Home  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy policy  |  Site map

« The Islamization of Europe (and America) and Policies to Prevent It | Main | Another Reason Not To Listen To James Baker And The ISG: Iran, Syria Orchestrated This Weeks Raid On Israel »


June 10, 2007

Muslim Armies Are Not Relevant - But Terrorism Is!

Zafar Bangash points out in his piece at Kashmir Watch that this month marks a painful anniversary in modern Muslim history: the defeat of the Arab states by Israel in 1967, and the loss of al-Quds and the Masjid al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest site. Incredible as it may seem, that's the good news.

Bangash goes on to remind Muslims that in the subsequent four decades, not one Muslim army has successfully defended its country's borders or the honor of its people. Instead, all they have achieved, with ruthless efficiency, is to attack the parapets of power in their own countries, banish civilian rulers, and seize control for themselves.

So, are Muslim armies relevant? The record isn't very impressive; some might say as Bangash does that the history of Muslim generals is downright laughable:

Given the Muslims' traditional admiration for courage and valor, the question may appear odd, but it would be wrong to confuse the courage of ordinary Muslims with that of their armies. Muslim generals like to project themselves as successors to Khalid ibn Walid or Salahuddin Ayubi, but their records make the comparison laughable.

If they had been corporations, Muslim armies would have been disbanded long ago, because they have totally failed at the task for which they were supposedly established: safeguarding their country's borders from external aggression. Their failures are so obvious that it is incredible that few question their right to exist. In virtually every Muslim country, the army has been the most regressive of state institutions, acting as an agent for Western influence while consuming massive state resources. The argument that large armies are necessary because of the threats Muslims face is easily countered: when have these armies ever provided an answer to these threats? Has any army in the Muslim world ever defeated an enemy?

The answer of course as pertains to the modern world, is no.

Now begins the bad news for the non-Muslim world and takes us to our take-home message. As Zafar Bangash points out in his piece to his Muslim brothers, Muslim armies basically suck and are successful at attacking powers in their own countries, banish civilian rulers, and seize control for themselves. However, what has been successful is terrorism:

What these examples, and those of places such as Chechnya and Palestine, indicate is that resistance movements based on popular mobilization and support are far more effective in defending Muslims than large standing armies. In fact, the militaries of Muslim states, like the regimes themselves, have become instruments of the enemies of Islam, acting to contain and frustrate the aspirations of Muslim peoples, whether in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt or Algeria.

Some Islamic movements continue to insist that these powerful institutions should be taken as allies in the struggle for liberation and Islam. This can only lead to the defeat of the Islamic movement, as seen in Sudan.

Bangash concludes his piece by saying that now is the time for Muslims to recognize the enemies within (the powers of the Muslim states), get rid of them, and take control of their own destinies. He's of course talking about jihad against us infidels, which, in the mind of an Islamist, includes Muslims that don't follow the radical road that he and people like him follow.

The point that Bangash's piece calling to war against the infidels by terrorists is making is that terrorism works, that it's the terrorists that have made "progress" against the infidels, not Muslim standing armies which have been so soundly defeated on the battlefield - exemplified by the Six-day war.

Sidebar: Bangash's piece has to be totally off base, and it just can't actually be true that "resistance" radical Islamic terrorist movements built on popular mobilization and support a radical ideology spread by indoctrination , hate, and intollerance are far more effective for radical Muslims against we infidels than have been Muslim armies:

... Lebanon stands out as the most obvious example; others include Iran, Afghanistan and Chechnya. While hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers have failed to defeat Israel, a few thousand lightly armed Hezbollah fighters have defeated the Zionists and driven them out of Lebanon - not once, but twice. In Iran, it was not the regular army but the Revolutionary Guards and the Baseej (a volunteer force) that withstood the Iraqi Ba'athists - backed by the entire world - for eight years, driving them back into Iraq. (Only direct US intervention prevented the fall of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq in the 1980s.)

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, it was the Afghan masses that fought back; the Afghan army remained loyal to the state that had been taken over by communists. The same pattern is evident today, as popular resistance forces fight the Western invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

What these examples, and those of places such as Chechnya and Palestine, indicate is that resistance movements based on popular mobilization and support are far more effective in defending Muslims than large standing armies. In fact, the militaries of Muslim states, like the regimes themselves, have become instruments of the enemies of Islam, acting to contain and frustrate the aspirations of Muslim peoples, whether in Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt or Algeria..

Hmmmmm...

Terrorism exists? It has already shown it's effectiveness in raining down terror and violence in Lebanon (read Hezbollah), Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iran, and the Palestinian territories? But this can't be true!

After all, hasn't John Edwards told us there is "no 'war on terrorism," it's just a line for a bumper sticker?



Posted by Abdul at June 10, 2007 9:32 AM





Helpful Sites