MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory » radical islam http://mensnewsdaily.com Men's Rights Activism, MRA Politics, Analysis, Commentary and Global News Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:18:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 en hourly 1 “Please, God, No…It’s So Hot, I’m Burning Up” http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/11/%e2%80%9cplease-god-no-its-so-hot-im-burning-up%e2%80%9d/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/11/%e2%80%9cplease-god-no-its-so-hot-im-burning-up%e2%80%9d/#comments Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:52:03 +0000 Frank Salvato http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=87187 “The floor is completely engulfed. We’re on the floor, and we can’t breathe, and it’s very, very, very hot…I’m going to die, I know it. Please, God, no. It’s so hot, I’m burning up!” These were some of the last words of Melissa Doi, 32, one of the thousands of innocent victims that perished at the hands of radical Islamists on September 11, 2001. In all, 3,017 souls were lost and 6,291+ people were injured on that fateful day by al Qaeda terrorists in New York City, Arlington County, VA, and Shanksville, PA. Now, eight years later, one of the biggest fears held by counterterrorism experts and experts on radical Islam is coming to pass and we are less safe for it.

One of the biggest fears advanced by myself and people who I have had the honor of working with in the quest to educate Americans on the threats and dangers posed by radical Islamists, is that the American people would soon forget the horrors of September 11th; that they would start to forget the sense of helplessness they felt as they watched the World Trade Center collapse into the streets of New York City, the carnage at the Pentagon and the despondency of rescuers demonstrated in a field in Shanksville. We all understood that there would be a waning of the immediacy felt in the aftermath of the attacks – immediacy of response, education and prevention – but we feared the encroachment of apathy to the grotesque loss of life and butchery foisted upon the American people on that day. We feared it because we all understood – and still believe today – that to abdicate vigilance to the threat of Islamist aggression is to set the stage for another catastrophic event.

In the days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Liberal media (formerly referred to as the mainstream media) began to remove the images of the attacks from our television screens. Gone were the images of dust-covered people wandering the decimated streets of New York. We were no longer able to see the images of heroic firefighters and Pentagon workers frantically searched for people to rescue. And we were no longer provided the images of frustrated first responders – professionals trained to save lives – milling about the wreckage of an airliner in a field with no one to save. The media explained the removal of these images – these realities – by insisting it was done in the name of preventative tolerance; to quell any hatred, any catalyst for retribution toward the Muslim community.

The images of the most devastating attack to be perpetrated on American soil by a foreign enemy were replaced by a full-blown propaganda offensive designed to demand “tolerance” toward the American Muslim community. This propaganda offensive was employed not only by the media, but by our government. Leaders in Washington DC, including President George W. Bush (whom I respect and admire to this day) insisted that Islam was a “religion of peace” and that the terrorists who attacked our nation were a small, radical and violent faction of an otherwise peaceful religion. And as the message was repeated, the American people began to distance themselves from the feeling of vulnerability that embraced the country on September 11, 2001, the images of that day fading into the history books.

During the hours of the attack on September 11th, and over the course of the next few days, as we waited to see if any survivors would be found amongst the wreckage of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many of our lives were changed forever. Many of us did the civically responsible thing and took the time to study the culture that gave birth to the fanaticism of al Qaeda and the ideology that harbors those who would champion brutal oppression, violent conquest and denial of Natural Law to all but their own in the name of religion. Some of us – including myself – came to understand that the ambitions of radical Islamists were far greater than simply striking out at “the Great Satan,” the United States of America. In fact, the goal of radical Islamists – be they Sunni or Shi’ite – was to establish a global caliphate as directed by their Prophet Mohammad; a caliphate that would encompass the world and bring all the people of the world to exist under Islamic Law; Sharia Law.

The quest to establish a global caliphate understood, the popular notion among the Progressive Left that the attacks were retribution for American policies in the Middle East was exposed as naïve, hollow and sometimes disingenuous rhetoric. Even Osama bin Laden’s 1996 and 1998 declarations of war against the United States, while calling for the withdrawal of American forces from the Islamic holy land of Saudi Arabia went further in conveying that jihad was the way to the global Caliphate and that the establishment of the global Caliphate was the path to Allah. Truth be told, the freedom and liberty valued by the United States and the West is simply a hurdle that radical Islamists have to navigate on their journey toward religious fulfillment. The hatred for Western culture held by radical Islamists, for those that value freedom and liberty, is not exclusive to the United States, as is evidenced by the terrorist attacks in Europe, the South Pacific, Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

Today, the US government has identified 72 terrorist organizations, with thousands of operatives, existing and operating within the borders of the United States. These organizations include al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al Fuqra and the Muslim Brotherhood, to name but a few. They have literally set-up offices in Boston, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Tampa, Washington DC and over 38 other cities around the country. The recent conviction of officials from the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas, Texas – in which the Council on American Islamic Relations (a Saudi funded pro-Islamic lobbyist group) was named an unindicted co-conspirator – exposed the fact that many Islamic organizations disguised as “charities,” some with IRS 501c3 tax exempt status, are raising, laundering and funneling money back to the Middle East to support their terrorist organizations.

In our schools, the wrongfully accepted premise of separation of church and state is routinely violated on behalf of Islam under the guise of teaching tolerance. Some California schools even had the audacity to suggest that parents were outside of their authority when they complained about school children being made to be “Muslim for a day.” Would the schools mandate that students be “Catholic for a day” or “Jewish for a day” or “Protestant for a day” we could be certain that the American Civil Liberties Union would unleash all of its resources to stop said action.

CAIR, it has been found, routinely initiates lawsuits on behalf of Muslims in pursuit of preferential treatment. From cab drivers refusing to take fares that carry liquor, to prayer rooms and foot baths being constructed in public places using taxpayer monies, to receiving contractual obligations from private employers that agree to special treatment in the workplace, CAIR has facilitated the preferential treatment of the American Muslim in American society. Through it all, the voices coming from within the American Islamic community who decry such unwarranted preference are muted by the deafening silence of the majority of American Muslims who selfishly refuse to address not only the inequity of status that taxes the rest of American society in deference to their religion, but the violence perpetrated in the name of their religion.

To add to the complexity of the situation, the United States is experiencing a diminishing birthrate among our people. Conversely, the Muslim birthrate in the United States greatly surpasses the birthrate of Americans. Left to the singular device of reproduction the US population – as well as the world population – will be consumed by those who practice the Islamic religion through simple demographics in a few generations. By the sheer power of their numbers, Islamists, including those who wish to establish a global caliphate, will be able to inundate and monopolize any democracy on the face of the earth and no political maneuver, no procedural end-around and no amount of military might can overcome this inevitability.

Meanwhile, President Obama has adopted the strategy of extending an “open hand” of peaceful engagement to rulers and despots like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syria’s Bashar Assad and the Afghan Taliban – tyrants who routinely use the “fist” of totalitarianism and the ideology of radical Islam to not only attack the West but to destroy their own people. To date, this open hand has been met with indifference at best and indignation in the least.

Here at home, Attorney General Eric Holder, in one of the most transparent acts of political persecution, has chosen to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency for inappropriate behavior in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques when questioning radical Islamist terrorists captured on the field of battle. Newly released information has validated former Vice President Dick Cheney’s assertion that these techniques garnered critical information that prevented additional attacks on American soil.

Further, both President Obama and Attorney General Holder – along with the Progressive Left – are doing everything in their power to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to introduce terrorists into the US legal system, a system routinely manipulated by the ACLU and CAIR.

It can be argued successfully that the US government and the American people are not doing all we can to win the battle against radical Islamist aggression. In fact, it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to argue that some within the inner workings of Washington DC actually champion the advancement of Islam in the United States.

On this, the eighth anniversary of the September 11th attacks, we need to rededicate ourselves to understanding the threat that radical Islam presents to We the People of the United States and to the people of the West. We need to take the time to read the Quran and the Hadith – in tandem – so as to realize, first-hand, the violent and oppressive tenets of the Islamic religion, the tenets embraced by radical and fundamentalist Islamists. We need to call on the American Muslim community to lead the charge against these violent and oppressive tenets, to confront the demons within their own religion and to bring about a reformation of their religion so it can exist peacefully with the many different people of the world.

Only when these things come to pass will we as a human race be able to face down and conquer the evils and barbarity of radical Islamists. Make no mistake, radical Islamists are at war with the world. They have said as much in the past and they continue to say as much today. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Why do we refuse to listen to what they are saying?

From their graves, the 3,017 souls lost on September 11th, 2001 and the many lost in radical Islamist attacks around the world, beg for justice. It is our duty as human beings to hear them and to defeat radical Islam wherever it exists.

In memory of those lost on September 11, 2001.

Share on digg

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/09/11/%e2%80%9cplease-god-no-its-so-hot-im-burning-up%e2%80%9d/feed/ 4 Ceasefires in Islam: Not Always What They Seem to Be http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/02/ceasefires-in-islam-not-always-what-they-seem-to-be/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/02/ceasefires-in-islam-not-always-what-they-seem-to-be/#comments Fri, 02 May 2008 11:26:40 +0000 Frank Salvato http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=79633

It seems as though every other day we hear there is another “ceasefire” in the Middle East. This is chiefly because there is so much violent Islamofascist aggression throughout the Middle East but it is also because of something more. Just as there is no exact translation between the Arabic and English languages, we in the West would be wise to realize that this “inexactness” exists as a constant in the relationship between the cultures of Islam and Western Civilization. This convolution of conceptual understanding is aptly illustrated where the subject of military ceasefires is concerned.

In the West, a ceasefire is commonly understood to mean a temporary cessation of violence or hostilities for an agreed time period or within a defined geographical area. In many cases, ceasefires have been instituted to facilitate negotiations that produced an armistice, peace treaty or unconditional surrender. Regardless of the goal – achieved or sought – in most every ceasefire agreement the terms and conditions are clearly defined so that each side has a clear understanding of what is required and what is to be considered a breach of contract, as it were.

To say that we in the West are engaged in a clash of civilizations with the fundamentalist Islamic culture would be a fair statement. Hundreds if not thousands of radical jihadist groups are mounting a violent global offensive against Western Civilization in a third attempt at establishing a global Caliphate. This contention is validated by history and we need only be good students of events passed to understand it.

While many hold the common misconception that the conflict with radical Islam started with the attacks of September 11, 2001, the reality is that radical Islam’s current confrontation with the West started in 1983 with Hezbollah’s bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Lesser understood is that this conflict is but the third bloody expedition in the quest for a global Caliphate; the first coming in the aftermath of Muhammad’s death in the 7th Century and the second occurring in the 11th Century, spanning the years 1071 to 1683 AD – an aggression that lasted 612 years, almost three times as long as the United States has been a country.

Three aspects of this conflict which we in the West are delinquent in understanding – and there are many others – are in defining the enemy, understanding the culture in which they are generated and familiarizing ourselves with their tools and tactics.

Many among us believe that by simply familiarizing ourselves with Islam’s religious text we will understand the Muslim dichotomy with the West. This idea demonstrates the naivety of many because it is a fact that to read the Quran without reading it in tandem and in context with the Hadith is an exercise in wasted time. In fact, few understand that the Quran wasn’t written in chronological order or that it wasn’t “written” by Muhammad, but by his “companions.” Further, many don’t comprehend that the text itself wasn’t compiled until after Muhammad’s death.

This being said, if the majority of us in the West haven’t even taken the time to understand the genesis of this aggressive ideology, how can we dare believe we have acquainted ourselves thoroughly enough with their culture, tools and tactics to have constructed a working understanding of how to defeat their aggression?

In any conflict there is a beginning and what is tantamount to an end, at least in Western culture. But in Islamic culture – and in jihadi culture especially – there are variations on a conflicts beginnings and ends; on ceasefires, armistices and peace treaties.

Where we in the West understand the idea of a basics ceasefire, in Islamic culture – in jihadi culture – there are two variants: tahadiya and houdna.

A tahadiya is roughly defined as a temporary cessation of violence that can be ended at any time for any reason. To employ tahadiya is to employ a tactic that allows for a brief “lull” in fighting for a number of reasons: to rearm, to fortify, as a military tactic or to acquire greater troop strength or a better vantage point.

A perfect example of tahadiya comes in the form of a statement made by Damascus-based Hamas Chief, Khaled Mashaal, who recently met with Jimmy Carter:

“It is a tactic in conducting the struggle…It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people’s interest…to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit…The battle is to be run this way, and Hamas is known for that.”

As any Israeli can attest, the calm that comes in conjunction with tahadiya is a pensive and cautious calm at best. During tahadiya, one must be prepared for a resurgence of aggression at any moment.

The pensive peace of tahadiya stands in contrast to the more stable cessation of violence achieved in a houdna.

Ahmed Youssef, a senior advisor to Hamas leader Ismail Haniya described a houdna this way:

“A truce is called in Arabic ‘houdna.’ Covering ten years, it is recognized by the Muslim jurisprudence as an agreement both legitimate and binding. A houdna goes beyond the western concept of a cease-fire and forced the parties to use this period to seek a lasting resolution and nonviolent their differences. The Koran is a great merit in these efforts to promote understanding among peoples. As the war dehumanizes the enemy and make it easier killing, the houdna provides an opportunity to humanize the opponents and understand their position with the purpose of resolving disputes that they are inter-tribal or international.“

This would all sound very honorable if not existing in tandem with other genocidal and apocalyptic tenets held within radical, fundamentalist Islam. A simple examination of Sunni Islam’s Wahhabi ideology or a fundamental understanding of al taqiyya compromises the sincerity of the concept of houdna, especially at the tongue of Hamas or any other aggressive faction of the fundamentalist Islamic culture.

Where the Western concept of ceasefire and the Islamic concepts of tahadiya and houdna intersect, a blogger named Chaim Grosz, in response to an article in Haaretz titled In the Heart of Palestinian Consensus by Danny Rubinstein may have said it best:

“Since the believers of the Islamic ideology consider Islam timeless, a houdna for a thousand years is acceptable…but the right to reignite the jihad at any time is predicated upon the belief that such a battle can be won and the lands ‘occupied by the infidels’ reverted back to Islamic rule.”

With the recent White House directive instructing all Executive Branch governmental agencies to refrain from using accurate, fact-based terminology when referring to radical Islam and its aggressive action, with our government’s refusal to educate the people on the issue while opting to institute politically correct policy, our government has sent a signal that they are ill-prepared for the encroachment of this violent and aggressive ideology within the United States.

In light of this it would appear that the responsibility and the urgency of educating ourselves about those who would enslave the West to Sharia Law has grown exponentially. We can no longer abdicate our responsibility to be learned about the issue of radical, aggressive Islamofascism. To fail in understanding this aggressive culture is to gamble with our lives and the lives of future generations.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project a non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the The New Media Journal Internet radio program broadcast globally on NetTalkWorld global talk radio. He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist.

Share on digg

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/02/ceasefires-in-islam-not-always-what-they-seem-to-be/feed/ 1 Democracy Without Liberty Is Just Authority http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/04/democracy-without-liberty-is-just-authority/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/04/democracy-without-liberty-is-just-authority/#comments Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:18:17 +0000 Frank Salvato http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/04/democracy-without-liberty-is-just-authority/ Benazir Bhutto’s assassination is probably one of the most serious events that has happened since the attacks of September 11, 2001. She represented a move toward a Pakistan governed by political process and away from government by military rule. Truth be told, the only true stabilizing force in Pakistan is its military. It is for this reason that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was so reluctant to relinquish his military commission, a move he made in deference to his exclusively civilian role. To be sure, Bhutto was no angel but she was certainly a more attractive choice in an unattractive field.

We Americans have an extremely bad habit of looking at other nations and foreign cultures through a uniquely American understanding. We see a Pakistani military and comprehend it using the knowledge we have of our own military. We know our military to be separate from our political structure where it comes to government. We realize that the US military is extremely well disciplined and trained to a superior level. We have come to accept that when our armed forces are tasked with a mission – and when we are bright enough to keep politicians from interfering with that mission – the US military can be counted on to be successful 100% of the time. This, although a truth for the United States military, cannot be said for all militaries around the world.

In Pakistan the military is embedded into the governmental process. It has been this way ever since the country’s creation in the independence of India from Britain. While there have been democratically elected leaders in Pakistan there have also been military coups. Pervez Musharraf was brought to power by military coup and has, since, tried to walk a fine line between military rule and political rule.

Existing simultaneously with this fragile rule is the fact that although the Pakistani military is well trained and seasoned, because it is a governmental component and prone to political ideology – especially in a country whose identity is based in the religious edict of Islam – there are factions existing within its ranks. While the generals and general command may very well be loyal to a civilian Musharraf, it cannot be guaranteed that the total of the mid-level officers are as loyal. When one mixes into the equation the fact that the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, leans more toward the ideology held by the Taliban than that of the West and that Pakistan is a nuclear capable country it is easy to see why we exist in some of the most dangerous times in human history.

This brings me to a critical point. Foreign policy experts and politicians from the West are making one of the biggest mistakes in the history of man by not recognizing that we are in error for promoting democracy to cultures where it is foreign.

Democracy has delivered to us Hezbollah as a legitimately elected entity in Lebanon and Hamas as a democratically elected and legitimate force in Gaza. Democracy made it possible for Vladimir Putin to bring a KGB mentality to a newly freed Russian people. Democracy has enabled the quasi-socialism of Hugo Chavez to erupt in South America.

Democracy is not the first step toward a free people, it is the last step.

The first step toward a free society is the incremental establishment of basic liberty. Let’s face it; a benevolent king who bequeaths liberty to his kingdom’s subjects is better than a democratically elected Hamas who keep their people living in squalor only to advance a totalitarian ideology on a region of the world.

By advancing the cause of liberty around the world instead of democracy, we provide people who have no experience with the personal responsibilities associated with maintaining a democracy the ability to cultivate an understanding of the value of freedom. Once a society embraces the responsibilities needed to maintain freedom, having formulated a firm understanding that it must be cherished and maintained through knowledgeable, thoughtful, educated and sometimes resolute engagement rather than by abdicating those responsibilities to political opportunists and totalitarian charlatans, the natural next step, the natural progression, is a thirst for self-rule; democracy.

Today, our rush to install democracy around the globe is affecting a very dangerous outcome; it is validating and legitimizing treacherously well-crafted totalitarian organizations in the form of fanatical and sometimes genocidal ideologues. Democracy is not spreading freedom in the Middle East; it is spreading authority, contrary to the ideals of liberty.

If the West is to win the global conflict against aggressive Islamofascism we must spread liberty, not democracy, around the world. We must advocate for liberty for all the peoples of earth, not democracy for the few who would be elected. The evils of human nature cannot be trusted with democracy without liberty. Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered in producing the first ever national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the NMJ Radio show broadcast global on NetTalkWorld global talk radio and broadcast live on BlogTalk Radio. He is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, syndicated on over 25 stations nationally and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world, as well as an occasional guests on radio programs across the country. His opinion-editorials are syndicated nationally and he is occasionally quoted in The Federalist.

Share on digg

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/04/democracy-without-liberty-is-just-authority/feed/ 0