Posted on 10/20/2007 7:22:42 PM PDT by Son of Dis
Islamists certainly aren’t the only representation of terrorists throughout the world, but compared to them, the other guys are small potatoes. Why? FSM Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr. provides an exercise in compare and contrast that you won’t want to miss.
By Tom Ordeman, Jr.
Six years after the events that made large-scale terrorism a daily concern of American citizens, the staggering ignorance of the American citizens and many self-professed terrorism experts continues to be a frustration to many legitimate specialists in international terrorism. While facts and opinions can always be disputed, the clarification of obscure facts and the correction of troublesome misconceptions can serve to bring our national discourse to a more legitimate standing.
One such misconception is the comparison of Islamist groups such as al Qaeda to more familiar groups like the Irish Republican Army and ETA. These two groups, prominent in the West for their terrorist operations in the British Isles and Spain respectively, are often used by academics as comparative examples. While acknowledgement of their similarities is useful, these comparisons are more helpful when contrasting the sheer ferocity of the Islamists with the comparatively reserved behavior of the European groups.
One similarity between the two camps is their use of violence toward political ends. However, one must then make a subsequent acknowledgement of the overwhelming difference in intensity. While none ought to dismiss the longevity and atrocity of European terrorist attacks, a mere comparison of casualty figures and targets of European attacks pales in comparison with the attacks of Islamist groups. Beyond the obvious example of 9/11 itself, neither the IRA nor ETA were ever known to target their enemies to the degree of Islamist groups. In Israel, groups such as Hamas have gone so far as to target school buses on several occasions. Thus, the difference in levels of aggression is a major contrast between these two movements.
Another parallel is the use of both an armed wing and a political wing in order to further a group's objectives. ETA has fielded several political wings, and the IRA was famous for engaging in insurgent operations while simultaneously working through the Sinn Fein political party in both the Republic of Ireland and the Ulster counties. Islamist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and, perhaps most famously, the Taliban have all coupled their militant actions with political wings. There is the clear example of hard-line Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but Hezbollah and Hamas have mobilized their political wings to gain additional power and political leverage in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, respectively. However, whereas the European groups have attempted to use their newfound political leverage to push for the changes their paramilitary wings seek, the Islamist groups have used their power to bolster their campaigns of violence: against the citizens of Afghanistan, against Israel and opposing politicians in Lebanon, and against Israel and the rival Fatah party (in the case of Hamas).
A major difference between European terrorists and Islamists is the willingness of European groups to negotiate with their enemies. While European groups have pursued a legitimate dialogue with their opposition, Islamist groups refuse to do the same. Despite several invitations and gestures by the Israelis, Hamas has continually called for the destruction of Israel since they were swept to power in January of 2006. In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has taken political and personal risks to bring the ousted Taliban to the bargaining table – only to be met with responses demanding the removal of all foreign troops prior to commencing any negotiations. Even the late Yasser Arafat was known to have avoided making irrevocable concessions when negotiating with Israeli leaders. The entire mindset of Islamist terrorists with respect to diplomacy is one of refusal unless they have not only the upper hand, but outright diplomatic supremacy.
Further distinction can be seen in the objectives of these groups. In the case of the IRA and ETA, their objectives include the end of what they see as occupations by neighboring governments. Their primary motivation is ethnic and cultural nationalism, and their violent campaigns were/are seen as a proportionate response. The Islamists, on the other hand, almost exclusively espouse uncompromising demands, and aim to attain these objectives despite their comparative weakness. In the case of al Qaeda, few people realize that bin Laden has stated on many occasions that he wishes to abolish the borders of most Middle Eastern and North African countries, reestablishing an Islamic caliphate from Afghanistan in the East to Spain ("Andalusia") in the West. In contrast to the ETA's desire for a sovereign Basque state and the IRA's goal of unifying Ireland, most Islamist groups (particularly those in the Levant) call for the outright destruction of Israel. Such objectives would be equivalent to ETA pledging the complete destruction of Spain, to be replaced with a consolidated Basque presence on the entirety of the Iberian Peninsula.
In some ways, these comparisons and contrasts can be difficult. For example, the various factions of the Irish Republican Army had involvement with Islamist terrorist groups and Middle Eastern state sponsors of terrorism. The Provisional IRA not only trained with the Palestine Liberation Organization in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, but also received funding from the Libyan government after the United Kingdom allowed British-based American aircraft to carry out strikes on Libya in the 1980s. However, the demonstrated differences between familiar European terrorist groups and Islamist groups with respect to tactics, motives, willingness to negotiate, and levels of aggression should serve to reinforce our understanding of Islamist terrorists as a particularly pernicious and dangerous threat to Americans and our allies.
Further, this understanding should reinforce the futility of attempting to counter Islamism in the same way that ceasefires and peace treaties with European groups have been achieved. Contrary to the belief of some academics that force is ineffective in dealing with terrorism, one must understand that negotiation is itself ineffective when one party is willing to compromise and the other is not. It is only through this understanding that we can continue to develop new strategies, using both force and alternatives to force, to seek a peaceful, secure outcome in our conflict with Islamist aggression.
Decades? Try centuries!
This is Islam, - to them their eternity is at stake in all this. Abd this is how Islam has been spread since Mohammed left Mecca and went to Medina. The surahs of peace are abrogated, the surahs advocating war are now in effect.
When someone believes their eternity is at stake, they can be REALLY motivated, more so than those whose motivation is strictly political or financial.
Oh...and because they corrupt little children in this way also as you posted:
New Animated Film on Hamas TV Focuses on Child Martyrdom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1913979/posts
Gee... Because they killed 3000 of our people live on national TV. ? Ya think?
The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.
Because God is ordered and they are not.
You’ve been here for two weeks. What’s your motive?
Because they believe in the god who was a “liar, thief, and murderer” from the begining of time.
Quote is from John 8:44 about the devil, from Jesus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.