Understanding the Islamist Agenda and Negotiations
Submitted by Douglas Farah on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 06:09
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionBy: Douglas Farah
There are many good reasons for wanting to talk directly to one's enemies, particularly states that pose a direct threat to one's security. The Obama administration, facing a host of domestic problems and inheriting the ineffective policies of the previous administration in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, has incentives to want to get the Iran issue contained, at a minimum.
The same can be said for the Afghanistan crisis, which is lurching from bad to worse. The Taliban, flush with opium money, is making inroads while the corrupt and ineffective government fiddles, and Kabul is close to burning.
But one has to be clear that the other side wants some sort of serious back and forth. This is what is missing in both cases.
One must start from a recognition of what it is Iran wants: the abolition of Israel, the unimpeded sponsorship of armed non-state actors (Hezbollah and Hamas, with the dalliance with al Qaeda when convenient), and imposition of a global theocracy. None of these issues is negotiable.
From this Wall Street Journal piece, it is quite clear that Iran sees nothing to be gained by talks, and much to be gained by trying to humiliate the incoming administration. Perhaps they are simply recognizing the reality that their basic goals leave little room for substantive negotiations.
It seems to me that Fareed Zakaria makes serious mistake in his assessment of Afghanistan policy in calling for talks with the Taliban.
This is largely for the same reason: the lack of an understanding of what the Taliban want and what they are.
Like the Iranians (yes, the Taliban is Sunni and Wahhabist, and yes the Iranians are Shi'ite and they have much disdain for each other on many issues) the Taliban has as its bottom line the establishment of a global Islamist caliphate that starts in Afghanistan and from there, the world.
The differences with al Qaeda are cultural clashes and discomfort with the way the Arab forces treat the Taliban, but not over fundamental beliefs, tactics or strategy. A world under Sharia law, as understood by both groups, is a divine mandate and therefore not negotiable.
Zakaria writes that:
The United States is properly and unalterably opposed to al-Qaeda. We have significant differences with the Taliban on many issues - democracy and the treatment of women being the most serious. But we do not wage war on other Islamist groups with which we similarly disagree (the Saudi monarchy, for example). Were elements of the Taliban to abandon al-Qaeda, we would not have a pressing national security interest in waging war against them.
That is simply not true. As he notes later, al Qaeda (the old guard, perhaps less relevant than ever) is essentially a parasite, living off host groups and nations. But in the case of the Taliban, the host has welcomed the parasite, fed it, clothed it, protected it and embraced it. The idea that the Taliban would, in a verifiable way, renounce and cut ties to al Qaeda, is simply not realistic. The idea that we should stand by and deal with - and likely assure the ascent to power of - a group whose basic philosophy is to return everything they can back to the Middle Ages is an abandonment of everything we claim to stand for. The fact that we tolerate Saudi Arabia's abysmal behavior is no reason to watch another country fall under the worst kind of enslavement and barbarism. Finally, the line about having no pressing national security interest in the Taliban repeats exactly the misguided analysis that led the Taliban to facilitate the execution of the 9/11 attacks. Every major attack (1998 East Africa bombings, USS Cole, 9/11) were carried out by non-state actors (al Qaeda) operating from a "failed" state or sympathetic state (Taliban and Sudan). Dialogue is a useful, vital tool in international relations. But it is only useful when the bottom lines of both sides are understood and the areas of overlap can be discussed. Otherwise, it is a waste of precious time and resources. FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Douglas Farah is an award-winning investigative journalist and Senior Fellow in Financial Investigations and Transparency at the International Assessment and Strategy Center. E-mail him at doug@douglasfarah.com.
AMIM, Wasim, Abang where are
AMIM, Wasim, Abang where are you
hope you could help few of them
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2203190.ece
maybe they should read
maybe they should read this
go to the website and click on these on the right:
http://www.GOOGLE.com/index.htm
Jewish Genocides Today and Yesterday
100 Million Christians, 1920-40, Palestinian Genocidal Killings, Israeli & Jewish Racial Purity Laws, Israel's Palestinian Apartheid Laws
Then they'll accuse me being anti-jew, but then let them click on this (they're nice Jews):
http://www.YAHOO.org/
EDIT:
DO NOT USE THIS SITE FOR ADVERTISING YOUR SITE. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ADVERTISE, CLICK ON "Place your ad here" AND WRITE AN EMAIL.
This is interesting: The
This is interesting:
The first gay and lesbian Jewish organisations¹ in the world were formed in London and Los Angeles in 1972 and New York in early 1973. By 1975, lesbian and gay Jewish organisations were also active in San Francisco, Boston, Washington, DC, Philadelphia and Miami.
When the United Nations voted in 1975 to declare that 'Zionism equals racism', many gay and lesbian Jews felt that there should be a gay and lesbian response. A meeting was called in New York and it became a loose network of organisations.
In 1976, the first formal international meeting of gay and lesbian Jewish organisations was held in Washington, DC with representatives from Washington, DC, Philadelphia, New York, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, London, Montreal, Toronto, and Tel Aviv to discuss common concerns and set in motion a way for gay and lesbian Jews to work together.
In 1977, New York hosted the Second International Conference of Gay and Lesbian Jews with over 200 people attending. Subsequent conferences were held in Los Angeles in 1978 and Israel in 1979.
In 1980 in San Francisco, the World Congress was officially born with a Management Committee elected to run its affairs and the creation of By-Laws. Subsequent conferences were held in Philadelphia (1981), Los Angeles (1982), and Miami (1983). In 1983, the current structure of the World Congress, with officers and an Executive Director was voted into place. Also put in place in 1983, was a resolution to hold International Conferences every other year in the odd years and Regional Conferences in the even years. Since then, conferences have been held in Washington, DC (1985), Amsterdam (1987), Chicago (1989), San Francisco (1991), London (1993), New York City (1995), Dallas (1997), and New Jersey (2000).
The World Congress changed its name to The World Congress of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Jews: Keshet Ga'avah by a mail-in ballot in February, 2001.
also from:
http://www.jewwatch.com/index.htm
Philosopher, Orator, Apostle,
Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Warrior, Conqueror of ideas, the Restorer of rational beliefs, the Preacher of a religion without images, the Founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one heavenly Empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards [I repeat, “ALL”] by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, “Is there any man greater than he?” - (Alphonse Lamartine, Historie de la Turquie, Paris, French historian and philosopher).....
.....
-Editors
AMIM, I just published an
AMIM,
I just published an article about "Ibrahim Hooper" on this site. In it, I quote one hadith about the holy prophet attacking a simple tribe for no reason at all (Bani AlMustaliq). Can you please enlighten us and explain how this story elevates the holy prophet? As much as you copy and paste, I am sure you'll have the answer. Now, do not copy and paste this time please. Use you brain for a change, and explain the wisdom behind what Muhammad did to Bani AlMustaliq. Peace brother.
Kammuna, If you read the
Kammuna,
If you read the Bible and Talmud you will find million times more about Moses and Jesus than what you can even imagine about Muhammad in the Hadiths. Although you have distorted the meaning of the Hadith yet those Hadiths were copied from your Bible and Talmud.
Jesus surrendered his will to
Jesus surrendered his will to the Will of his Creator (Allah):
Jesus said: "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father.” (John 5:30)
So, he was a true Muslim! Praise be to God!
Jesus didn’t want to die. He was crying on the cross to his Creator Eloi (Allah in Arabic):
Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)
His Creator Allah saved him from his enemies:
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (Quran 4:157-158)
AMIM, Do not worry about
AMIM,
Do not worry about other religions brother (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other). I am not asking about those. I am not asking to defend any religion. All I am asking is that you enlighten us with your infinite wisdom regarding the holy prophet (PBUH) attacking a simple tribe for no reason at all. He killed adult men, enslaved women and children. He and other Sahabas raped the women that very night. Can you, in all honesty, and in good consciouss, defend such an evil person as Muhammad? I have yet to find a good Muslim who will have a decent justification for Muhammad's actions.
AMIM, one has to be honest to his heart and consciousness. I know rejecting a belief system you grew up with is not easy. But I tell you what: Three Azhar Scholars left Islam after they realised how evil Islam is. Mark Gabriel is one of them (Earlier name was Mustafa). His books are available on line to buy from Amazon.com. If you do not believe what I say, check his name and books.
And, please, copy and paste nonsense does not get you any where. Complaining about other religions does not get you any where. You can't defend Islam by attacking other religions. You have to show us that what we say about Islam is flawed.
I hope you find your own light brother. Peace
abang have you heard of
abang
have you heard of al-fatiha. no not the opening chapter of your book. its the biggest gay organisation in usa. guess what it is meant only for muslims. here is the link to their webpage.
http://www.tegenwicht.org/16_imams/al_fatiha_en.htm
http://www.antenna.nl/~waterman/alfatiha.html
it also states the mission statment of this gay organisation. i personally dont have any problems with muslims being gays or lesbians. however the problem is that most gays are executed under sharia law in islamic countries.
Saudi Arabia in general and Jeddah in particular has the higetst number of gays per capita. according to a survey done by the saudi government 25% of saudis have been molested as kids by one of their own family. More than 45% of students in saudi universities including the university of medina, have had gay encounters. ofcourse the saudis are blaming the so called western influence for this, but the truth is that all these are a direct result of a suppressive society in which people donot have the freedom to do or say anything.
In the west, gays are free to express their opinions or be open about their sexual oreintation without fearing that their head will be chopped off.
By the way, if you know arabic, you should go to the Arab Sunni chat rooms in Pal Talk or in aol, they are packed to full capacity. there are different rooms for shia too. its really fun to go there and see what the people are talking there.
its there in the fun and activity section of Pal Talk. You should join there and see sometime.
IK Kindly correct me if I am
IK
Kindly correct me if I am wrong. Talmud is not a book that is used by Christians. Torah is ofcourse held in reverence, however Talmud is basically jewish traditions.
Brother, it is a huge
Brother, it is a huge collection of writings, multiple volumes, that discuss issues of law and ethics in the Jewish tradition. I've never went deep into it. Somehow, when I see a lot of books on one matter with a lengthy tradition, I get scared. probably because i have many things at hand to fry. Peace brother
Yes Ibrahim, you are right.
Yes Ibrahim, you are right. The Talmud is not a book used by Christians. All of the Torah is in the Old Testament of the Bible. It is the first 5 chapters/books of the OT.
On the other hand the Torah is the most holy of the sacred writings in Judaism. It is the first of three sections in the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the founding religious document of Judaism.
For more info just google Torah
Abang does it mean that some
Abang does it mean that some religion has done it so ISLAM has to do it too.
Are you really taking side of the ills of ISLAM.
mUSLIMS ALWAYS SAY WHAT
mUSLIMS ALWAYS SAY WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DID WHEN iSLAM IS CONFRONTED WITH THE EVILS OF ALLAH AND mUHAMMAND AND THEMSELVES. They blame everyone for what they did. Like a child saying, Johnny's mother let him do it! Take responsibility for your own crap. The Torah was for Jews only except Genesis. Mosaic law was for Hebrews only no one else. God gave the laws to Hebrews only, not the Arabs or Egyptians. Ishmael was not the chosen one. Abram had no reason to sacrifice Ishmael, he was after all an illegimite son. Hagar was a slave and Sarah was free. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram for sex, not love. Now Muslims are rewriting history, saying that Jesus was a Palestinian Muslim. Although he was a Jew, Muslims are lying outright and claiming that Jesus was a Muslim. The Quran said 600 years after Jesus died that Muhammad was the first Muslim Sura 39:12. Now Muslims call allah a liar. Well he is sura 3:54