Jihadist Strategies In The War On Terrorism


The following is a transcript of a talk given by Mary R. Habeck, Ph.D., an associate professor of history at Yale University, reprinted here with permission from the Heritage Foundation. The talk was originally published in Heritage Foundation's Policy Research and Analysis.

I AM GOING TO BE TALKING about a group of people who are generally known as fundamentalists, extremists, or (as I have grown to call them) "jihadis." The term jihad suggests what they believe their lives are about — holy war that is directed against people they believe are their enemies and the enemies of theirway of life.

Yet there is more to what they are doing than simple warfare. In fact, I believe they are involved in a war that has a definite strategy behind it, not simply the sort of random attacks that people talk about all the time. However, if you watch the news it is really hard to see that. You look at the news and you see Muslims being killed, you see churches being attacked, you see Jews being killed. You see all sorts of people being targeted and attacked, and in some cases those attacks seem to be counterproductive. After all, it does not make sense to kill the Muslims that you are trying to win over to your side of the argument. It does not make sense to target churches or other places of worship when all this does is win sympathy for the victims of these attacks.

There are also things like the Madrid attack, which, while it seemed to attain their ends, was accompanied by a second plan for a second attack on April 2 — an attack that, if it had been carried out, would have had nothing to do with the elections, or with Spanish participation in Iraq. In fact, it could not have been sold as anything except an apparently random attack — a counterproductive attack on the Spanish. It might have convinced the Spanish themselves to get re-involved in Iraq, or at least (in some way) with the war on terrorism.

However, I am going to argue that, in fact, this is not true. These are not random attacks; they are not entirely counterproductive. They do have strategies that are rational, systematic, and followed rigorously. Unlike other groups — such as the Anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th century (which really did seem to carry out pretty random attacks), or the Communists (whose pragmatism allowed them to pretty much get away with anything as long as they could make some sort of argument that it was helping the cause) — these new terrorists believe that they have an ideology that is so important that it must be followed rigorously. There are many different groups and each one of them is carrying out its own rational systematic strategy.

To understand each attack, therefore, you have to get into the mindset of the group that carried out that attack and not try to make broad generalizations about jihadis, extremists, or fundamentalists. These are very different people and very different groups with very different arguments about how they should be carrying out their warfare. To understand their arguments and attacks you have to understand their ideology, and in some cases understand theological arguments that they are having with the rest of the Islamic world.

Levels of Strategy

I am going to differentiate in this talk between four different levels of strategy or tactics. First, there are grand strategies; then there are military strategies; operations (or operational art, as some people call it); and then there are tactics. I am only going to be talking about the first two levels here, that is, grand strategies and military strategies. —

Grand strategy is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. This is, I think, the only place where you can say that there is something unifying these groups and holding them together. The objective is, almost across the board, the same. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Islamic state. They all argue about what that means and how it is going to be created, but somewhere they want to create an Islamic state. They also want to defeat all of their rivals through military means — that is, through violence of some sort. Additionally, they hope to win over the rest of the Islamic world to their vision of what Islam is about and how to restore Islam to greatness.

Those three things are the same across the board. If you take a look at these extremist groups, they all agree, at least on those basic principles. The result of this grand strategic vision is that they must take on an immense number of enemies. They must take on, in fact, what they call "The West" (or as some of them say, "the Jewish crusaders"); "the agent rulers" (that is, the rulers in almost every single one of the Muslim states); "the apostates and the heretics," (which means any Muslim that doesn't agree with them as well as the Shi'a groups — because most of the groups I'll be talking about are Sunni). They also have to take on what they call "oppressors," but this is a term that they use in a very specific way and has little to do with the socialist or leftist use of this term. For instance, "oppressors" include all the Hindus in the world.

The military strategies, unlike this grand strategic vision, seem more random. However, the extremists do not attack all of these groups simultaneously. They have, in fact, prioritized which one of these groups has to be attacked first, second, and third; which is the most important; which is the most dangerous; how they are going to carry out these attacks. In other words, they have definite strategies, but differing definite strategies, even about how to carry out these military attacks. Behind the seeming randomness then, even of the military strategies, there are a few basic principles which will help you to understand, when you see on the news that this or that group has carried out an attack on X, Y, or Z, why they might have chosen them and why they might be choosing another group next.

Turning to the Past

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the "Method of Mohammad." This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur'an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah, which are not well known in the West, but are very widely known in the Islamic world. The Sirah are essentially sacralized biographies of Mohammad's life. They tell the story of Mohammad in chronological fashion and provide the kind of historical background and continuous narrative that is missing from both the Qur'an and the Hadith.

In the Sirah, Mohammad is portrayed as the perfect man. Because he is the perfect man, he will have the perfect method for applying Islam. In fact, some believe that his early successes were miraculous — so miraculous that they could only have been supported and helped by God. Therefore, the logic goes, if followers want to experience the same successes, they have to follow his footsteps exactly, precisely following the "Method of Mohammad." In other words, the strategies that I am going to look at today were taken from an attempt to recreate, precisely, Mohammad's life and what he did in order to make Islam successful 1,400 years ago.

The First Stage. What is this method? It begins where Mohammad began, which was in the city of Mecca, a place that was hostile to his message and that persecuted the early Muslims. This was the place where he began what was called the Da'wah — the call to Islam, the call to repent, to turn to God, and to follow the commandments of God. There was no violence allowed at this stage. Mohammad created a very small group, a jama'a which met in secret for fear of persecution, but was slowly inculcated into Islam as a way of life. It became, in fact, a small vanguard with an "Amir"a leader. In this case, that meant Mohammad. —

As you can see, this easily translates into the modern world — the creation of a small vanguard that will lead the rest of the world to the light of Islam (or at least some people's vision of Islam). This vanguard will not, at first, practice violence, but will instead be inculcated into the true Islam, and what the true Islam entails for their lives. It consists of "true believers," a small vanguard that always has a leader. There is a Hadith from the traditions of Mohammad that says, "Wherever there are three Muslims, there must be an Amir." There must be a leader and they take this literally. Wherever there are three of these extremists together, they truly believe that one of them must be the Amir. Notice also, that in their vision, this is done in secrecy. Therefore, you are allowed to do this in secrecy, away from the prying eyes of the unbelieving world. That is the first stage.

The Second Stage. The second stage in Mohammad's life and in their method is the Hijrah, the migration away from Mecca (an unbelieving place) to Medina (a place that was more accepting and open to the message of Islam). Once there is a dedicated vanguard, in other words, you have to migrate away from the unbelieving society to someplace where there is already an Islamic society or you must create one yourself, because that is what Mohammad was forced to do (i.e., use a small vanguard to create the perfect Islamic society). Therefore the argument is, "We must do exactly the same thing. The vanguard of true believers must migrate away from the unbelieving society to someplace that is either more open to our ideas, where there is already an Islamic society, or we must create one of our own to become stronger."

The Hijrah is taken so seriously that there are several groups that have named themselves after those people who immigrated — the Muhajiroon. They call themselves this in several different countries. Osama bin Laden talked about this stage and believed that when he was leaving Saudi Arabia to go first to Sudan, and then to Afghanistan, he was taking part in this stage of the "Method of Mohammad." He believed he was migrating away from the unbelieving Saudi Arabia to the perfect Islamic state in Afghanistan. Other groups have been no less certain about this. Some have migrated within an Islamic country (for instance, within Egypt or within Algeria) to set up their own mini-Islamic state in those countries.

The Third Stage. The third stage is Medina, a stage that includes the creation of an Islamic state and the permission to use violence. Almost immediately after Mohammad arrived in Medina, he set up, with the help of his small vanguard of dedicated believers, an Islamic state that would implement the new creed of Islam fully. Today there are various places that might act as that Islamic state. And several extremist groups believe that you must create an Islamic state before you can proceed to the next part of the Medinan state, which is jihad .

In this part of the third stage, the belief goes, Muslims are allowed to take part in violence for the sake of Islam. This is what happened in Mohammad's life. It was at Medina that he was first allowed to use violence against the unbelievers, those who had been oppressing him, those who had been persecuting him, and then gradually those people against whom he was allowed to carry out this warfare included most of the unbelievers in the Arab peninsula.

Many of the groups that we hear about on the news believe that they have created this Islamic state and that they are now allowed to carry out this jihad against people in the West and elsewhere. It is here that you find the biggest split among these groups and the strategies that they are willing to follow because once you have decided to carry out violence, the question becomes who exactly you should be carrying this violence out against.

Who Are the Targets?

There are basically three different strategies that have been adopted by these groups. If you look at all the groups out there and who they have decided to attack, the targets fit into one of these three groups.

The first group has decided that we need to attack the "near enemy" first, followed by the "far enemy." The second group has decided to attack the "greater unbelief" first, followed by the "lesser unbelief." The third group has decided to attack the "apostates" first, followed by the "unbelievers." All of these come from the "Method of Mohammad." All of them can be read into the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sirah.

The "Near Enemy." Who is the "near enemy" and who is the "far enemy"? This is where you have people disagreeing. When Mohammad was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence — those people who lived directly around him. Later, he was allowed to carry out violence elsewhere in order to spread the message of Islam.

Who is today's "near enemy" according to these groups that use this particular strategy? It is anyone in the Islamic lands — those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory, and even the rulers of some of these countries who call themselves Muslims. It encompasses those enemies that are directly inside these countries. They must be taken on first and defeated, and then afterwards, we can spread the message of Islam — without violence if possible, but with violence if necessary — to the rest of the world.

The "Greater Unbelief." The second strategy attacks the "greater unbelief" first, followed by the "lesser unbelief." The "greater unbelief" becomes that major enemy that has worn many guises over the centuries and which was embodied first by the Romans, then by the Greeks, and finally by the United States. The U.S. is considered that "greater unbelief" that must be taken on and defeated, whether its citizens are in Islamic countries or elsewhere. Once they are defeated, it is believed, all the rest of the "unbelievers" will fall into line. Terrorists then believe they can take on the "lesser unbelief" — all the other enemies of their vision of Islam — after the U.S. is gone.

"Apostates." The third strategy attacks the "apostates" first, followed by other "unbelievers." The "apostates," as I mentioned, include the heretics within the Muslim world (e.g., the Shi'a). There are groups that are dedicated to the idea of a systematic, rational strategy to first defeat all the apostates, whether they are the rulers like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf or whether they are groups of people who follow a vision of Islam that terrorists do not agree with (such as the Shi'a, the Ahmadi or others). The idea is to defeat them first and then go outside of these Islamic countries and take on the rest of the "unbelievers."

If you look at what is going on in the world today, every single one of these terrorist groups subscribes to one of these strategies and uses it in order to pinpoint who and when they will attack.

After the Jihad

After his triumphal stay in Medina, Mohammad was able to leave and return to Mecca and take the city without a fight. It became a part of the Islamic state without a fight or a battle — the doors were open and he was welcomed in.

These people also believe the same thing. They believe that once they begin this jihad and once they set up this Islamic state and carry this fight to the "unbelievers," that all of the places that have been the centers of unbelief in the Islamic world (especially Saudi Arabia) will open up and become part of their Islamic state. The belief insists that one by one, they will all join with the extremists as they show success in other countries.

These strategies define what is happening in the world today. If you look at the attacks that are going on, this is how you can tell precisely which group you are dealing with and which strategy they are following. Listen to what they are saying. I have been amazed by the things they are willing to say, the things they are willing to put on a Web site (in what are called khutab — the preaching on Friday afternoon). Throughout the Islamic world you have people who are willing to say exactly what they believe, even if they are in the most extremist vein. You do not have to translate, decode, or decrypt these things — they are perfectly willing to share their strategies with the rest of the world.

Recent Attacks Explained

I encourage you to take a look at these English jihadi sites and see for yourself. It now makes sense why Madrid was attacked on March 11. After all, the terrorists had been talking about that attack long before anything had happened in Iraq (and long before Spain had decided to go to Iraq). The jihadis were talking about carrying out some sort of huge attack on Spain.

Why? Because Spain has been occupying "Islamic land" for the past 600-700 years. These terrorists believe that they are actually beginning with the "near enemy" by taking on Spain and occupying Andalusia. They believed that by carrying out these attacks they would win over the Muslims within Spain and North Africa, who would then join up with them to return Andalusia to the Islamic fold. From this standpoint, it also makes sense that they do not care about other Muslims being killed To people with this mindset everyone who does not agree with them is an apostate or a heretic. Otherwise, they would have joined up with them. Therefore, it does not matter if other Muslims are killed because in the long run they believe the grand strategic vision and military strategies will eventually bring success.

Using this logic, it makes sense to attack the United States, because if you can destroy the United States (the "greater unbelief"), then terrorists who follow this particular strategy believe they will not only have eliminated their greatest enemy, but will then be able to return in triumph to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere and win over the rest of the Islamic world without a fight.


WATCHER71 8:49 AM  

Very good post CW, I've caught a few of yours over at Infidel......I totally agree with the author...also very informative...it gives the framework.... The fact that the 'Islamic' question cannot be ignored...even before I had read this article, the inevitability of the coming war happening on my city streets...as executed by domestic (and foreign) born Jihadis, always felt inevitable, if you play this situation out to it's logical conclusion. It is clear we have to act...but how to act? How will the Jewish/Christian world respond to Muslims neighbours pouring petrol through our post boxes and lighting it....or beheading our children in the street.....or coming to our doors and trying to kill us...all over the world. I fear that the result will be an overwhelming onslaught on global Islam....to put it delicately.

Anonymous 1:22 PM  

Yes, it is clear we have to act...but how to act? That is the crucial question. That is the question we're trying to focus on at Citizen Warrior. In the article, Halt Terrorism, we've tried to present a list of practical, effective actions citizens can take to help stop the spread and success of Islamic terrorism.

In the very last section of Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad, he has a section called What Is To Be Done, and I thought it was pretty good. It's basically a list of what kind of policies western governments should take. But since our voting and the citizen's urgings have some influence on what policies the politicians will create, Robert Spencer's list is indirectly a good list of what actions we citizens can take.

Waking up to the issue is important, but it's only the first step. Then next step is doing something effective to change the course of events.

Anonymous 12:49 AM  

We have to create a united "Greater Unbelief", one that can never be overcome.

This means that The West, Russia, China and India need to unite as allies.

This would not only create an economic Mt. Everest looking down on Islam but also about 40% of the world's population would be contained in it.

With such a united "Greater Unbelief" Islamists might finally face their ultimate setback.

Note also that the role of Al Jazeera is to cunningly seek to unite aggrieved groups in The West and elsewhere to act against the governments of these countries.

Al Jazeera is the Kaa of Islam, a growing media snake mesmerising its prey before it swallows it up into its Islamic Belly.

Or if you like, using other Western folklore, it is a Siren.

Anonymous 5:27 AM  

Citizen Warrior, your Islamic Bob analysis framework plus this new post on Habeck's analysis framework are a powerful combination.

Daniel Pipes has the stance however that there is a 'moderate' Islam.

This would be in contrast to the above two frameworks.

Every now and again there seems to be evidence of this 'moderate' Islam as this article below suggests.


Benazhir Bhutto's posthumous book, Reconciliation, seems to suggest this as well.

My personal take on this is that the humanity within at least some Muslims is resisting the supremacist (and cruel) nature of Islam.

DNA wired compassion is acting as some sort of antidote against the Mind Poison that is Islam.

The Pakistani governor who was assassinated because he wished to abolish the Blasphemy Law is a perfect example.

This would explain the secularists and liberals of Iran and the soon to be devoured Egyptian ones as well.

Given what they are facing these are true heroes.

Anonymous 1:19 AM  

Securing economic bridgeheads in the Lesser Unbelief.

Qatar buying up prime pastoral land in Australia.


Anonymous 1:24 AM  

Enhancing fault lines between zones of Greater Unbelief.

Pakistan allows Chinese technologists to inspect the remains fo the US chopper that went down in the Bin Laden raid.


Hence the importance of the areas of Greater Unbelief uniting against Islamists.

The West/Russia/China and India cannot affod to be at each other's throats anymore.

Anonymous 1:33 AM  

Anyone wondered about Google's suicidal withdrawal from China?

Well, they probably were not expecting the Chinese to resist so to save face their only option was to withdraw.

But who put Google up to it?

Why the Google stand against China?

And not the same principled stand wherever there is oppression?

For example, Egypt's oppression of the Copts.

The Chinese are not tolerating the Islamists amongst the Uighurs.

Stupidly, the Greater Unbelief USA plays this card against what should be a Greater Unbelief ally in China.

Demanding China observes human rights in its dealings with the Uighurs, the USA paved the way for Google to threaten to withdraw.

Wael Ghonim is the Darling of Google - enough said.

Islamists are skillfully setting up the Greater Unbeliefs against each other.

Somehow RT.com (Russia TV) attracts every PC and Leftist from the West who wants to have a rant and rave at the West.

Who pays for all these documentaries that appear on RT.com?

Scratch deep enough and there will be Islamic petro dollars behind it.

Jerry Frey 10:17 PM  



Anonymous 6:19 AM  

Here they come again, with the latest terror attack on Israeli civilians.


Targeting a civilian bus is a war crime but that will not dissuade Islamists - the PCs and the Western Left will not say boo - or if they do, like Robert Fisk did when he was almost lynched by an Afghani mob, they will blame it on the West and or Israel.

Closer at hand, Wael Ghonim will have nothing to say - despite his self alleged Gandhian inspirations!

Anonymous 9:30 AM  

From Newt Gingrich:


"I am going to make a speech in August in which I'll argue that 10 years after 9/11, the U.S. is in greater danger, that we are relatively weaker and the forces of radical Islam are relatively stronger, and that anyone who is not deeply worried doesn't understand the facts that are evolving."

"We are not focusing on the main enemies."

"Iran is the largest threat in the short term."

"Pakistan is the largest threat in the long term."

"People are talking about Iran's nuclear weapons, when there are probably 100 nuclear weapons in Pakistan."

Anonymous 2:14 AM  

Jerry Frey's post points to the impunity with which Islam collectively acts.

Using Habeck's analysis framework Islam is seeking to sow as much discord as it can amongst the Greater Unbeliefs (The West/Russia/China and India).

For example, using Western PCs to press for human rights in China led to the Google debacle wherein the latter threw down the gauntlet demanding a free Internet.

The Chinese however would not yield - and that cultural determination may yet prove to be what eventually will stop Islam from subjugating the entire Planet.

RTV.com is an anti West Russian propaganda machine that airs countless documentaries produced by Western PCs and the Left.

No doubt petro dollars mostly pay for these productions.

Russia is still smarting from its humilations in Afghanistan - quite rightly so thanks to the stupidity of the West in arming the 'holy warriors'.

Pakistan set the The West up for years of Indian resentment - and now is trying to play China against The West.

Al Jazeera then plays the role of sowing discord amongst the Lesser Unbeliefs.

It has PCs and Leftist correspondents all over the world working the marginalised sectors of those communities.

If you have a writing or speaking skill, PC or Leftist ideas, and you are trendy (see Al Jazeera "Stream") you have a well paid career in Al Jazeera.

Tall slim women with high cheek bones highly desired - see Montserrat Nicolas as example.

Al Jazeera knows what it is doing ...

Classically, African Americans in jails are targetted for conversion on the implied basis that Islam will enable them to 'get back at whites'.

In Latin America, it supports Leftists and all those who have been infected by the "imperialist" memeplex leading to hatred for "gringos" and "yankees".

It however steers clear of the marginalised in Islamic nations - lip service reporting if any at all on the oppression of non-muslim minorities in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, etc.

Habeck's analysis helps to get a macro view - for tactical blow by blow perspectives Citizen Warrior's Islamic Bob analysis is brilliant!

Anonymous 2:40 AM  

The article below indicates why we need to unite the Greater Unbeliefs in a global stand against Islam.


With the demographic Islamic time bomb ticking over in Europe the grim reality of Eurabia is no longer fantasy.

Inducing Infidel high-birth rate immigration into Europe is essential to offset this.

But the Greater Unbeliefs must join hands around this.

Also, as the Greater Unbeliefs include three of the five BRICS nations, the prospects would be good for keeping Brazil in the game to counter the subjugation of Latin America to Islam and South Africa (that incredible fountainhead of secular democracy) to do the same in Africa.

The next Islamic move that we can expect is Turkey demanding to be part of BRICS.

Hopefully Russia, China and India will not allow that mistake.

Anonymous 7:06 AM  

Pakistan honours Punjab Governor Salman Taseer(rightly so for the hero that he is) but ignores the slain Catholic minister, Shahbaz Bhatti.


Pakistani secularists have lost - and India should offer to evacuate all willing non-muslim Pakistanis en route to a final settlement in India or elsewhere in the West or other BRICS nations.

There are about four million Christians alone in Pakistan and there is no future for them under Islam.

The same applies to the Christians in Iraq. They desperately need a way out, all of the remaining half a million of them.

Once the West is out of there Iraq will crumble to Islamists and the final genocide of Iraqi Christians will take place.

Anonymous 7:57 AM  

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that seeks a society within which all are free to choose how they wish to live their individual lives.

No one is permitted to initiate the use of force against others in order to impose their values.

Ayn Rand would be an example of a libertarian although she would turn in her grave at being labelled such!

Her branch, Objectivism, sees the role of government purely as the means of protecting the freedom of the indvidual to live as he/she chooses.

She also proposed a cosmological view of existence that is 'absolute' and not quantum physics or Superstring 'friendly'.

No one is perfect, not Ayn Rand nor Chomsky who despite his genius supercedes even Fisk's capacity for being a Useful Idiot.

The USA is far from a libertarian society - and it does not pretend to be one.

But most 'libertarians' are seemingy confused ... and not real libertarians.

Ludicrously, there are even Islamic libertarians - or so they they think or say.

With all the punishments that are to be visited on humans for disobeying the angry god of Islam it is a total contradiction.

For example, in a libertarian world, an 'adulteress' can choose at the very last moment before being stoned to proclaim that she does no longer wish to be subjected to Sharia Law.

She has decided that she feels no guilt at having had consensual sex with some one other than a husband and wishes to be pulled out of the pit and let go to live her life as she chooses to.

Really, can any one honestly see the blood crazed religio-zombies itching to throw stones at this wretched woman let her go!?

'Libertarian' muslims are:

a) confused or
b) just pretending to be libertarians or
c) apostates pretending to be muslims!

However the confused state of so called Western 'libertarians' provides fertile ground for taqiyya - and advancing Islam.

Option b) pretending to be libertarians is thus likely as it in line with the Islamic tradition of taqiyya.

Anonymous 12:25 AM  

Al Jazeera's Marwan Bishara, described by Robert Fisk as a "brilliant" political analyst has this to say about the latest Tripoli advances:

"First and foremost Western leaders need to wipe that smug look from their faces and make sure not to gloat about doing the Arabs any favours."


Despite the irony of Qatar, the "Mother" of Al Jazeera, his employer, egging Nato on to bomb Libya and sending six of its own fighter jets to help as well, Bishara remains as anti-West as always.

Without Nato the Libyan rebels would have been crushed, obliterated "rats" as Gaddafi called them.

Furthermore Bishara warns:

"Western leaders must also steer away from driving a wedge between those whom they consider moderates and others deemed "Islamists", as Libya will need cooperation among all its citizens."

His "Islamists" in quotations are his own.

What else can they be but Islamists if they are militant jihadists?

Why the quotation marks?

After all Benghazi has spawned one of the highest per capita contributions of militant jihadists.

To think that Islamists (without quotation marks) are not in the ranks of the Libyan rebels would be naive and not in keeping with being a "brilliant" political analyst.

In time Bishara and his Western hating colleagues will promote the rapid disintegration of the 'honeymoon' period between the Libyan rebels and the West.

Like Kosovo's short lived "love" for their Nato liberators, they too will turn.

Anonymous 1:48 AM  

The further irony is that the anti-West (and very anti-American) Marwan Bishar spent time at the American University of Paris!

Something symbolic in that irony about the inevitable anti-West sentiment that will surface regardless of what the West will do to help muslims - be it aid to tsunami victims, or to starving Somalian masses (reciprocated by dragging dead American soldiers around in Mogadishu) ... and inevitably when the honeymoon of the Libyan Nato mission is over.

Anonymous 6:30 AM  

"NATO jets could be heard screaming almost constantly overhead on Tuesday, much more than on previous days, an AFP correspondent reported."

"Every time the distinctive boom of their bombs is heard, people throughout the city cry "Allahu Akbar," each bomb felt as another step taken towards liberty."


There is something immensely and ironically sad in those sentiments, in that unity that they represent.

The great Nelson Mandela had this to say in his vision of the miracle that is South Africa, second to none in mankind's history in its achievement of conflict resolution:

"I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination."

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony with equal opportunities."

"It is an ideal which I hope to live for, and to see realised. But my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

Substitute "white" and "black" for "muslim" and "non-muslim" and Libyans, as Africans, have a magnificent example to follow, in emulating South Africa and radiating that same vision of harmony into the world.

Islamists however, supremacists like the white South Africans of Apartheid South Africa, will never allow the nobility of such a vision to flourish if they can help it.

Article Spotlight

One of the most unusual articles on CitizenWarrior.com is Pleasantville and Islamic Supremacism.

It illustrates the Islamic Supremacist vision by showing the similarity between what happened in the movie, Pleasantville, and what devout fundamentalist Muslims are trying to create in Islamic states like Syria, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (and ultimately everywhere in the world).

Click here to read the article.


All writing on CitizenWarrior.com is copyright © CitizenWarrior.com 2001-2099, all rights reserved.

  © Free Blogger Templates Columnus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP