 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2004.04.20, Amnon Barzilai, hâ-
"Suicide strikes, [Dr. Hanan Shai (Schwartz), an Israel Defense Forces reserve colonel and an expert on political and military strategy] argues, represent a post-modern form of terror. They differ from modern warfare in several respects. Perhaps the most conspicuous difference relates to the objective. In modern warfare, antagonists on both sides of the conflict have an identical purpose – to attain prosperity and happiness in this world. In post-modern conflict, the aggressor side lacks an interest in victory. In many cases, the objective is the struggle itself – the goal is to sow destruction, despair and fear, while enduring enormous pain and sacrifice, which guarantee bliss in the next world. [It is religious! ybd] Such wars cannot conclude with anything other than the destruction of the enemy, says Shai. The suicide terrorist phenomenon, he adds, leads to the erosion of the values of civil society. It breeds escapism, and the cheapening of human life.
"Shai says these conclusions have yet to be learned by Western society.
"Shai: "Western society didn't grasp soon enough that it is facing an enemy that goes into battle in the expectation that it will not come out alive. This is a new situation."
"Can you discern any logic in suicide strike terror?
"Shai: "Those who are behind the suicide strikes have an objective, a strategy and a system. The aim of the terror, as its perpetrators announce, is to destroy open society and the advances of modern life. Their strategy relies on exploiting the advantages of open society in order to reap chaos – in order to protect itself against such terror, modern society will gradually have to become totalitarian. The [terrorists'] system is the placement of suicide strikers within open society, and attacking that society from within – bin Laden's idea is one of evil genius. Via a relatively small amount of terror attacks and of the loss of life and property, bin Laden has significantly damaged individual rights, compared to the situation before September 11, 2001…
"Shai lists four reasons explaining why there has not yet been a global effort to defeat suicide terrorists:
- "First, there has been a failure to understand that the suicide terrorists have effectively disarmed armies.
- Second, there is a problem fighting an enemy which believes that any means can be used to attain its goals.
- Third, there has been financial and moral support for the Palestinians, even though they utilize suicide terror. By giving such support, modern society legitimizes the use of suicide terror against itself, not just by Islam but also by cultures that bear grudges against it owing to past conquests and to the subjugation of Third World states, economies and societies to large Western corporations.
- "The fourth reason is European hesitation. Europe created modernity, but it also fostered movements that virtually destroyed modern society and the world at large. History proves that Europe lacks the ability to identify horrible threats posed to it from outside and from within." The U.S., Shai adds, has aroused Europe from a false set of assumptions, and a series of errors. However, he concludes, "there is reason to criticize the U.S. for not being forthright enough in terms of grabbing the reins in the global struggle against terror."
However, Dr. Shai overlooks yet another conspicuous ignorance in modern societies. Let M and C, respectively, be any two countries. What would be C’s response if country M sent a Cruise missiles, with pinpoint accuracy carrying 50 lbs. of explosives mixed with nails, into busy restaurants, buses and malls in country C? If country M lobbed artilery shells, with pinpoint accuracy carrying 50 lbs. of explosives mixed with nails, into busy restaurants, buses and malls in country C? But it’s acceptable if persons deliver the same payloads as concealed weapons? Who dares suggest that’s not idiotic?
And if any country C has the right to retaliate in such case then denying Israel the same right granted to any other country miso-Judaic!
To allow the rest of the modern world to hunt down terrorists the likes of Usama bin Laden, 'Palestinian' Fadel Nazzal al-Khalayleh (aka Abu Musab a-Zarqawi) and Ayman a-Zawaheri while denying the same right to Israel that they exercise themselves has resulted in repeated massacres of Jews at the hands of Arab Muslim terrorists. Countries that deny Israel the rights accorded all other countries constructively ally themselves with the terrorists who perpetrate these massacres. Such countries support and give aid and comfort to the terrorists who perpetrate these massacres. Countries who support terrorists are terrorist states! The repeated massacres of Jews are war crimes. Countries who align themselves with and support terrorists who commit massacres against Jews are complicit in those massacres of Jews. Not only are such countries guilty of miso-Judaic, they are guilty of war crimes against the Jewish people perpetrated by their terrorists allies whom they support.
 |
|
 |