GANGS OR CELLS? This question makes a distinction without a difference - because in reality, islamothugs ARE no different than Jihadoterrorists; in fact, they are IDENTICAL. They're ALL gangsters.
Arafat - THE ULTIMATE ISLAMOTERRORIST - was thug, a murderer, and an extortionist; in other words, he was a gangster - a grandiose Arab Capone. A gangster who turned Gaza and the West Bank (which were from 1968-1992 one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with per capita GDP rising every year!) into Arafatistan - an evermore impoverished feifdom absolutely rife with corruption.
Arafat used violence to intimidate EVERYONE HE COULD: Israelis of the Left; Euroweenies, and his fellow Arabs. The intifdada he ordered was carried out by his gangs - Fatah and al Aksa, and by MANY other gangs - PFLP, IJ, and HAMAS, etc. These gangs included many teens who loved to throw stones and molotov cocktails, - and who could be coerced into becoming suicide murderers, too. And these gangs were NOT under a single unified formal, top-down centrally directed organization with a single rigid ideology; just the general aegis of islamogangsterism.
The ONLY difference between Arafat's thug-filled gangs and those in Paris are the external trappings. Their goals are the same: carving out an islamofascist fiefdom by using TERROR, by using violence and the threats of against innocent civilians. Arafat wanted to carve his feifdom out of Israel. The thugs in Paris want to carve their feifdom out of Paris.
The Paris intifada is as much an intifada as Arafat's gangs were gangs.
Arafat - THE ULTIMATE ISLAMOTERRORIST - was thug, a murderer, and an extortionist; in other words, he was a gangster - a grandiose Arab Capone. A gangster who turned Gaza and the West Bank (which were from 1968-1992 one of the fastest growing economies in the world, with per capita GDP rising every year!) into Arafatistan - an evermore impoverished feifdom absolutely rife with corruption.
Arafat used violence to intimidate EVERYONE HE COULD: Israelis of the Left; Euroweenies, and his fellow Arabs. The intifdada he ordered was carried out by his gangs - Fatah and al Aksa, and by MANY other gangs - PFLP, IJ, and HAMAS, etc. These gangs included many teens who loved to throw stones and molotov cocktails, - and who could be coerced into becoming suicide murderers, too. And these gangs were NOT under a single unified formal, top-down centrally directed organization with a single rigid ideology; just the general aegis of islamogangsterism.
The ONLY difference between Arafat's thug-filled gangs and those in Paris are the external trappings. Their goals are the same: carving out an islamofascist fiefdom by using TERROR, by using violence and the threats of against innocent civilians. Arafat wanted to carve his feifdom out of Israel. The thugs in Paris want to carve their feifdom out of Paris.
The Paris intifada is as much an intifada as Arafat's gangs were gangs.
In my opinion, it does matter whether they are cells or gangs. If they are functioning as cells, then that would imply that they are being directed by some central authority for purposes larger than simple neighborhood fiefdoms.
ReplyDeleteIf, for instance, cells have been sent into Europe to instigate riots, in order to destablize European governments, then that is a much bigger story, than if local neighborhood Imams are using gang violence, and gang instigated riots, to carve out local fiefdoms for themselves.
Which would you rather see? A few "No-go zones" in France, or a Europe destablized by a massive wave of rioting, all coordinated and instigated before Europe even knew what hit them?
pasto -
ReplyDeleteiadded this for clarity/deal with your point:
The intifdada he ordered was carried out by his gangs - Fatah and al Aksa, and by other gangs - PFLP, IJ, and HAMAS, etc. These gangs include many teens who love to throw stones and molotov cocktails, - and who coud be coerced into becoming suicide murderers, too.
And these gangs were NOT under a single unified formal organization; just the aegis of islamogangsterism.
So, then, I don't know if I'm being stupid, or what, but are you disagreeing with me?
ReplyDelete:)
i diagree that the palistinian intifadas were centrally directed. there were many centers of gravity.
ReplyDeleteditto paris
obviously neither of these intifadas are centrally directed...
ReplyDeletethey possess neither the organisational skills nor moral discipline to sustain any centralised organisation...
these are chaotic networks of loosly associated subgroups that rely upon tribal bonds of adherence...
the flat decentralised organisation is essential to the survival of the various elements...
command and control is exerted through extremist religious leadership.
318am anonymous:
ReplyDeleteyou are EXACTLY correct.
which is why folks who argue that the french insurrection is not an intifada BECAUSE IT ISN'T CENTRALLY DIRECTED
are wrong.
intifadas are not centrrally directed. there is, though - in france and iraq and kashmir and thailand and isreal, an underlying strategy and ideology to the on-going attacks: islamofascism.