I found this article here over at Family Security Matters fascinating as it details out the breakdown of definitions between us in the West and the islamists in the Middle East, it's worth a thorough read. The reason I found it so unique is that the author really sheds some light on the fact that it seems every other week in the Middle East, especially in Gaza, that there is a "ceasefire" arranged for and within 24 to 36 hours, they are back to launching rockets or sending in a suicide bomber. Look at this excerpt:
This article is excellent in pointing out the vast differences between these temporary rearming methods of "ceasefire" versua a long term truce. It also shows something I have never been able to figure out. When Hamas WANTS a ceasefire...meaning they need to regroup or rearm or change some strategy, why does Israel always jump at that chance to let things quiet down? Seriously, if Hamas signals a ceasefire, to me it means they are spent...that they aren't in top fighting condition. Why not, at that time, double attacks on Hamas - never let them rest or rearm or regroup?
I've said it many times before...an islamist is proficient at two things: they are adept at using violence as their first option of gaining something and secondly, they are masters of deceit. So, the next time you read about a "ceasefire" called for by Hamas or Hezbollah just picture in your minds a bunch of the pieholes heading back to a camp, breaking out new ammo, looking over more maps and laying out their attacks for two days later. That is how they do it and the sooner we understand that, the sooner we can use that tactic against them.
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.And look at how Hamas chief Mashaal describes this:
"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."
This article is excellent in pointing out the vast differences between these temporary rearming methods of "ceasefire" versua a long term truce. It also shows something I have never been able to figure out. When Hamas WANTS a ceasefire...meaning they need to regroup or rearm or change some strategy, why does Israel always jump at that chance to let things quiet down? Seriously, if Hamas signals a ceasefire, to me it means they are spent...that they aren't in top fighting condition. Why not, at that time, double attacks on Hamas - never let them rest or rearm or regroup?
I've said it many times before...an islamist is proficient at two things: they are adept at using violence as their first option of gaining something and secondly, they are masters of deceit. So, the next time you read about a "ceasefire" called for by Hamas or Hezbollah just picture in your minds a bunch of the pieholes heading back to a camp, breaking out new ammo, looking over more maps and laying out their attacks for two days later. That is how they do it and the sooner we understand that, the sooner we can use that tactic against them.
Ceasefires in Islam: Not Always What They Seem to Be
Frank Salvato
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.
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.
“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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment