Three stages of jihad

:confused: Terrorism is probably about as old as states are.

I see you have decided not to take up the suggestion to actually read up on terrorism:

The Romans for instance engaged in terrorism on a massive scale throughout the Mediterranean basin...

No, they didn't. They did employ terror. Unfortunately terror and terrorism aren't synonyms.

Your point against abradley is well-taken, of course. Caravan-raiding is not terrorism, but "chastising the corrupt merchants for cheating the people" sure is (or could with fairness be characterized as) terrorism.

Chastizing people is terrorism. I see... there has been going on a lot of 'terrorism' in churches the past thousands of years.

Seriously, we have experts on terrorism who publish books on the subject. I am mentioning this because you are quite clearly unaware of this fact.
 
No, they didn't. They did employ terror. Unfortunately terror and terrorism aren't synonyms.

Not literally, but casually they are often used to refer to the same thing. It's the War on Terror, after all, not the War on Terrorism.
You are just drawing this distinction because you've been caught out saying something ludicrous and won't admit it, come hell or high water.

Chastizing people is terrorism. I see... there has been going on a lot of 'terrorism' in churches the past thousands of years.

You should read the Biblical passages in question. It was rather more than just chastisement.

Seriously, we have experts on terrorism who publish books on the subject. I am mentioning this because you are quite clearly unaware of this fact.

:lol: So we do, and you can tell how useful their analyses are by how badly we're losing the War on Terror.
The definition in wikipedia should work well enough though:

Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim.

Yeah sounds like the first people to do this in history were Russian nihilists in the 19th century :lol:
Even wikipedia's puerile statist analysis conflicts with your notions:

Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century AD Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, which assassinated collaborators with Roman rule in the province of Judea, was in fact terrorist

The reality is that "use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim" clearly implicates every state in history as a terrorist group.

Since I was just reading about L. Cornelius Sulla and his exploits are fresh in my mind, what was his bloody sack of Athens during the First Mithridatic War except an act of deliberate terrorism designed to cow the rebellious Greek cities into submission? Or when Sulla returned to Rome and had 8,000 Samnite prisoners executed on the Campus Martius in order to intimidate the Senate? What about when Crassus had 6,000 slaves crucified after Spartacus' uprising?
All of these are clearly acts of terrorism. The only reason anyone would claim they are not, is if one wishes to exclude any state action from the definition of terrorism because one has a statist bias.
 
Re: "terrorism", the term was first used to describe the Jacobin Terror, the ur-example of modern state terror.

Something to consider, when trying to distinguish "terrorist terror" from "non-terrorist terror".
 
No it's not surprising, it depends on what the Iman (Teacher) teaches, in the states the polls say the vast majority of Muslims don't see Islam as violent (Jahidic), but as you and Dr Pipes pointed out earlier, when the Islamist terrorize, we respond, then peaceful Muslims fell they're an oppressed minority and start responding against us.

That's ISIL's strategy throughout the world and it's a good strategy, won in China and Vietnam.
No, it didn't "win in China". Mao's propaganda about civilian resistance made for good copy but it had very little to do with the final outcome of the Chinese Civil War, which was effectively the result of very classical force-on-force operational warfare between symmetrical opponents. The National Revolutionary Army's forces in the Northeastern Provinces lost because they overextended and failed to protect their own supply lines; the PLA won because it was able to maneuver against those supply lines, encircle and destroy the NRA's vanguard, and then maintain operational momentum by maneuvering against the remaining NRA field armies and destroying them.

The PLA's asymmetrical warfare was relatively ephemeral in nature. They tried it during some of Jiang's encirclement operations in the 1930s, but not during all of them, and it met with mixed results. The interesting note here is that the CPC leadership at the time drew a very clear demarcation between Maoist-style partisan warfare and classical symmetrical warfare and made it the subject of Party debates, and it succeeded at them as often as it failed. Same against the Japanese: very mixed results, with some successes and failures. When they tried it in the Chinese Civil War, they mostly tried it in areas that were secondary to the main front (e.g. the occupied Northwest) and ended up having little effect on the final outcome. Even when Jiang's armies terrorized civilians, one could almost say that that was independent of Maoist partisan warfare because Jiang's forces terrorized civilians everywhere. That was their MO.
Re: "terrorism", the term was first used to describe the Jacobin Terror, the ur-example of modern state terror.

Something to consider, when trying to distinguish "terrorist terror" from "non-terrorist terror".
Yes.
 
Not literally, but casually they are often used to refer to the same thing. It's the War on Terror, after all, not the War on Terrorism.

Well, here we have the problem in a nut shell: you can't wage war on terror, which is a feeling. But good luck with that.

You are just drawing this distinction because you've been caught out saying something ludicrous and won't admit it, come hell or high water.

This is interesting. It was me who pointed out that terror and terrorism aren't synonyms - nor should they be. But apparently, in your mind me and you are interchangeable things. Sort of like terror and terrorism then.

You should read the Biblical passages in question. It was rather more than just chastisement.

I'm sure. And still it amounts in no way to terrorism. Funny that.

So we do, and you can tell how useful their analyses are by how badly we're losing the War on Terror.

Fun fact: people killed by terrorism 2005-2015 in the US: a little over 1,000. People killed by guns : over 100,000.

Terrorism in the 1970s in Europe was actually a serious problem, especially compared with terrorism in the past decade.

The definition in wikipedia should work well enough though

It does. as we'll see in a bit.

Even wikipedia's puerile statist analysis conflicts with your notions:

Statist analysis? Is that another synonym for something else?

The reality is that "use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim" clearly implicates every state in history as a terrorist group. [/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't. You should reread those definitions again.

Since I was just reading about L. Cornelius Sulla and his exploits are fresh in my mind, what was his bloody sack of Athens during the First Mithridatic War except an act of deliberate terrorism designed to cow the rebellious Greek cities into submission? Or when Sulla returned to Rome and had 8,000 Samnite prisoners executed on the Campus Martius in order to intimidate the Senate? What about when Crassus had 6,000 slaves crucified after Spartacus' uprising?
All of these are clearly acts of terrorism.

No, they are not. They are examples of the use of terror in war. Which is excluded in the definitions you so conveniently quoted. Crucifixion of slaves was the common punishment. And again, this was, to all intents and purposes, a war.
 
Here's some more meat to chew on.

ISIS has their own English language monthly magazine called Dabiq.
All 15 copies can be found here:
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq

The 15th and latest issue "Break the Cross" has an article on page 30 called "Why we hate you and why we fight you".

The final part "By the Sword" on page 72 also has interesting reading. :coffee:

The clear difference between Muslims and the corrupt and deviant Jews and Christians is that Muslims are not ashamed of abiding by the rules sent down from their Lord regarding war and enforcement of divine law. So if it were the Muslims, instead of the Crusaders, who had fought the Japanese and Vietnamese or invaded the lands of the Native Americans, there would have been no regrets in killing and enslaving those therein. And since those mujahidin would have done so bound by the Law, they would have been thorough and without some “politically correct” need to apologize years later. The Japanese, for example, would have been forcefully converted to Islam from their pagan ways – and if they stubbornly declined, perhaps another nuke would change their mind. The Vietnamese would likewise be offered Islam or beds of napalm. As for the Native Americans – after the slaughter of their men, those who would favor smallpox to surrendering to the Lord – then the Muslims would have taken their surviving women and children as slaves, raising the children as model Muslims and impregnating their women to produce a new generation of mujahidin. As for the treacherous Jews of Europe and elsewhere – those who would betray their covenant – then their post-pubescent males would face a slaughter that would make the Holocaust sound like a bedtime story, as their women would be made to serve their husbands’ and fathers’ killers.

Furthermore, the lucrative African slave trade would have continued, supporting a strong economy. The Islamic leadership would not have bypassed Allah’s permission to sell captured pagan humans, to teach them, and to convert them, as they worked hard for their masters in building a beautiful country. Notably, of course, those of them who converted, practiced their religion well, and were freed would be treated no differently than any other free Muslim. This is unlike when the Christian slaves were emancipated in America, as they were not afforded supposedly government-recognized equal “rights” for more than a century – and their descendants still live in a nation divided over those days.

All of this would be done, not for racism, nationalism, or political lies, but to make the word of Allah supreme. Jihad is the ultimate show of one’s love for his Creator, facing the clashing of swords and buzzing of bullets on the battlefield, seeking to slaughter His enemies – whom he hates for Allah’s hatred of them. A religion without these fundamentals is one that does not call its adherents to fully manifest and uphold the love of the Lord.

Yeesh :sad:
 
Here's some more meat to chew on.

Crazy people say crazy things. And you are surprised? Or are you hinting at some other point there?
 
You've got to admit, so far as anti-Western narratives go, "we'd be even better at genocide than you were" is a new one.

Refreshing, almost, or would be if it wasn't stomach-turning.
 
Here's some more meat to chew on.

ISIS has their own English language monthly magazine called Dabiq.
All 15 copies can be found here:
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq

The 15th and latest issue "Break the Cross" has an article on page 30 called "Why we hate you and why we fight you".

The final part "By the Sword" on page 72 also has interesting reading. :coffee:



Yeesh :sad:

I think publication of this in English is stupid.
 
You've got to admit, so far as anti-Western narratives go, "we'd be even better at genocide than you were" is a new one.

Refreshing, almost, or would be if it wasn't stomach-turning.

I'm also surprised by their eagerness to convert the infidels by the sword. I'm pretty sure the prophet they claim to follow said there should be no compulsion in religion. Well not really surprised, but I hope they see the disconnect.
 
I'm also surprised by their eagerness to convert the infidels by the sword. I'm pretty sure the prophet they claim to follow said there should be no compulsion in religion. Well not really surprised, but I hope they see the disconnect.

"Conversion by the sword" is the norm. But they overestimated the power of Islam.

This was something reflected by people like Hitler. Hitler also thought the Islam is better than Christianity for the Aryan domination, as it is more militant. I disagree. Cross also kills, at least, theoretically, no worse at killing than the Crescent.
 
I think publication of this in English is stupid.

afterall , there is a reason why so many Muslims are saying ISIL is not Islamic at all .
 
afterall , there is a reason why so many Muslims are saying ISIL is not Islamic at all .

With IS declaring every country in the world as their enemy, it would be stupid for any Muslim to publicly praise IS or even acknowledge that IS is as Islamic as they are.

However, IS recruits must come from other countries in the world, no matter how small the percentage is of the population. It is like Nigerian scam, no matter how ridiculous it is and how many people laugh at it or be disgusted from it, it will still find enough followers to continue to haunt us.
 
With IS declaring every country in the world as their enemy,...

Never happened. :shake:

Daesch goal is to set up a caliphate in the Middle East. It has never declared war on every country in the world.

The closest it came to that was a call for its followers to kill citizens of any nation that attacked it.
 
With IS declaring every country in the world as their enemy, it would be stupid for any Muslim to publicly praise IS or even acknowledge that IS is as Islamic as they are.

However, IS recruits must come from other countries in the world, no matter how small the percentage is of the population. It is like Nigerian scam, no matter how ridiculous it is and how many people laugh at it or be disgusted from it, it will still find enough followers to continue to haunt us.


it has no problems recruiting . There is a ready pool of so called Muslim extremists , useful for those with enough money . If that doesn't make sense , America has allowed select countries to breed them . Also , ISIL has long declared war on Turkey , with the primary goal of capturing Istanbul from the infidels that currently hold it .
 
Yes, that sounds very Islamic...

And actually, IS does have problems recruiting - mostly due to continuous bombardments apparently. If we ignore the terror regime they employ in the areas they control, that is.


Enough said.

No, I think it requires some words: IS barely controls an area in Syria-Iraq. But even terrorists can dream.
 
no Muslim terrorist / Islamist extremist / Sunni Jihadist organization will ever problems of recruiting as long as the US covers and guides the likes of Saudi Arabia . Money is there , indoctrination is there , deterrence is there , sharing the Middle East with Iran under the guise of sectarian war is also there . As for the dreams , you can see the map has Turkey divided into 3 and not 4 . One would assume Thrace be added to the Balkans but they have to cater to the "Nationalists" who somehow allow Muslim Kurds or something access to the Mediterranean in addition to like half of the country . And lovely Chechens and stuff in the Caucasia somehow join the Jihad to take over the Eastern Blacksea coast which like totally will never become an sea port for the Armenians . All those people rightly or wrongly hate Turks , do they really need some head cutting Jihadi John from London or something ? It seriously can not be that hard to face the evil Turk on the battlefield , but Uncle Sam is soooooo penny-pinching these days .


and if there's a need for reminding on how the good old West is finally defeating them , it merely took a coup in you know where for gods of war to take 70 to 80% of a town that will finally secure the link between their holdings , all the while battle rages in Halep sop that the Sunnis will kill enough Shia to get a hold on the coast for the awesomestly mostestly important pipeline . And that's as if we were like ever going to Syria . God help us all when some American plane gets downed .
 
Top Bottom