the September 11th perpetrators were all of so-called Arab origin, mainly Egyptians and Saudis.
At this point, one should remind and perhaps underscore that we are speaking of societies, not states, which makes a tremendous difference that we will explain further in this series of articles.
The Islamic Terror Societies are certainly wider than the member states of the Arab League; they also include Muslims originating from the aforementioned countries and living anywhere allover the world, from France to Australia and from Italy to the US. This is the vertical periphery of the Islamic Terror Societies.
The Islamic Terror Societies include non-Arabic speaking societies, namely Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Somalia, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Mali, Ethiopia, Bosnia, India, etc. only under condition of diffusion – among the indigenous Muslims – of behavioural, linguistic, educational, cultural, religious, theological, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, academic, political and economic elements and patterns shared among the Muslims of the nucleus of the Islamic Terror Societies (the so-called Arab societies). This is the horizontal periphery of the Islamic Terror Societies.
If one dimension is missing in the horizontal periphery, f. i. the linguistic, the local society should be distinguished as lesser / minor Islamic Terror Society, and therefore considered as not totally corrupt and decayed, and consequently less perilous.
The expansion of the Islamic Terror Societies, and the War Against the West
The expansion of the behavioural, linguistic, educational, cultural, religious, theological, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, academic, political and economic elements and patterns of the Islamic Terror Societies is predominantly due to perverse and subversive religious teachings, and emanates mainly from the various religious schools, universities, medressas, mosques, cultural associations, and similar institutions.
This consists in a very perplex procedure and system of communications, and necessitates particular analysis, but it would be sufficient to state at this point that, if the educational, cultural, religious, theological, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, and academic exchanges between the core of the Islamic Terror Societies and their vertical and horizontal peripheries were totally cut, prohibited and averted, this would consist in a dramatic blow and unprecedented hit against the Islamic Terror Societies, lessening their efficiency to destroy the West.
To give an example, if the US instead of engaging militarily in a war against Afghanistan and Iraq, prohibited
a) any student originating from Pakistan to study in Madinah University in Saudi Arabia,
b) any student originating from Indonesia to study in Al Azhar University in Egypt, and so on,
c) any sheikh and imam originating from a nucleus Islamic Terror Society to travel, settle, work and practice his supposed religious duties in another country (either horizontal or vertical society), and similarly for other 'authorities',
if the US froze any movements of Muslim linguistic, educational, cultural, religious, theological, ideological, philosophical, intellectual, academic authorities (belonging to a nucleus Islamic Terror Society) outside the borders of their country, the “War against Islamic Terrorism” (which is truly speaking the War of the Islamic Terror Societies against the West) would soon bring forth positive developments for the US, and the West in its totality.
In the light of the aforementioned, it becomes crystal clear that it is not the West or at least part of it, led by the US, that declared “War” against the Islamic Terror Societies in the aftermath of the September 11th events, but quite the opposite.
In reality, the Islamic Terror Societies emerged silently and suddenly, due to Western indifference, ignorance, gullibility, or complicity (the latter suggests at least machinations and conspiracy from at least a Western group of power or decision making center) of the West. They shaped their policies, fixed their preparation policies, identified their targets, and started acting in the direction of materializing them. It has been an elaborate plan, and more we study their characteristics, more we realize the extent of the pending threat.
The Islamic Terror Societies declared war against the Soviet Union, long before the rise of Ayatullah Khomeini in Iran or the Islamist groups' warlike activities in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime simply allowed them to model a society that became the ideal target the Islamic Terror Societies fixed for every Muslim and non-Muslim nation in the world.
The September 11th events were geared to cause division among the Western nations, to spread confusion about the possibly efficient means the West should have to use in order to deal with the the Islamic Terror Societies, to test/assess the West's capacities to counteract, and to prepare masses of hundreds of millions of people for the forthcoming major phases of the War against the West.
Polarizing over discussions about the West's duplicity as attested precisely in the September 11th events, namely the West's sorrow for and revenge of the death of about 2500 victims as compared to the death of far more numerous Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Algeria, Chechnya, etc., the obscure manipulators of the Islamic Terror Societies have been successful in advancing their war's objectives.
They are sheikhs and imams, who either in jail or among the masses, direct the developments without any possible opposition by the local tyrannical administrations. Theirs is the supreme power within the the Islamic Terror Societies. This will never be understood before a thorough description of the Islamic Terror Societies' characteristics. This will be the subject of the next article.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Posted by: Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis | January 10, 2007 at 09:30 AM
2007 - 7th Year of War against the Islamic Terror – A breakthrough
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
For six consecutive years, the modern Western Don Quixote has been engaged in a ill-identified war with a non-identified enemy. In the odd war's 6th and 7 th years, the morally collapsed West may face harder times and unpredicted challenges with universal consequences.
In this article that consists in the second part of the earlier published '2006 – 6th Year of War against Islamic Terror, and the Moral Collapse of the West', we intend to provide our readership with a possibly complete definition of the term 'Islamic Terror', something most of the Western political establishments have fallen short of – for too long.
The Warring parts. II – The Islamic Terror
What can possibly Islamic Terror be? A criminal act? A over-simplifying and sick mindset? An extremist ideology? The possible interpretations, emanating from Muslims and non-Muslims, have mostly been deprived of any validity, as they reflect politically annotated / indexed perceptions, justifications of preconceived ideas, and teleologically marked political agendas.
To be simple; when Franco Frattini, the EU's Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, shamelessly 'bans' the use of the phrase 'Islamic terrorism' to describe Islamic terrorism, by saying that 'You cannot use the term "Islamic terrorism". People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion', he simply expresses the politically correct approach to the Islamic Terror phenomenon for the European Union's interests and colonial agenda (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1774558,00.html).
This is an aberration, and one could simply answer the disreputable Commissioner, saying that “Muslims in great numbers support and sympathize with those ' who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of Islamic religion' and they do not think that these people 'abuse the name of this religion' at all”. Who will say and who has the right to say who abuses a religion or not? A follower of the religion in question or an outsider like Frattini?
Premeditated European Obscurantism about Islamic Societies
In fact, Franco Frattini bases his bogus-interpretation on absolute falsehood and total ignorance; sure enough that the Westerners are misinformed by the manipulated mass media as regards the Islamic societies, confident that press establishments like Le Monde, Liberation, Der Spiegel, Franfurter Allgemeine, The Guardian, Corriere della Serra, El Pais and their likes will never publish pertinent insights into the Islamic Societies, sure-footed enough that the average public in France, England, Germany, Italy and other European countries will never find (let alone read) necessarily long articles about what average street people of Karachi, Kuwait, Amman, Cairo, Algiers, Damascus, Khartoum, Sanaa, Jakarta, Dakka, and Rabat believe about this issue, he diffuses a criminal falsity.
As long as European policies are shaped by the colonial interests of France and England, and countries like Poland, Germany, Italy and Spain do not realize how lethal is for Europe to keep the reality hidden, European Commissioners will diffuse all sorts of erroneous interpretations.
Organization of the Islamic Conference – an overt backing to terror, thanks to a few .... exceptions!
Let's try another effort of definition; long before the September 11th events, the Director of the International Relations Department of the I.P.O., at the International Conference on Terrorism called by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Geneva, from June 22-26, 1987, in an attempt to define terrorism, underlined the following:
“As may be noticed, the fact that an operation is violent does not constitute a condition for considering it a case of terrorism. In the light of the above definition, we shall be able to ascertain the nature of one act or another and determine whether it is a case of terrorism. We shall confirm that the definition does not apply to the following:
1. Acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers;
2. Resistance of peoples against cliques imposed on them by the force of arms;
3. Rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism and efforts to undermine their institution;
4. Resistance against racial discrimination and attacks on the latter's strongholds;
5. Retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative”.
Having first undergone an analysis of what a terrorist act is ('terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind'), the author of the paper (http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/definition-terrorism.htm), Ayatullah Sheikh Mohammed Ali Tashkiri, offers an unbelievable backing to anyone who would ascribe his terrorist act to one of the aforementioned exceptions.
This text, which has never been denounced with utmost vigor by the OIC, makes clear that for the Islam's top religious instance, anyone who commits an act involving threat to security of any kind is justified, if the act's reason is national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers! The next step would be to assert that the September 11th events perpetrators were ... rightful, and their perpetrators ....innocent!
The limits of Western scholars
As they have long served disreputable purposes of historical falsification, Western Orientalists are ill-placed to make a constrain-free judgment; their approach remains therefore close to the politically correct and historically false.
Take an example from wikipedia, entry Islamist Terrorism as of today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamist_terrorism), where reference is made to Fred Halliday for the definition of the term itself. We republish here the first two paragraphs:
"Islamist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners. Fred Halliday, a British academic specialist on the Middle East, argues that most Muslims[verification needed] consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's laws[1]
Where such terrorists seek to establish an Islamic theocracy and impose rule of sharia it is sometimes termed 'Islamist. Another widely used expression is Islamic terrorism, and frequently Islamic extremism is also discussed relative to the concept”.
In other words, the academia compared to the political class are 'more royalist than the King'! Again, the epicenter of the falsification lies on what is definitely known as absolutely unknown among Western readers: the conditions, the way of life, the beliefs, the common sense, the mindset, the prevailing mentality of the impoverished masses of the undeveloped Islamic societies.
That a politician shapes a position on the basis of the average people ignorance can be tolerated to some extent, as we all know that politics have become a most filthy story.
That scholars shape definitions of facts based on what “most Muslims consider” is most atrocious for their false science. It is even comical! What bibliography and what sources could Fred Halliday possibly provide to his unfortunate and misled readership in support of this disreputable lie?
For scholars who continually monitor specialized and average audience publications, it is crystal clear. There is no bibliography on the subject because Western ignorance of the real condition of the Islamic societies is the trickery on which the entire Western Policy towards the Islamic World is based.
It is not a matter of simply false Western accusations of the Islamic World, as extremists of the political right are gullible enough to believe.
It is mostly a matter of an entirely misrepresented reality, a completely erroneous picture that the Western readership has got, a totally falsely presented debate.
The Frame of the Myth of Islamic Terrorism
It all hinges on the following simplified frame that is all wrong:
1 - Some extremist groups that represent tiny minorities among the Muslims perform acts of terror in the name of Islam.
2 - Religious authorities of the Muslim world condemn these acts, stating that the perpetrators do not represent Islam but rather defame it.
3 - Political authorities that – truly speaking – represent nothing but the sympathy or the tolerance of Western governments follow the Muftis, making a higher bid and explicitly condemning the acts and the perpetrators. At times, they impose a tougher control of religious movements and agitators.
4 - Like this the literature about the terrorist event is concluded and the international mass media can focus on something else, until another similar event triggers the same, pathetically identical, hypocritical and criminal points.
A close observation of the aforementioned scheme of alleged machination and vicious fabrications let us understand its contradictory nature that reveals automatically its falsity.
If these groups are said to represent tiny minorities, how they manage to have so strong popular support which is the reason that in some countries hundreds of thousands of people are imprisoned without trial, just because of their beliefs – thought to be 'extremist'?
If the religious authorities, who condemn the terrorist acts' perpetrators, are right and these acts are irrelevant and opposed to the Islamic faith, why the outright majority of the people in numerous countries have no respect for these religious authorities, considering them as simple puppets of the local tyrants, and ingenuously impertinent and totally unauthorized to speak of and represent Islam?
If the local tyrants highlight the terrorist acts' perpetrators as representing tiny and marginal minorities, why these tyrants do not dare oppose in free elections political parties that justify the perpetrators' acts? Why do they prohibit these parties, imprison their leaders and high ranking members, and organize ludicrous elections of non-participation?
How can it happen that the terrorist acts' perpetrators demand the adoption, and/or defend the application, of social ideals and/or models shared by the outright majorities?
Particularly the last point is quite revelatory; it gives a clear, indirect (this is true), answer about the eventual social support and moral backing the terrorist acts' perpetrators enjoy within a great number of Muslim societies.
Possible reasons for an Islamic Terror act
When a suicide bomber blows up a cafeteria in Tel Aviv, in an administration building in post-2003 Iraq or in the London metropolitan, s/he carries out the act in the name of several values that are not respected either locally or globally. It is not simply a matter of foreign land occupation, and it has nothing to do with a fight of national liberation. It is far wider in its moral contents than a political issue. One could maximalize the reasons evoked by the terrorist acts' perpetrators and interpret the acts as perpetrated in revenge of
1) the colonial rule over various Islamic countries,
2) the occupation of Islamic territories by foreign forces,
3) the imposition of most hated local elites that appear to the perpetrators' eyes as traitors (deserving capital punishment), Westernized renegades, and local agents / puppets of the great Western powers,
4) the diffusion of foreign (mostly viewed as alien and Satanic) social – behavioural – cultural models throughout the Islamic World,
5) the dissemination of atheist, materialist and secular social – behavioural – cultural models throughout the entire world, and
6) the misrepresentation of Islam allover the world, among the Islamic nations and in the rest of the world.
If one desires to go beyond the non-representative level of the local interlocutors of the West, to access the average local masses of a great variety of Islamic countries from Algeria to Egypt, from Syria to Yemen, from Pakistan to Nigeria, and from Morocco to Jordan, and to truly learn what the vast majority in these countries believes, one will be amazed.
One will therefore meet average people in Ouarzazat, Tizi Ouzou, Benha, Assiut, Benghazi, Zerqa, Haleb, Taiz, Saada, Multan, Quetta, and in a great number of cities, who will all say openly, clearly, explicitly and unreservedly that the aforementioned six reasons impose acts of this sort, and that by perpetrating these acts, the Muslims who sacrifice their lives in this world gain eternal life and rejoice in the Hereafter. One can easily fill thousands of pages of related literature, collecting the purposes of local average people who are not given a chance to say in public what they mean in private.
Of course, in a brutally totalitarian country one should not expect an informative gallup to be carried out and offer an approximate barometer of the public opinions on these issues. But this is part of the falsification and distortion policies pursued by Western and local elites to the prejudice of all. This is the real danger for the entire world: that by diffusing a most confused and distorted picture of the Islamic societies, the Western elites facilitate – in extremis – the further rise of the Islamic Terror.
How can we therefore define correctly and accurately this phenomenon?
Definition of Islamic Terror
One should first avoid the term 'terrorism'; this word bears an ending (-ism) that hints at an ideology, philosophical system, theological school and religion (Communism, Platonism, Pelagianism, Protestantism).
One should avoid the term 'extremism' that denotes ideas and actions, ideologies and theoretical systems that are outside the perceived mainstream currents or the ideological – political – cultural center of a society. In a way, this qualificative term is used as pejorative by those who reject the contents of what may be 'extremist', but this may drive us to the concept of an entire society being 'extremist', and this makes no sense. If an entire society adopts an 'extremist' system, the system is automatically mainstream, and no one gets more clarity by calling the entire society 'extremist'; one must always keep in mind that what is sought after is lucidity, perspicuity, unambiguity, as a way to the Truth. Insults and expressions of disparagement are useful only for further confusion.
Terror is a better word as it describes the nature of the act perpetrated in the name of any possible reason and idea. Devoid of the confusing ending -ism, the word 'Terror' describes the act in its totality, and as such is sufficient.
Islamist would be the wrong adjective to add; as such, it relates to Islamism which is an ill-defined term to which one can ascribe contradictory and conflicting ideological and political systems emanating out of the modern Islamic societies. Even the term 'islamism' in itself has been discredited as erroneous in describing and good only for misinterpreting these political – ideological systems.
How could we suggest the expanded use of a term that may already be wrong in its limited use? In addition, an “Islamist” terrorist may reject the terms, saying that s/he should not be considered as “terrorist” and that s/he is not “Islamist” but just a Muslim.
Identifying ideologically someone in a way that s/he rejects does not add to clarity! Whereas the word “terrorist”, originating from “terror”, can be easily attributed to the act perpetrator (although this is still a matter of ideological debate, as we already saw in the case of the Islamic Conference Organization paper), the term “Islamist” cannot be a matter of insistence. It is as simple as that: you cannot call “Communist” someone who rejects that s/he is “Communist”.
Contrarily to “Islamist”, “Islamic” is a term that, denoting the perpetrator's link to the specific religious system, would be widely acceptable. Speaking within the context of Islam, a terrorist act perpetrator would accept for him/herself the term 'Islamic”; of course, the local religious and political authorities would deny the link, stating for zillionth time that the perpetrators do not act according to Islamic principles, do not represent Islam, and are guilty, if judged according to Islamic criteria.
However, we cannot afford to take this crap longer! The Islamic societies in their outright majority accept, support and approve of these acts, methods, mindset, mentality, attitude and behaviour; and at the same time, they overwhelmingly reject the tyrannical and unrepresentative local elites, and their bogus-spiritual lackeys. As consequence, the latter cannot be taken seriously into consideration.
Is a term 'Islamic Terror' correct enough?
This is the most critical question about the subject, if we truly seek the truth. We must first ask ourselves what the term is good for, for what use we need it, and to what extent we want describe a simple act or the overall context within which the act is repeatedly, uninterruptedly, and expansively generated.
If we want to describe just the New York September 11th acts, the London July 7th events, the Madrid March 11th incidents, as well as many other similar occurrences, then certainly the term is correct. These are acts of Islamic Terror.
But do we truly want to limit ourselves to the fleeing moments (or hours) of an event? Are these events coincidental and unrelated? Or do they have a straight connection and direct link with other, of lesser spectacle and publicity, similar facts that have taken place in Israel, Palestine, Yemen, Kashmir and elsewhere?
What is more important after all?
The fact, quasi-momentary in its nature, that some perpetrators perform the acts of Islamic Terror
or
The reality, perpetual in its dramatic essence, that dozens of millions of human beings, who share this same Earth with all the rest, passionately desire to perform similar actions for they believe this would be just, correct, ethical, human, and most rewarding (in the Hereafter)?
What is more significant in the end?
The lethal incident performed by a few Islamic terrorists
or
The even deadlier state of hundreds of millions of human beings, who share this same Earth with all the rest, and
* agree with the reasons of the incident, as presented by the terrorist acts' perpetrators,
* support and justify the perpetrators in the light of these reasons,
* admire the perpetrators and believe they will get excellent divine reward for these very acts of theirs,
* share with the perpetrators a great number of common ideals, principles, concepts, wishes, expectations and dreams (here little matters whether these ideals would have been rejected by the Islamic Ages' Philosophers and Erudite Scholars – what matters practically is that all these masses share these ideals along with the terrorist acts' perpetrators, believing that they are Islamic of content),
* believe utterly that theirs are the correct Islamic ideals, and that the best way to practice them is to act as the terrorist acts' perpetrators have so far,
* are convinced that, through their acts, the Islamic terrorists defend in the best possible way the rights of Muslims allover the world and the Cause of Islam,
* would offer any sort of support, help and assistance to these acts' perpetrators anytime anywhere, thinking that like this they
- contribute to the Ultimate Victory of Islam,
- revenge the West for all wrongdoings performed against Islam,
- avert further anti-Islamic plans of the West that involve (according to them) eradication of Islam, diffusion of unrestricted and pernicious Sexualism, and total disfigurement of all the non-Western peoples at the cultural, religious and behavioural levels?
What is worse finally?
A simple murderous act
or
the setup of an entire society (involving many nations in this regard) where the Islamic terrorists are gradually conceived, born, grown, educationally prepared, culturally equipped, religiously helmeted, ideologically panoplied, spiritually armoured, and technically outfitted, before being sent to commit their simple murderous act?
Could one be foolish enough to surmise that a few criminals are as important an entire (spanned over dozens of states) society - fabric of Islamic terror act's perpetrators? Who forgets the scene with the 'cultural factory' of the movie 'The Wall” memorable for the mass fabrication of dolls – a metaphor for thought control in modern societies? This imaginative factory is best materialized by today's Islamic societies whereby nothing is allowed to challenge the system and outmaneuver the production of the Satanic dolls of Islamic Terror.
If we want therefore to describe this overall phenomenon that gains continuously momentum, and threatens the entire Mankind because of its ultimate target of turning it to a society similar to theirs (this is called 'islamizing the world' or 'imposing Islam allover the world'), then we cannot afford to use the term of Islamic Terror anymore. The term falls short of describing the entire situation in all its dimensions.
Like this, understanding that we have to deal with a vast societal phenomenon, we reach the correct term 'Islamic Terror Societies' that stands as real second warring part in the ongoing (for 6 years) but ill-defined War of the morally collapsed and philosophically Don Quixotic West.
The real essence of the 'Islamic Terror Societies' – the great unknown opponent – we will analyze in the next article.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Posted by: Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis | January 10, 2007 at 09:26 AM
2006 – 6th Year of War against Islamic Terror, and the Moral Collapse of the West
Engaged in a War against Islamic Terror, the divided Western world makes people allover the world seriously question its credentials to deal with an issue as serious as that. This is rather due to the Western World's collapsed moral standards, by which one can mainly evaluate future developments of universal significance.
By Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
After many years of an odd war without perspectives, targets, and properly identified parts, several people allover the world have good reason to directly ask whether this war can be won by the West or what can be considered as West in today's multi-confused world.
Could the West lose the War against the Islamic Terror?
The question seems logical, but it is not. It should rather be reversed to the following interrogation: Who can win an non-identified enemy, against whom they have fought without first properly identifying themselves, without demonstrating faith to their values, and without testifying to a minimal status of virtue, impartiality, equity and justice?
The following questions should be thoroughly answered before we could possibly tackle the critical interrogation about the war outcome:
- What / Who is the West? What are its values, virtues, systems of faith, basic principles? Who does represent them? Whom do they serve?Is the West's self-evaluation a matter of topographical determinism or does it also involve values?
- What is Islamic Terror? What is its real connection with Islam? Does this religion generate a sort of extremism out of which emanates the Islamic Terror phenomenon?
- Does the Islamic Terror identify itself as such? What is its portrait of the West? What do people, who ascribe themselves to this current, reproach to the West?
- What is the appeal of the West and of the Islamic Terror to other populations of the World that are not either part of the West or Islamic Terror perpetrators, followers and/or admirers? Is it possible for a Christian, an animist and/or the follower of another religion to find him/herself closer to the 'values' or the 'targets' of the Islamic Terror than to those of the West?
- Could someone accept 'Islamic Terror' politically without accepting Islam religiously and spiritually?
- Finally, what are the two opponents' real targets and aspirations? Does the West target the eradication of Islamic Terror only or does it secretly desire the present death of Islam? Do all the people attached to what is called 'Islamic Terror' ultimately seek the imposition of their version of Islam throughout the surface of the earth?
The Warring parts. I – The West
What is the West and who does represent it best? In the eve of the US-led war against Iraq, what were the countries that represented Western values best? America, England, Italy, Spain and Portugal? Or France, Germany, Belgium and Russia? The answer may need volumes, and yet it would be controversial.
If we judge, based on the appearances, we would be fast led to the assumption that all the aforementioned countries and many more form the West as a united group, and that the division was a secondary political one. However, this would not be affordable at the moral level; it would demonstrate that the West is an amoral realm of states run by politicians, who utilize principles and ideas in a way that best suits their material interests. As an interpretative argument, it would signify the moral collapse of the West.
What are practically speaking the West's values to start with? A European scholar like Umberto Ecco would have it easy to highlight a well known diagram, starting with Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, and the Tragedians, passing through Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, Marc Aurel, to arrive to St Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and then to the Masters of the Renaissance, the Classicism, the Romanticism, the Encyclopedistes, and the modern existentialists.
A confused, conventional identity
All this is an old story that does not work anymore; falsely interpreted, most of the aforementioned names are utilized to serve a bogus-model that cannot offer basics of self-identification. Not only they are contradictory to one another, but if alive they would reject the modern face of the West, Europe or America, firmly denouncing their contribution to the rise of, and utterly stigmatizing, the modern Western societies. None of them would find a trace of humanity in the modern Western construction, the duplicitous and hypocritical nature of which would have not escaped from their observation.
Positive or negative, reactionary or progressive, all the 'great names' the Modern West calls upon would not agree to a hypothetical posterior 'adoption' of the monstrous 'child' where abortion is benevolently practiced, gay and lesbian marriages are legalized, and everyone is constrained to live far from God(s), temples and other places of connection with the Transcendental World. More recent European philosophers, the likes of Montesquieu, Goethe and Voltaire, would find utterly inhuman to live as hypocritically as average Europeans are obliged by their leadership to do, when starvation, tyranny, pestilence, extreme deforestation, and barbarism are blatant in vast parts of the world.
The European philosophers of the Lumieres, to stick to a relatively recent period, would be delighted with the idea of rising European and American political establishments that would implement their principles and ideals; they would be flattered to hear that these establishments would do their best to diffuse the concepts of Liberty, Fraternity, Democracy, Human Rights, Justice, Equity to other parts of the world, the African continent, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire.
But these were their limits; we know that their knowledge of the Ottoman Empire was minimal. They viewed in this colossal empire as the embodiment of the Oriental Despotism, a notion they had developed after reading Ancient Greek and Romans authors, whom they had had a priori idealized. Yet, the milliyet system that had been long institutionalized within the Ottoman Empire offered protection to ethnic-religious minorities that the Bretons and the Corsicans of France did not have even in their wildest dreams.
Far from the dreams and the wishes of the Great Pillars of European Thought
The limits of the European philosophers became the starting point for the colonials; today, 209 years after Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, we know very well that the West did not intend to diffuse ideas and principles but to instigate hatred, to promote division, to fuel fratricide conflicts in the most perverse and disreputable way, and to ultimately exploit local resources by plunging indigenous populations into an unprecedented underdevelopment.
Many try to idiotically attribute the responsibility for the Middle Eastern hell to the - real – negative developments that had taken place within Islam. Fanaticism, backward obscurantism, hatred and hysteria would be the mistake of the Muslims of the Middle East. This is ridiculous.
If the Ottoman Empire had been left intact at the aftermath of the WW I, then the rising forces of Kemal Ataturk, who imposed great changes, republican system, emancipation of women, strictly observed secular state and society, secular education (without any religious elements), equal rights and obligations for male and female citizens, democratic elections with women participating (long before women had right to vote in France), Latin alphabet for Turkish, would have diffused the same political ideals among the populations that lived in the areas of today's Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait. If this had been done, the religious fanaticism, extremism and sick sentimentalism would have not been able to persist and deteriorate. Turkey ruling the surface of the pre-WW I Ottoman Empire would have it easily done, and a national home for the world's Jews would have found better protectors in the Turks than the British.
These realities have never been discussed in duplicitous, murderous Europe that bears the heaviest responsibility for turning the Middle East to a hell for all. America on the other hand failed to notice similar conditions that also prevail in other parts of the former European colonial empires.
American, Vatican and Europe in Search of the lost Western Soul
America has the military and political force to opt for an exit that would immediately equal victory in the War against Islamic Terror. Vatican has the spiritual and intellectual force to advance repentance and regret for the criminal schemes of the colonial and 'post-colonial' times. Many in Europe, peoples and governments, intellectuals and academia, have the inner capacity to ultimately understand what happened before the words 'Islamic Terror' appeared in the western mass media. Without an earlier understanding of the logic 'cause – effect', no one can aspire to a victory over the Islamic Terror and no one can claim credentials of Aristotelician thought.
Without a fresh effort for self-identification, America and Europe can never hope to possibly prevail over the Islamic Terror. The reason is simple; in its essence, this fight is a Conflict between Good and Evil. The “Good” will never prevail over the evil, unless the “Good” understands its nature, its real identity of 'Good', and perceives correctly the 'elements' the “Evil” is made of.
If in this fight, one meets in Europe and in America people who suggest that the fight is just another political confrontation that needs only military and political decision making, one must be sure that these people are the Fifth Phalange of the Islamic Terror. It may sound odd that people in the West have identical targets with Ossama Bin Laden, but there is nothing strange in it; beyond states and practices there are principles, and evil principles are served by evil people who pay little interest to tiny differences that fascinate idiotic and misguided (through mass media) masses.
So, to answer the question, we would say that the West is a multi-divided, multi-expanded condition of cultural, behavioural, societal order that involves various interpretational schemes and economic - political options that vaguely, poorly or hardly reflect the aspirations and the wishes of most of the great intellectuals on which the rise of the West is said to have relied upon.
Above all, the West is the epitome of a multileveled compromise among all of its different, if not diametrically opposed to one another, constituents, a conditio sine qua non for its later survival, as believed by most of its academia, intellectuals, socio-economic and political elites and spiritual leaderships.
The point has long been reached that Europeans (Russians and Turks included) and Americans, as the best expression of what stands as Western world (although we do not underestimate elites like those of Canada, Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, South Korea, and even China), do not attempt any groundbreaking step in what is supposedly the frame of academic and intellectual life because of fear that the entire baroque building would be destabilized, if not collapsed.
'Victory' over the USSR? An Omen Ominous for Europe
The West appeared victorious in the aftermath of the Cold War, a strange appellation as a lot of blood was shed by proxies; the West European countries and the USSR did not engage in a battle, but Vietnam, Korea, Angola and other peripheral countries became the field where many Americans, indigenous and others lost their lives in a very hot confrontation between Capitalism and Marxism – Leninism.
This feeling of 'victory' was ultimately false and surely misguiding; there was not victory for any side. Simply, the Socialist Soviet nomenklatura collapsed under the burden of its own, numerous, repetitive and at times lethal mistakes.
Contrarily to WW II, the 'Cold War' ended with the natural collapse of one of the two warring parts. This should rather be taken as an Omen Ominous by the superfluous Western bogus-intelligentsia. Unfortunately, it was not.
Yet, the lesson was very sheer; a war does not need militarily, economically and politically quasi-equal opponents to be won. The view “Republican France against Kaiserist Germany”, “Hapsburg Austria-Hungary against Romanov Holy Russia” and USA vs. USSR is either obsolete or childish. This sort of conventional wisdom ended. Few people in today's West realize how 'little' is needed for the entire West to collapse.
This would bring us back to the old discussion about the end of the empires and the civilizations; it is anyone's guess and all options are open. However, quite unfortunately, irrespective of the fresh ideas that anyone can inject into this debate, the common denominator will always be the same: cultures die, empires collapse, civilizations end, when the societies in which they had previously developed are devoid of diachronic virtues, moral principles, philosophical values, sets of concepts on which common faith in its diversity and common life in its variety help populations 'create'. It is all about a Moral Order that erroneously venerated people in the West have been besotted enough to exterminate.
No Virtue, no victory!
Whether you like it or not, when you have 'authors' who publish novels to describe that on the day their mother died they (or their supposed hero, but this does not truly matter) felt the need to spend some time with a prostitute, then modern literature makes a little step forward (this is the reason the novel is widely read and the author shamefully respected) but the entire society jumps backward in the most spectacular way.
These are the terminated societies of the West; how can guy, who mourns his dead mother by enjoying sex with a prostitute, possibly identify values in his society and engage in battle against the Islamic Terror?
How the West will convince the hundreds of millions of masses of Muslims that the terrorists of Hizbollah, Hamas, Islamic Courts of Justice, Al Qaeda and all the rest consist in a possible “threat” to Civilized Life? Is prostitution a desired part of civilization?
Can criminal Western bogus-historians justify Camus' L' Etranger on the basis of prostitution practiced in Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and Roman temples? Is that not the most disreputable equation of all times? How can one pick up an individual element out of a context, illogically transfer it to another, and have it infiltrated therein? Ancient prostitution does not validate modern times prostitution, as the entire society was absolutely different, and certainly not a single Egyptian or Babylonian, Greek or Roman went to a temple prostitute in the aftermath of his mother's death.
What is more of a threat for a righteous person living in Poland or in Colorado? Ossama bin Laden's supposed order for attacks against Western soldiers in Iraq or the concept of a visit to brothels as response to one's mother's death?
This is an infinitesimal example of how low the Western societies have fallen, even if we judge by using criteria proper to Western culture and civilization. These societies of no virtue and no value have no courage to engage in a battle; they are already a rotten corpse much alike that of Nana, the famous heroin of Emile Zola. This is the reason the healthiest part of the West, the USA, entered into the War against Islamic Terror. But doing it in a way that reflects military and political considerations, the American administration deprived itself of the strongest weapon in this critical battle of battles: its moral dimension.
America does not face the same threat as Europe; the religious revival heralds developments of moral order that will sooner or later augur a New American Civilization. Europe is the most vulnerable part of the West, the more exposed to implosion and collapse, even without a military confrontation taking place. What makes the trans-Atlantic interrelationship even more particular is that, if America fails to confront the Islamic Terror in the Middle East and Africa, Europe will not avoid the major crisis in its millennia long history.
The most atrocious to be expected!
Without a need of armies attacking from Spain and the Balkans, the rise of the extremist Caliphate will have all possible means to trigger dramatic developments within Europe that would find itself in a position of USSR-1989. America would be very far to intervene; even worse for today's idiotically anti-American Europeans, when this takes place, there might be a spiritual leadership in America that will find it necessary to explain the collapse of Europe as well deserved moral castigation sent from God.
Frightened as they are, the present European leaders try to convince Americans not to generate major changes, lest the overall balance be upset. In their pathetic attitude, they contribute to speeding developments. Having long left untrustworthy presidential and royal tyrants rule artificial entities that are anything but a proper country, the Europeans have done their best to bring their own end as soon as possible. What will emanate from the vociferous, chaotic, barbaric realm of the Middle East will be the lowest of the low, and will spread the utmost negation of Virtue and Civilization. It can be very unexpected and can come very soon. To explain what it can be we should examine the other warring part – the Islamic extremism that in the name of Islam cultivates Satanism, sheer, pure, unadulterated Satanism.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
Posted by: Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis | January 10, 2007 at 09:22 AM