The war against jihadism

Ingezonden door LVB op 2007-10-22 02:24

Marc Cogen
Marc Cogen
In a remarkable guest column on this weblog, professor Marc Cogen from Ghent University argues that jihadism can and should be fought against with military means. The main points of his column are:
  1. Jihadists operate in private armies, which are illegal in international law. Hence their members, when caught, can not be considered to be prisoners of war nor can they claim rights under the Geneva Convention. Common criminal courts operate in a peacetime context and are not suited for crucial security matters. The best way to deal with jihadists is through military tribunals.
  2. The fight against jihadists should become a central objective of NATO and of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Both organizations should cooperate in this matter.
  3. Iran is at the center of the jihadist threat and is conducting a war by proxy against the West for at least 28 years through Hezbollah and others. The right to self-defense not only applies against jihadists but also against those states which support the jihadist private armies. Law enforcement in Europe is not enough anymore: Europe should use the threat of military action against those regimes which support the jihadists.
Read the guest column of Dr. Marc Cogen: "Opposing jihadism - an onset for a cure".

Reacties

#67537

Noclegi Ustka

vrijdag, 22 augustus, 2008 - 09:17

 

Good post Opit.Thanks

#56427

opit

maandag, 17 december, 2007 - 07:58

 

"Political Correctness" these days is, in fact, exactly what he proposes.
Unhappily, "fighting" terrorism means violence applied against a potential : overreaction and unfairness trammelling centuries of successful tactics against civic unrest. We had a prime example of that in Nazi Germany : a corporate/police state geared to nothing except economic exploitation, murder, slavery and violence.
When even saying that the values our parents, grandparents, and their siblings fought and often died for are disloyal - which happens - tradition values are being cut with abandon. And what are they ?
Methodical examination to find truth.
Open confrontation of opinions.
Restraint of the state's methods and powers.
Suppression of talk advocating violence and oppression of religions and races.
Talk of Iran is unproven. What is known is that the US is openly funding subversion : again and still. And lying without letup.

#54587

Pamela

zaterdag, 24 november, 2007 - 14:31

 

Professor Cogan, I salute you for your clarity and complete freedom from the politcal correctness infesting Western Culture.

My guess is that sometimes you must be very lonely!

Thanks for this piece, I'll pass it around.

#51983

Publius

donderdag, 25 oktober, 2007 - 12:03

 

Point 2, turning jihadist threat into a NATO focus will not happen. After the collapse of the sovjet regime and the Berlin Wall, NATO surely must have made the excercise of redirecting their resources towards the next most important threat, which was at that time already clearly emerging from fundamentalist islam. Sure they were aware of this and they could have addressed it, as also the EU could have reflected this in its "vision". Instead they paved the way even further for jihadi incubation in the Western world and poisoned even further many Traditional Western values.

The fact that all this did not happen is not a coïncidence, nor a lack of alertness but clearly a political and stratigical choice. I am certainly not a believer in messy conspiray theories, but certain agendas must have carried more weight than others... The decision to look the other way was deliberate and premeditated. If these guys are still holding the reigns, the 2nd point in the proposal is not a straightforward option...

Nevertheless a very constructive view and an enormous relief to see some no nonsene coming out of the mostly leftist UG environment.