Islamists are engaged in total war against free world people. In the 21st century, total war is commonly conducted by non-state actors that aim to destroy legitimate states by any means necessary. The chief enemy of the modern West is a coalition of non-state actors whose militant front is Islamic jihad. Its combatants aim to overthrow liberal democracies by subverting the central organs of the state and replacing the governing principles of free society with sharia. However, Western leaders are conducting the war against 21st century jihad with a 20th century mindset. They focus on foreign wars and militant acts while the enemy subverts our nations from within.
The best Western leaders protect our borders, the worst appease or collaborate with the enemy, but few openly state the alpha and omega of the jihadis’ total war: a global empire under Islam that requires the death of the West.
Following the Manchester bombing, the British government finally told the truth about what decades of multiculturalism have produced in Britain: 23,000 terrorists. The Times reported that the initial figure of 3000 jihadists was a function of MI5 operational limits, not reality. The intelligence agency can keep eyes on about 3000 individuals at any one time, so it creates a priority classification list with categories such as active and residual risk. But the three major jihadist attacks on Britain in recent years were conducted by men who had been investigated and subsequently removed from the active terror watch list. These residual jihadis number about 20,000.
The revelation that there is a potential jihadist army inside Britain about 7000 personnel short of Britain’s army reserve raises the question of war. But Britons must surely question also why the state withheld such critical information during the Brexit debate when issues of national security, border and immigration policy determined the outcome. The concealment of such information begs the question of how many other intelligence services are concealing the true state of the jihadist threat within the West.
ASIO director-general Duncan Lewis’s recent denial of the relationship between the refugee intake and terrorism does not inspire confidence. In response to Pauline Hanson’s question about it, he responded that there is no evidence of such a link. Perhaps Senator Hanson should revive her “please explain” on these names: Man Haron Monis, Farhad Jabour and Mohammad Ali Baryalei, as well as the dozens of asylum-seekers who have received adverse security assessments from ASIO.
It is not the first time that Lewis has seemed more critical of those who defend the West than our jihadi foes. In 2015 he allegedly told some MPs who spoke out about the link between Islam and terrorism that their comments could threaten national security.
Minimising the link between porous borders, refugee programs and the development of jihad as a Western phenomenon is a common Islamist tactic. In the information age, intelligence services would be better to admit the threat of jihad while repeating the obvious truth that not all Muslims are jihadis.
I warned in 2015 that the West would win the battle against Islamic State but lose the war against Islamism unless Western leaders recognised jihad as a substantive ideology. Jihad is an ideology first and last. Its militant expression is Islamic terrorism whose primary purpose is not to instil terror but to destabilise and exhaust the protective capacity of legitimate governments. In that sense, jihad is akin to militant socialism. The end of revolutionary socialism is the communist state. The end of revolutionary jihad is the Islamic state.
The comprehensive ideology of jihad is set out in Management of Savagery, the Islamic State playbook reportedly written by former al-Qa’ida official Mohammad Hasan Khalil al-Hakim. In it, Hakim clarifies that gradual, subversive jihad is a total war strategy. He states that jihadis are: “Progressing until it is possible to expand and attack the enemies in order to repel them, plunder their money, and place them in a constant state of apprehension and (make them) desire reconciliation.”
The Coalition has done much to counter what I would call hard jihad, namely the advocacy, financing and enactment of Islamic terrorism. But few Western governments have tackled soft jihad: the teaching, preparation and promotion of jihadist ideology including gradual subversion of the state, liberal institutions and the fundamental values of Western society. To counter jihadists’ total war against the West, the government should consider the powers created to protect Australia’s freedom during the total wars of the 20th century.
The piecemeal approach employed by the West in response to jihad is born of a reluctance to face reality. The laws of peacetime can no longer accommodate the jihadist menace within Western states. When the number of potential enemy combatants inside Britain is only 7000 men short of its army reserve, we must face the reality that the enemy is inside the gate. It is time to state the four words the West hoped never to utter again: we are at war.
Oriel's article sounds an alarm worth listening to. What are Brits in general thinking about this,,and who would be more trustworthy in dealing with it ? Conservatives or Labor ?
Posted by Jack G. on 2017-06-29 18:22:49 GMT
Oriel's article points to a scary UK security situation in the face of ongoing terrorist attacks. What is your take on this more-than-minor problem ? Jack G.
by Jack on 2017-06-29 18:18:41 GMT