Are we at war with Islam? [Archive] - Page 3

magician

07-30-2005, 07:49

Exactly my point.

Communist parties hold elections during party congresses. The outcome is generally preordained, but the exercise serves to legitimize the leadership, at least for their own internal consumption. It also exposes rifts in party unity, which depending on the nature of party politics, can be exceedingly dangerous. We have all heard of party "purges," and we even tend to feel an aversion to the term "factionalism."

Note that in the example of communist parties, generally only party members vote, though popular elections among the broad masses of the citizenry do sometimes also take place. The results of these popular elections are typically foregone conclusions, though I am sure that my brother Airborne Lawyer can find and cite exceptions. In no case but one that I recall off the top of my head do they trump the decisions taken by the party. The party asserts that the party member representatives of the masses, from the mass organizations, represent the will of the people, as do the party members representing other "popular" constituencies, themselves.

We in the West have never accepted this as a form of democracy.

In our own system, there is a popular vote, and there is the Electoral College. As we all know, except under specific conditions, the popular vote is not a vote that directly elects our presidents. Presidents are indirectly elected through the Electoral College vote. Critics of this system note that it, too, is subject to party politics, and the results can also be foregone conclusions. Ask yourself this basic question: who elects, or designates, as the case may be, members of the Electoral College?

We do directly vote for representatives, and for senators, hence the term "representative democracy." In the US, we directly vote for members of the legislature, which as well all know, is only one part of our government, the other portions being the Executive branch, and the Judicial branch, in the form of the Supreme Court.

Through foreign eyes, the electoral spectacle that we mount every four years is exactly that: a show intended to legitimize the choice of the Electoral College. From the standpoint of a communist, the Electoral College system is not significantly different from their own. Neither communist parties nor modern political parties in the United States are "the people." They represent the people, and I think that it is clear that they only represent some of the people, and it can be argued that they are, in fact, only weakly representative altogether. In America, we do not vote politicians into membership in either political party. Under some historical forms of communism, (more strictly and accurately termed socialism), labor unions, mass organizations, and other political entities have indeed voted to designate representatives to represent them within the communist or socialist party.

(Strictly speaking, I agree with the assertion that genuine communism has been attempted but never implemented historically. All forms have been socialist experiments on a continuum to a communist ideal which doctrinally cannot emerge until it is a global phenomenon.)

In fact, it can be argued that some communist parties have been more representative of the people, strictly speaking, than the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. Yes, I wrote that. This form of democracy is broadly termed "indirect democracy," and specifically "representative democracy." I assert for purposes of this discussion that many socialist systems have historically embodied at least some elements of representative democracy, though I will agree that traditionally the term refers more precisely to votes for the legislative branch in the US, and for parliaments in other polities.

From my personal perspective, I consider the choice between Democrats and Republicans in this country to be a false choice. But I digress.

There are a multitude of definitions of Democracy, with a capital D, but I will cite the one from the Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia: "Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made with the direction of the majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process."

As you can see, this is not as precise as we might wish. The primary reason why we in the West discount the internal party elections and mass popular elections of communist polities is because we perceive that their voting processes are not "fair." The Encyclopedia continues, "It can apply to a multitude of government systems, as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other forms," implying other forms of government, which is precisely the point that I make with the example above.

For myself, I define Democracy very simply: one person, one vote, period. Direct democracy is generally the term used to signify this form. Historically, I am not aware that it has ever existed, though some assert that the Swiss system comes closest, as it includes two of three prerequisites, which the Wikipedia Encyclopedia terms Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. In the US, which strictly speaking is a federal republic, more than half of the states in the union permit citizen-initiated balloting, and most states permit either Initiatives and Referenda. One example of Recall is the process which resulted in the recall of the previous governor of California, and the subsequent election of The Governator.

It is obvious in my opinion that elections do not a democracy make. As exemplified by most communist systems, those who are electable are often determined by their membership in mass or labor organizations which by definition means that only those who adhere to an acceptable set of beliefs are eligible. This can be said of many other examples, as well.

There is much more to discuss, but I will stop for now.

Let the frenzy begin.

:)

magician

07-30-2005, 08:36

People have claimed Hitler was elected. He wasn't, he was appointed.

Hitler received the largest minority vote in the Weimar Republic in 1933. So, it is true that he was not directly elected by a majority. He received the largest minority vote, however, and hence was the default winner.

Interestingly, the Weimar constitution permitted its own suspension under emergency conditions without a vote or an election.

Team Sergeant

07-30-2005, 08:40

In 1921, Iraq elected King Faysal. Basic concept of a representative democracy is elected leadership, correct? So election of the King (who is evidently the power and leadership based on your post) is a representative democracy. It may not be the sort that we are used to, but it is a democracy. In addition, a parliamentary system did exist during the time period that is considered to have been under British rule ( http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html )

We all know what a real democracy is and iraq has never been one, never. You sort of shot yourself in the foot with your first sentence there, "King Faysal..." in all of history I've never heard of an elected king, appointed maybe but never elected. I'm sure you will prove me wrong and find an elected king, but was he really "elected"? I doubt it.

You should leave the twisting of history for the uneducated.

Tell me GH did you miss this in the News?
"New Iran President Was Hostage Taker" He was also elected? Who would have thought an islamic terrorist could be elected as a head of state. What could the masses be thinking? Surely their peaceful religion would forbid them from electing anyone that might be construed as a religious extremist?

Maybe we were wrong in the naming of this thread, it should not read "Are we at war with islam" but "Is islam at war with us?"
I still believe so and each day proves what I (and Sir Winston Churchill) have to say about todays islamic followers.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Have you ever watched the videos of the insurgent attacks against the US military? Ever listened to the islamic extremists before they blow themselves up in a group of children, or when they shoot unarmed civilians and soldiers etc? Greenhat, to the video, EVERYONE, everyone I've ever heard NOT one has cried for FREEDOM. Tell me GreenHat what/who are they fighting for? It's NOT FREEDOM that much is sure. Funny how they all have the same fanatical cry.

I'll stand with Sir Winston Churchill on this one. I figure I'm in good company.

Please feel free to continue to defend the islamic religion, it is your right and I will continue to defend your freedom of speech with my last breath. I'm sure Salman Rushdie would happier if the islamic religion allowed the same freedom of speech.

The Reaper

07-30-2005, 08:40

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 provided for elections for public officials. Unfortunately, the Communist Party provided the only list of candidates. Thus elections resulted in extremely high percentages of votes for the candidates. Write-ins were discouraged. STRONGLY discouraged.

Saddam was relected several times to seven year terms, most recently in 2002.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.vote/

"Saddam gets perfect poll result

Wednesday, October 16, 2002 Posted: 12:23 PM EDT (1623 GMT)

Tributes to the re-elected leader were held aloft by supporters

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq has declared Saddam Hussein the winner with 100 percent of the votes in a referendum granting him another seven-year term, bringing bursts of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad's streets."

Magician is right, we have a republic, not a strict democracy.

The Founding Fathers did not want a democracy, and argued strongly against it in their writings.

James Madison: "Federalist #10: ...there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Alexander Hamilton: "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

John Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide."

Patrick Henry:"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth...For my part, whatever anguish of the spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to prepare for it." As we near this nation's celebration of Independence there are three truths that need to be told. First. We are not supposed to be a democracy; we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Second. We find ourselves today a secular society but we were formed as a Christian nation. Third. Americans have been taught to believe the concept that "a wall of separation of church and State" exists between religion and government. The truth is our founding fathers did not want any one Christian church to be preferred [have power] over another. Religion was fundamental to every aspect of life. They did not want religion out of government — they wanted government out of religion!

Benjamin Rush: "A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils."

Fisher Ames: "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty...Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."

As an interesting tidbit:

Democracy, 1927, The U. S. Army Training Manual: “A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

TR

magician

07-30-2005, 08:54

Nothing makes me feel better about life than rereading the Founding Fathers.

Particularly Jefferson.

;)

brownapple

07-30-2005, 08:55

Hitler received the largest minority vote in the Weimar Republic in 1933. So, it is true that he was not directly elected by a majority. He received the largest minority vote, however, and hence was the default winner.

Interestingly, the Weimar constitution permitted its own suspension under emergency conditions without a vote or an election.

Not exactly, Magician. Hitler was appointed by Paul Von Hindenberg, who was the winner of the election in 1932. There was no election in 1933, so Hitler couldn't have been the default winner. The power that Hitler gained he gained by getting the Reichstag to give him those powers. There was a referendum in 1934 (after Von Hindenberg's death) regarding those powers (90% of those who voted approved of Hitler maintaining those powers). Regardless, Hitler was never elected to any position.

And unlike the "elections" of Baathist Iraq or the USSR, the election of King Faysal seems to be actually the will of the Iraqi people (although Stalin probably would have been elected even in free elections).

brownapple

07-30-2005, 09:08

Ever listened to the islamic extremists before they blow themselves up in a group of children, or when they shoot unarmed civilians and soldiers etc? Greenhat, to the video, EVERYONE, everyone I've ever heard NOT one has cried for FREEDOM.

Just so you can tell people that you have heard a Muslim call for FREEDOM.

http://www.usindo.org/Briefs/2005/SBY%20Speech.htm

Team Sergeant

07-30-2005, 09:42

Just so you can tell people that you have heard a Muslim call for FREEDOM.

http://www.usindo.org/Briefs/2005/SBY%20Speech.htm

Again GH, leave the twisting for the uninitiated.

I was in Indonesia a few years ago, lived and worked with the military to include the Indonesian Special Forces. I know what a “repressive” government is and how it operates.

Indonesia is a repressive government. I have witnessed soldiers beating civilians, forcing a busload of civilians off the road into a ditch because they were moving too slow, causally breaking windows and side mirrors of civilian vehicles to allow military vehicles to move unimpeded, using a farmers land for a drop zone, placing small children in harms way by parachute jumping over their heads as they worked in the farmers fields, I could go on and on but you get the drift. I've told you before don’t use Indonesia as a model of a noble moslem country, its not, I've been there.

Are you now going to question my years of active duty Special Forces training concerning insurgencies and terrorism, what they are, how they start, WHY they start, many due to repressive governments?

I can assure you I can identify a repressive government 10 out of 10 times.

De Oppresso Liber

Team Sergeant

brownapple

07-30-2005, 21:21

Again GH, leave the twisting for the uninitiated.

I was in Indonesia a few years ago, lived and worked with the military to include the Indonesian Special Forces. I know what a “repressive” government is and how it operates.

Indonesia is a repressive government. I have witnessed soldiers beating civilians, forcing a busload of civilians off the road into a ditch because they were moving too slow, causally breaking windows and side mirrors of civilian vehicles to allow military vehicles to move unimpeded, using a farmers land for a drop zone, placing small children in harms way by parachute jumping over their heads as they worked in the farmers fields, I could go on and on but you get the drift. I've told you before don’t use Indonesia as a model of a noble moslem country, its not, I've been there.

Are you now going to question my years of active duty Special Forces training concerning insurgencies and terrorism, what they are, how they start, WHY they start, many due to repressive governments?

I can assure you I can identify a repressive government 10 out of 10 times.

De Oppresso Liber

Team Sergeant

No chance that Indonesia might have changed in the last few years?
Btw, as a New Yorker, I've witnessed Police Officers beating civilians, forcing civilians off the road, and seen side mirrors broken by garbage trucks so that they can move unimpeded. I'm also aware (although I did not witness it) of Police Officers killing innocent civilians.

Shall we call the government of New York a repressive one?

And since you are so concerned with repressive governments, can you tell me what the US Government was under Abraham Lincoln? How about FDR?

The Reaper

07-30-2005, 21:49

Do you mean to compare the U.S. under either Lincoln or Roosevelt (or any other wartime American leader) to Indonesia under Suharto?

Don't you think that is a bit of a stretch?

TR

CoLawman

07-30-2005, 23:22

Btw, as a New Yorker, I've witnessed Police Officers beating civilians, forcing civilians off the road, and seen side mirrors broken by garbage trucks so that they can move unimpeded.

I've beaten civilians (dirt bags resisting or trying to do harm to me or other officers) I've forced civilians off the road (trying to apprehend felons). Heard of all kinds of side view mirrors being broken off in Hit and Run accidents! So they could continue unimpeded.

For the sake of argument, if what you witnessed was abuse I can assure you it would not be sanctioned or authorized by any governmental entity within the city or state of New York. And if a person such as yourself witnessed these events then there are mechanisms in place to deal with the offending officer or garbage truck driver. Did you do your part as a good citizen?

I'm also aware (although I did not witness it) of Police Officers killing innocent civilians.

What kind of statement is that? :confused: Are you saying you are aware of a murder? Or are you saying you are aware of a traffic accident in which civilians were killed when struck by a police officer driving a patrol car? Or maybe a citizen was struck by a stray bullet fired by an officer?

It is my experience that good citizens who learn of murders are quick to volunteer their information to the authorities. Did you? And if you did then you need to tell us the rest of the story..........instead of implying murders and abuses are common place and unchecked in New York!

Shall we call the government of New York a repressive one?

Since your supporting statements to this question are flawed I guess the answer would be NO!

And since you are so concerned with repressive governments, can you tell me what the US Government was under Abraham Lincoln? How about FDR?[/QUOTE]

Don't even want to know what your justification might be for this question! Sheesh!

Pete

07-31-2005, 06:42

This thread has spun on and on and on and on and on. Both sides have begun to cherry pick actions and times from both sides of the issue. Both sides are also begining to get a bit personal in the replies.

Let's boil a few things down into bite size chunks.

1.) Most religions had a period in their past where the religion was pushed on the point of a sword or spear, either by the priest or ruler.

2.) Even today some sects within most religions take and extreme view and can kill, all in the name of their religion.

3.) As a whole, most religions today have pulled back from the extreme view and try to live in peace with other religions.

4.) Islam has not. It still is pushing the view that Islam is the only true religion and that all others must either convert, submit or die.

So it is clear that until Islam goes through the modern reformation (?) that most other religions have; then, Yes Islam is at War with the west, and south, and north and east.

Also, Islam is a religious nation, not a geographic nation. That means any follower of Islam has the potential to be in the Combat Forces, the Auxillery, the Underground or other pasive support role unless they prove otherwise.

You are stupid if you give the enemy the benifit of the doubt in war time.

Team Sergeant

07-31-2005, 08:45

No chance that Indonesia might have changed in the last few years?
Btw, as a New Yorker, I've witnessed Police Officers beating civilians, forcing civilians off the road, and seen side mirrors broken by garbage trucks so that they can move unimpeded. I'm also aware (although I did not witness it) of Police Officers killing innocent civilians.

Shall we call the government of New York a repressive one?

And since you are so concerned with repressive governments, can you tell me what the US Government was under Abraham Lincoln? How about FDR?

Anytime the “people” live in fear of their own “military” that would mean they have a repressive government. The people of Indonesia are scared shitless of the Indonesian military, and we’re not talking isolated incidents.

I also said a “few” years not 60 or 200 years. I agree that a country can change, but over the course of decades and generations, not a “few” years. You and I both know one cannot research Indonesia, (today) without seeing the phrase “endemic corruption” somewhere in Indonesia’s description. The members reading this need not agree with my views but do a little of their own research, I've little doubt of what they will find.

Let’s not split hairs you also know we (United States) will hold our military and law enforcement accountable for their actions, please don’t compare us to other 5th world countries. Dick Durbin already did that and found it was not a good idea.

BTW how does the 4th most populated country in the world rank so low on the global economic scale? Were they also savaged by the western civilizations or might it be because of internal systemic corruption? (88 percent moslem, imagine that.)

HOLLiS

07-31-2005, 10:20

Let’s not split hairs you also know we (United States) will hold our military and law enforcement accountable for their actions, please don’t compare us to other 5th world countries. Dick Durbin already did that and found it was not a good idea.

BTW how does the 4th most populated country in the world rank so low on the global economic scale? Were they also savaged by the western civilizations or might it be because of internal systemic corruption? (88 percent moslem, imagine that.)

It is amazing how some would compare our military with 5th world countries. Our Military culture is based on serving the constitution and the elected government. The military in 5th world country have more of a feudal culture, they serve the "war lord". IMHO one of greatest protectorate of our constitution along with the 3 branches of government is the Military.

Islam is a feudal culture, clerics have life and death rule over everyone. Over 50% of the Islamic society are chattel slaves (women). One can not question authority, to challenge the Qur'an is a apostasy punishable by death. No wonder Islamic countries are still living under the poorest of conditions. We as Kaffir have no value and no rights under Islam (see Sharia Law).

The Sura Al Maeda (5th) is a good read, and Al Nesa (women) it is written only for men and advocates beating one's wife (4,34). Also read the Hadiths on women. "women only have half a brain", "(Islamic) Hell is filled with women" and it takes 4 women to testify against one man.

According to the "Islamists" Islam is at war will all non-believers and apostates. War is not our choice, it is theirs.

frostfire

07-31-2005, 12:30

BTW how does the 4th most populated country in the world rank so low on the global economic scale? Were they also savaged by the western civilizations or might it be because of internal systemic corruption? (88 percent moslem, imagine that.)
Both are true. The colonialism: http://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap3.html The corruption should be widely known.

Back to the main topic, I think both sides are not necessarily against each other. Islam was brought to SE Asia by Arab merchants, and assimilated with the local culture etc. The lack of violence in the process yield a "more peaceful" version of Islam relative to the ones in Middle East. However, the Koran (and the imam) can easily spark and justify violence.
A good read for Islam and terrorism in SE Asia: http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/terroristgroups/JemaahIslamiyah/JITerror/JIHistBG.html

Anytime the “people” live in fear of their own “military” that would mean they have a repressive government. The people of Indonesia are scared shitless of the Indonesian military, and we’re not talking isolated incidents.A search on "Kopassus" and "human rights"will confirm this argument.

Team Sergeant

07-31-2005, 13:00

Both are true. The colonialism: http://www.workers.org/indonesia/chap3.html The corruption should be widely known.

Back to the main topic, I think both sides are not necessarily against each other. Islam was brought to SE Asia by Arab merchants, and assimilated with the local culture etc. The lack of violence in the process yield a "more peaceful" version of Islam relative to the ones in Middle East. However, the Koran (and the imam) can easily spark and justify violence.
A good read for Islam and terrorism in SE Asia: http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/terroristgroups/JemaahIslamiyah/JITerror/JIHistBG.html

A search on "Kopassus" and "human rights"will confirm this argument.

slight hijack

FrostFire,
Before you start calling the Indonesian people "peaceful" you might want to research what they did about 40 years ago.....
It will give you some insight as to how they "think" as a people. I'll give you a hint, it was genocide on a masssive scale!
TS

End hijack

The Reaper

07-31-2005, 13:10

How about this gem?

Still acquiting killers of 33 protestors as recently as this month:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/12/indone11309.htm

Indonesia: Acquittals Show Continuing Military Impunity
1984 Massacre of Demonstrators Goes Unpunished

(New York, July 12, 2005)—The recent appeals court acquittal of twelve soldiers convicted last year of the 1984 massacre of demonstrators in Jakarta shows the almost complete failure of Indonesia’s human rights courts, Human Rights Watch said today. The latest decision means that no one has been convicted for the so-called “Tanjung Priok” massacre, in which security forces killed at least 33 civilians in 1984.

Whether it is a massacre from the Suharto era or killings in East Timor, these verdicts show that the Indonesian military continues to get away with murder. There is clearly no political will in Indonesia to address this kind of impunity.

Human Rights Watch said that the appeals court decision was not made public, but was reported by the BBC, last Thursday, July 7.

The Tanjung Priok trials had represented Indonesia’s most robust attempt to date to hold perpetrators accountable for Suharto-era abuses. But following the acquittals, Human Rights Watch said that victims and their families have no judicial redress for the 22-year-old killings in Jakarta.

The acquittals followed trials by the ad hoc human rights court on East Timor, which finished appeal hearings in 2004. All but one of the 18 defendants were acquitted for crimes against humanity. Only Eurico Guterres, an East Timorese militia commander, stands convicted at present, and he remains free pending final appeal to the Supreme Court.

“Whether it is a massacre from the Suharto era or killings in East Timor, these verdicts show that the Indonesian military continues to get away with murder,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “There is clearly no political will in Indonesia to address this kind of impunity.”

Fourteen active and retired military officers originally stood trial over the Tanjung Priok incident. Two other soldiers accused of taking part in the incident were acquitted last year, including the head of Indonesia’s special forces, Major-General Sriyanto Muntrasan, who was then North Jakarta military commander. Human rights activists in Indonesia have long criticized the attorney general’s office for not including in the original indictments two retired generals, Try Sutrisno, then-Jakarta military commander (and later vice-president), and Benny Moerdani, then-armed forces commander, whom many believe were implicated in the violence.

The Tanjung Priok killings took place on September 12, 1984, when government security forces fired at civilian protestors during anti-government demonstrations in the Tanjung Priok harbour area of north Jakarta. The protests followed the arrests of several individuals who were accused of giving anti-government sermons at Tanjung Priok Rawa Badak Mosque.

In 2000, Komnas HAM (Indonesia’s National Commission on Human Rights) completed its inquiry into extrajudicial executions and disappearances which took place in Tanjung Priok. The inquiry listed 23 suspects, including many who are now senior Indonesian military officers.

“Because President Yudhoyono was elected democratically, many now wrongly believe that Indonesia’s military has been reformed,” said Adams. “This is not the case. The military remains above the law, apparently too powerful for the courts to tame.”

Based on a law passed by the Indonesian parliament in 2000 establishing special human rights courts on April 23, 2001, Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid enacted a presidential decree establishing an ad hoc human rights court to try gross violations of human rights in East Timor in 1999 and in Tanjung Priok in 1984.

Four regional human rights courts were also established by the 2000 law, including one in Makassar, Sulawesi. The Makassar court is expected to issue a ruling soon in the cases of two police officers on trial for the 2000 Abepura case, in which Indonesian police shot dead one student, tortured to death two more, and arbitrarily detained, tortured and ill-treated approximately 100 others.

The Reaper

07-31-2005, 13:21

Indonesians (Peaceful, Modern Islamists) Impose Sharia Law

TR

Aceh in Wonderland

27 June 2005

(A version of this article appeared in the Jakarta Post 28 June 2005)

Is Aceh being turned into the world of Alice in Wonderland? There is a British novel called Alice in Wonderland. A young girl called Alice, falls into a hole and enters a world full of confusion and absurdity. Everything is turned upside down and Alice is trapped to deal with too many pictures of small things, unable to focus on the world beyond. Are the Acehnese to be driven to this kind of existence?

Last week in Aceh several poor Acehnese, accused and found guilty of gambling under sharia (Islamic) law, were publicly flogged with canes by a government appointed executor. It is the first application of sharia since its imposition several years ago.

This is an absurdity; never in the history of Aceh has Islam been exploited in this way, simply to punish the poor. In the past Islam was the foundation and inspiration for the Acehnese to defend themselves against colonialism, social injustice and oppression.

Islamic values informed the fight against Portuguese oppression, which stopped their colonial expansion in Asia, and galvanised the Acehnese to defend themselves against Dutch invasion. The resilience of the Acehnese effectively bankrupted and thus defeated the Dutch. These values went on to imbue many Acehnese with the will to oppose injustice in the post colonial era. It was non conservative values of Islam, a desire for equality and justice that motivated the Acehnese to seek freedom from any and all attempts to conquer them.

But now we have some Ulamas empowered by the government using religious law to punish some people who commit petty crime, such as gambling, and enforcing disproportionate penalties. Gambling, if it is a crime at least only harms the gamblers, at worst their families. The conflict region of Aceh is full of groups and individuals harming the wider society, committing crimes that perpetuate conflict and exploitation. The crimes of the powerful; the killing of innocent civilians or involvement in large scale corruption seem to elicit a different response than the crimes of poor. When the rich and powerful seem immune from judicial action, even under sharia law, while the poor Acehnese are subject to all the extremes of this religious law it only serves to institutionalise inequality.

There was a question posed on the internet, circulated by some young Acehnese, asking jokingly how many times Abdullah Puted would be caned if this law were to be applied to him. How about if this law was applied to those who are killing Acehnese civilians? No, it will not apply to them said Sharia authority. In fact it will not even be applied to the prosecutor who is making the case in this first trial of Sharia, who had admitted he received money as a bribe, from the defendant.

Indeed it is only for the poor, the powerless amongst the Acehnese to bear the brunt of this newly emboldened Sharia authority. The other weak Acehnese targeted are women, the most vulnerable groups of society in Aceh right now. The police sharia, the government discussion about women, instead of being about education and equal rights for women, is about clothes, the headscarf, the way they wear things. There have occasionally been sweeps by sharia police to check whether Acehnese women are wearing their clothes according to sharia. There is a story that recently at a meeting of local government officials, woman was made to sit at the back of the room. All this comes at a time when the women of Aceh are calling for equality, access to education and a voice in the reconstruction.

This is an insult to Acehnese women who in the past have asserted their will to play a significant role in society. To cite a few obvious examples, three women have ruled the kingdom of Aceh, there have been several female admirals and high ranking members of armed forces. Most famously Cut Nyak Dhien but there was also Cut Meutia, Pocut Baren and others. There has been no such discussion about dress codes in the past, yet both Islam and women’s involvement in the wider society have managed to flourish.

By emphasising conservative aspects of religion and strict adherence to sharia law, some clerical leaders seek to blinker the Acehnese from wider problems in the region. They are exploiting the religious conviction of many Acehnese to manipulate them. In truth they are acting as an obstacle to change by distracting the locals from the main problem of injustice. This orchestrated distraction is perfect for a government which seeks to neutralize progressive voices in Aceh. This is a strategic alliance of the government with conservative religious to pacify the Acehnese.

If there is somebody most responsible for this, it is Abdurahman Wahid. It was Gus Dur the most liberal of Islamic thinkers who kick-started this new Sharia revolution. He decided to impose sharia law in order to show the political will of the government to solve the problem of Aceh. Rather than responding to Acehnese demands for a political solution to the conflict and social justice, this was a crude attempt to co-opt and empower a conservative religious elite to assist with the subjugation of the Acehnese desire for justice.

This use of religion as political tool to pacify the population or as political bribery is a dangerous move. It is like setting a time bomb. When it goes off it could unleash an era of harsh, intolerant and conservative Islam. It is the last thing everybody wants to happen in Aceh.

The writer is an Acehnese human rights advocate working for TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign in London and Kontras in Jakarta. He can be reached at agus_smur@hotmail.com

Indonesians Continue Legacy of Genocide

http://www.law.yale.edu/outside/html/Public_Affairs/426/westpapuahrights.pdf

This paper considers whether the Indonesian government’s conduct toward the people of West Papua constitutes genocide, as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The paper begins with a detailed account of the human rights situation in West Papua from the beginning of Indonesian rule in 1963 until today. It then analyzes the law of genocide as applied to the West Papuan case. Although the paper does not offer a definitive conclusion about whether genocide has occurred, it finds in the available evidence a strong indication that the Indonesian government has committed genocide against the West Papuans. Moreover, even if the acts described in the paper were not carried out with intent to destroy the West Papuans as a group, a necessary element of the crime of genocide, many of these acts clearly constitute crimes against humanity under international law.

The Reaper

07-31-2005, 13:38

Asia, the Peaceful Face of Islam?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9319

The War on Terror: A War for Human Rights
By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2003

The Indonesian terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), demonstrated last week that the war on terror is not just an effort to prevent recurrences of September 11; it is a struggle for human rights. As JI celebrates (yes, celebrates) its murder of fifteen people and the wounding of 150 more in a suicide attack on the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta last Tuesday, as well as the death sentence given Thursday to JI member Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, the “smiling bomber” who murdered 202 people in Bali last October, it is instructive to remember that JI is doing all this killing for the Sharia.

The Sharia is the classic code of Islamic law that mandates stoning for adulterers and amputation for thieves, disallows a rape victim’s testimony in her own case, and hamstrings freedom of conscience by prescribing death for apostates from Islam and those who have blasphemed the Prophet — an offense that Christians in Pakistan and other beleaguered minorities in the Islamic world have found to be distressingly elastic. Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda’s southeast Asian affiliate, dreams of the day when the Sharia holds sway over the entire world, or at least its own corner of it.

Jemaah Islamiyah is fighting to create a Sharia-ruled Islamic megastate in Southeast Asia, comprising Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, and the southern Philippines island of Mindanao. In a certain sense it’s fitting that they see blowing up innocent people as a viable means to attain this end, for the utopia that group members envision is just as brutal and unreasoning. There have been numerous indications of that recently in places where the Islamic law that JI reveres is already (in varying degrees) in force:

• The supreme court of Afghanistan on Thursday upheld death sentences for two journalists, Sayeed Mahdawi and Ali Reza Payam. Their crime? Criticizing what they called the “holy fascism” that still holds sway in Afghanistan, and asking: “If Islam is the last and the most complete of the revealed religions, why are the Muslim countries lagging behind the modern world?”

• A court in Pakistan on Tuesday sentenced another man, Bashir Ahmed, to death for making “derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet and his companions.”

• Women’s groups in Malaysia protested, thus far in vain, against a decision by that country’s Sharia court that men could divorce their wives by leaving a message on their mobile phones.

• The Jordanian parliament rejected on Islamic grounds a measure that would have given women the legal right to file for divorce, as well as another that would have led to stiff penalties for “honor killings”: the barbaric murder of young women by family members who believe that they have committed adultery, thereby shaming the family honor. Many young women have even been murdered after being raped, since traditional Islamic law allows a rape charge to be established only by the testimony of four male witnesses who saw the act itself.

• In Iraq, Muslim authorities in the Shiite holy city of Najaf overruled, also on Islamic grounds, the appointment by American authorities of a woman judge, Nidal Nasser Hussein. Afrah Najem, who like Nidal Nasser Hussein is a female lawyer in Iraq, knows that she has hit the mother of all glass ceilings: “Ours is an Islamic society that would not tolerate a woman judge.”

Draconian blasphemy laws, appallingly loose divorce laws (for men only), a totalitarian resistance to self-criticism, institutionalized brutality and oppression of women — these are the features of the Sharia law that forms the centerpiece of JI’s dream state. Their path to this utopia is stained with the blood of the nightclubbers, businessmen and bystanders that JI is rejoicing over having slaughtered in Indonesia.

Donald Rumsfeld has declared that the United States will not accept an Islamic state in Iraq. One may hope that this indicates that the human rights component of the war on terror has at least some advocates in high places. For the events recounted above illustrate why everyone who values freedom and basic human rights should oppose the Sharia, whether it is implemented in whole or part, not just in Iraq or Indonesia, but everywhere that it hinders the liberty of human beings — including Saudi Arabia.

Like a peevish schoolmarm, the judge who sentenced Amrozi scolded him for perverting Islam and jihad. But it is unlikely that any of the Muslim onlookers who cheered and shouted “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is great) when Amrozi entered the courtroom were brought to a moment of theological reckoning by the judge’s lecture. After all, moderate Muslims still have not answered the nagging question of why, if Islam forbids terrorism and the Qur’an teaches nonviolence, have so many devout Muslims around the world misinterpreted it so thoroughly and repeatedly. Where are the moderate Muslims who can teach not Western non-Muslims, but their fellow Muslims that Islam is peaceful?

If the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Muslim advocacy groups really want to demonstrate that “Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness that should not be associated with acts of violence against the innocent,” let them definitively renounce the Sharia for which Jemaah Islamiyah kills, and which brings anything but peace and mercy to those who must suffer under it. Let them work to create in the United States a truly moderate Islam that accepts the principles of Western secular society and coexistence with non-Muslims. If they do not do this, it is clear: history will judge them as being on the wrong side of this great struggle for the rights of mankind.

frostfire

07-31-2005, 14:16

oh well, might as well add one more...can't wait for the next draft

The Jakarta Post, August 1, 2005
MUI's fatwa encourage use of violence

Concluding its seventh congress last week, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued eleven fatwa that sparked concern over its increasingly conservative stance. Prominent Muslim scholar and rector of the Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Azyumardi Azra shared over the weekend with The Jakarta Post's Ridwan Max Sijabat his opinion on the controversial views of the MUI.

Question: The MUI has issued several contentious fatwa. What is your comment?

Answer: It is most regrettable that the MUI seems to be issuing edicts without consulting the relevant Muslim figures, or dialog with the parties concerned. The fatwa are not enforceable, nor are they binding. It does not have the authority to enforce them.

What do you think is the background of this growing conservatism?

There is something that has been changing in the organization -- before and entering the reform era. The MUI has shifted from being umat-oriented to being government-oriented. During the New Order era, the MUI was used by former president Soeharto's regime as a tool to justify government policies. For instance, the MUI issued a fatwa that allowed the consumption of frogs. The edict was issued to annul another edict banning frog consumption -- issued by the MUI's West Sumatra branch -- and to support the government policy on the acceleration of non-oil commodity exports.

Entering the reform era, the MUI sought to be independent and become closer to the umat (members of the Muslim community). But the fact is that the MUI does not represent all Muslims and this is evident in the increasing number of Muslims questioning and denouncing the edicts.

Why have pluralism, liberalism and secularism been declared forbidden? Are they really against Islam?

The problem here is that the MUI has an understanding that differs from the academic perception on the three isms, because they are dominated by groups who take the Koran and hadith (Prophet Muhammad's sayings) literally and without any rationale or logic.

The Koran teaches tolerance -- including of other religions. The Koran, Prophet Muhammad and Islamic teachings accept differences not only as a reality but also as Allah's grace.

Liberalism is forbidden because the MUI is of the opinion that liberals no longer believe in the Koran, Prophet Muhammad and true Islamic teachings.

The MUI cannot ban Muslims from thinking, because pluralism, liberalism and secularism are not ideologies but ways of thinking. To some extent, the MUI's fatwa are against freedom of _expression and human rights in general.

Why are the edicts outlawing mixed marriages, and on joint prayers with people of different faiths, considered controversial?

The fatwa banning mixed marriages between people of different faiths and of joint prayers performed with people from other faiths negates pluralism. Islam is not the only religion in the country and Muslims have to be able to live side-by-side with people of different faiths.

With the growing controversy, many people are starting to question the necessity of an organization such as the MUI.

But it must be underlined that the MUI is not a state institution. It can issue fatwa and orders to Muslims, but they are not binding and it does no have the authority to enforce them. Legal authorities in the government have no obligation to enforce the edicts while Muslims are not obliged to comply with them.

Because the MUI has no authority to enforce the controversial fatwa, it is the hard-line groups, like the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) who appear at the frontline to pressure the authorities to enforce them. If they believe the authorities have failed, they (the hard-line groups) could directly come to the field to enforce them. I fear that hard-liners will head to Parung in Bogor regency, to bulldoze the Ahmadiyah boarding school and drive away its supporters based on the MUI's fatwa that Ahmadiyah is a heretical sect.

What would you recommend for the MUI in the future?

The MUI should clearly pause for reflection. The MUI plays a strategic role in this predominantly Muslim nation and, therefore, it should consult with all stakeholders in the Muslim community before issuing fatwa.

The MUI will be fully respected and its edicts will be complied with if the edicts are based on fiqih (Islamic jurisprudence) -- not on political interests -- dialogs with all stakeholders and the interests of all Muslims and of the nation in general.

Honestly, I have received many telephone calls complaining about the edicts.

Pete

07-31-2005, 14:34

OK all, there has been a whole lot of chatter filling up the many pages of this thread. How about if we stop dancing around the pole and come up with a straight yes or no answer?

My answer?

YES

The Reaper

07-31-2005, 15:35

Ambush Master

07-31-2005, 15:40

If the millions of "peaceful" Islamic people care about their future, they had better wise up quickly, before too much damage is done.TR

Not JUST wise up, but RISE UP and put those that are causing the problems into the light of both day and justice !!!

Doc

07-31-2005, 16:22

Concur with TR.

Doc

NousDefionsDoc

07-31-2005, 21:22

Politicians admit Muslim religion lights the terrorist match
By Jen Shroder (07/31/05)

Shamil Bsayev is planning atrocities similar to the massacre of 330 children and holding a thousand hostages at a predominantly Christian school in Russia. Islamists taunted Christian parents by dangling their dead children by their toes through school windows. Basayev is also credited for holding 800 hostage and 50 deaths at a Russian theater. Basayev said on a rebel website: "Through the kindness of Allah, [we] celebrated a double holiday -- that of the victory over fascism and a small but very important victory over Russia."

Muslim organizations threaten lawsuits of anyone connecting Islam to "Islamist fanaticism" as our government attempts to convince the public that mainstream Islam is peaceful. Richard Ben-Veniste of the 911 Commission dropped a bomb on Hardball and revealed:
"Our mission is to separate Bin Laden and the al-Qaida and the al-Qaida wannabes from the Muslim world at large to make it inhospitable."
There is a need to separate the two because they ARE one. Thus the public saturation of a fabricated Islam, defanged and sanitized, separated from the "extremists" and devoid of Koran verses. But behind the scenes, politicians identify and conclude the obvious:
"This is NOT a war on terrorism. It is a war against Islamist fundamentalist terrorists. These are Jihadists who want to achieve certain goals. They want to get us out of Afghanistan. They want to get us out of Saudi Arabia. They want to get us out of Iraq. They want to get us out of Iraq by using the techniques of terrorists." ?James Gorelick, 911 Commission, Hardball 9/13/04

"This is a religion that is indistinguishable from politics. The politics and religion are the same thing but the promise is eternal life. You know?to kill people, you get rewarded."

[When asked if we never did anything against them politically, would they still rage against us] , "Just ask Bin Laden himself. Bin Laden said three things: ?Get out of the Middle East, convert to Islam and end all the corruption of your society.?" Slade Gorton, 911 Commission, Hardball 9/13/04

"Yet as political, social, and economic problems created flammable societies, Bin Laden used Islam?s most extreme, fundamentalist traditions as his match. All these elements ?including religion?combined in an explosive compound." 911 Commission Report, pg 54.

"We are infidels, we are not simply non-Muslim. We are people who lead good Muslims away from the true faith in the minds of Bin Laden. We are the greater danger, that?s why we are the great satan. It is not about what we did in Iran, it is not about what we?ve done in Iraq or elsewhere, it?s the very fact that our existence, that our pluralism, is a direct threat to their version of Islam." ? Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, "Diplomacy and Counterterrorism", House International Relations Committee Chairman 8/24/04

[Discussing the slaughter of school children in Russia] "Some of them have religious motivations as well as political motivations but the same mindset, the same mindset governed them even though they may have very well not have been members of al-Qaida." [On culture, religion or US policy] "You are separating three things and saying is it this, is it that or is it the third? The three are not indistinguishable among these people." Slade Gorton, 911 Commission, Hardball 9/13/04

"The American taxpayers are spending millions of millions of dollars to provide education for these Palestinian children to no avail, making it worse and perhaps the worst offenders of all, the Saudis?we had representatives of the State Department sitting right where you are, talking about this wonderful friendship and these great partners with us against the war on terrorism, I thought I was living in a parallel universe when I heard that nonsense. The madrassas?we do need to reform them but knowing that the Saudis are getting millions and millions and millions of dollars to fund these madrassas which are all anti-American, anti?Western, so having said that very long introduction, how do we break through it? We support nations that support individuals that do not have our best interests at heart, quite the contrary, they?re our biggest enemies in the world and we dress them up and we take them out on a date and pretend that they?re our lovers and they are NOT." ?Rep. Shelle!
y Berkley, , "Diplomacy and Counterterrorism," House International Relations Committee Chairman 8/24/04

Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam...that stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both...Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorist mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the "head of the snake," and it must be converted or destroyed. It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground?not even respect for life?on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated. 9/11 Commission Report (pg 362, 363)

As politicians admit the truth, our children are being led to "Assume you are a Muslim soldier" on their way to conquer nations in the 7th grade textbook, Across the Centuries, the ONLY funded textbook in California and distributed nationwide. It also invites our children to imagine they are on a pilgrimage to Mecca, which is what Bin Laden believes he is doing as he follows the method of Muhammad, spreading Islam through peace with covert violent groups outlined in the Koran, Hadith and Sunna.

So as Islamist terrorists taunt Christian parents by dangling their dead children by their feet from windows of a Russian school, I do NOT want my son assuming he?s a Muslim soldier. As Islamists issue fatwas for the death of my people, I would rather my son not imagine he?s a part of them, following the footsteps of Muhammad and learning poetic descriptions of a religion that demands his loyalty or threatens to behead his own people as outlined in their holy books.

Shamil Bsayev gives glory to Allah in slaughtering us, even as we are told "Allah" is another name for "God." Doesn?t anyone find it odd that Allah curses God?s children, Christians and Jews, and demands our slaughter in the Koran?

Sources:
Shamil Bsayev:
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/sto...224&p=y5yxy693x
911 Commission Hardball quotes:
http://www.blessedcause.org/indoctr...1%20coverup.htm
What?s in the Quran / Koran:
http://www.blessedcause.org/Quran.htm

Roguish Lawyer

08-01-2005, 11:25

Concur with TR.

Doc

Me too. Excellent point.

NousDefionsDoc

08-01-2005, 12:01

Me three. My hopes aren't high.

Peregrino

08-01-2005, 12:27

Me too! Muslims can either do a "controlled burn" and get rid of the detritus on the forest floor or leave it alone and see what happens when the flames get into the treetops. (Ask Mr. Harsey how he feels about crown fires.) Anybody excusing Islamic violence or denying that the Quran explicitely condones/demands violence against non-Muslims and "apostates" is at best a Quisling; we won't discuss the "at worst" case. My .02 - Peregrino

Sigi

08-01-2005, 21:33

We have interned our citizens and deported our detractors, waged total war, and unleashed Hell on Earth before. If the Muslims do not help get this under control, assist us with tracking these people down, and drag themselves and their faith into the 21st Century, the day may come when we DO have to view all Muslims as threats and deal with them accordingly.

What would we do if NYC, LA, and Chicago were burned off the face of the planet tomorrow, or hemorraghic plague were to kill millions of our people, in the name of Allah? Blame the 19 directly responsible, or their supporters and enablers?

Sometimes I think we are waiting for the inevitable tragedy to occur, as if 9/11 wasn't enough. Well said, Sir.

CoLawman

08-02-2005, 21:01

I'm on board with TR

Sacamuelas

08-25-2005, 10:01

On August 01, 2005 posting to the Islamic Renewal Organization, (link edited out by Saca) by Firas on behalf of Ansar al-Sunnah offered a very clear answer to the question “What do they want?” Ansar al-Sunnah wants the entire world under Islamic law and even disparages the Arab countries currently “posing” as Islamic rulers. Note that they also dismiss all possibility of compromise or to even accept dhimmi status of non-Muslims. Finally, it is very clear that the “lesser jihad” or the fighting jihad is the only acceptable means to the end and that it is an obligation, not a choice.

Posted to the Islamic Renewal Organization, link edited out by Saca by Firas on behalf of Ansar al-Sunnah. Original language: Arabic

Today, the Islamic Nation has no succession, no country, no dominance, and no land. It is taken up by the infidel and the apostate, and its people are ruled by unbelieving tyrants with positive laws and forced establishment. Its land has been divided by the infidel nations with untrue and unjustified borders which were dictated to us by the occupying infidels and [Islamic] leaders who exchanged our religion in atheism and branded our generations as slaves.

As for penetrating the enemy lines and deploying agents among different services, this is permissible as long as it causes harm to the enemy as mentioned by most scholars. It is not permissible to penetrate enemy lines to bring about peaceful coexistence, secured living, and personal interest. By commingling, the nation's cause will be lost as it was to so many previous generations [who existed among blasphemous nations].

The inevitable obligation of our time is to follow the tradition of the messenger of God -- May God's peace and prayers be upon him -- by fighting against the polytheists, apostates, and reviving this obligation and keeping firm to revive the nation's sovereignty and enablement
__________________________________________________ _______________

Al-Qa’ida Claims to have Killed Two Algerian Diplomats

On July 27, "Al-Rifi," a contributor to the "Islamic" forum of the Ana al-Muslim website, posted a statement issued by Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi's al-Qa'ida of Jihad Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn], in which the group announced the execution of two Algerian diplomats.

The statement calls the nation of Algeria a “tyrant state,” and accuses it of “hurting Muslims and launching the war against them.”

Posted to the Ana al-Muslim web site on July 27, 2005:
Statement issued by Al-Qa’ida Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [ Iraq ]
Original language: Arabic

"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

Oh God, guide our aim and keep our feet firm.

Praise be to God, Who elevated Islam with His support, humiliated polytheism with His might, ordained the vicissitudes of affairs with His commandment, lured the infidels with His cunning, and destined the alteration of the days with His justice. Prayers and peace be upon the one through whose sword God raised the guiding light of Islam.

Today, Wednesday, 19 Jumada al-Thani 1426, corresponding to 27 July 2005, your brothers in the military wing of al-Qa'ida [of Jihad] Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers carried out the verdict of the legal court, which based its verdict on God's command to kill all the polytheists, and also according to the saying of the Prophet, may God's peace and prayers be upon him, who said, 'Kill [Muslims] whosoever changes his faith,' by executing the Chief of the Algerian Mission Ali Bil'arussi, and Izz al-Din Binqadi [referred to later as Balqadi], the diplomatic attache. These are the emissaries of the State of Algeria, which rules with laws other than God's, allied itself with the Jews and the Christians, sent those two apostates in support of the US presence in the Land of the Two Rivers, and followed in their footsteps. 'And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them' [Koranic verse].

We have seen the world's reaction that has not settled yet, when we took those two apostates into custody, while no one seemed to pay attention when the crusaders arrested two innocent women in Iraq . Now having seen what the US has done to Muslims in Iraq , shedding blood, violating honor, and raping women. The states of vice speed up the pace and help the US and stand with those enemies of God. We ask, did the tyrant Arab states not boycott Israel , having claimed that Israel occupied fraternal Arab country? So, what is the reason behind the hurry to help the Jews and the Christians in their aggression against the Muslims in the Land of the Two Rivers? The sight of gold in the goldmine does not imply its precious value. The state of Algeria, the Arab Tyrants, the Western states, and the US have all come form the same hole, the hole of hellfire. Some people are calling on us to release those apostates without carrying out God's verdict; we would like to tell them that no one can intercede to stop [the carrying out of] one of God's laws. We can never forget what the State of Algeria has committed against the Muslims; bloodshed, killing, and destruction. We will not forget what the diplomatic attache Izz al-Din Balqadi did. He was one of those who participated in the massacres of Al-Rayis and Ibn-Talha, which they falsely attributed to the mujahidin and resulted in hundreds of Algerian Muslim victims. As a reward for his performance, sincerity and dedication to the task at hand, he [the diplomatic attache], along with a number of his aides, was promoted from the rank of lieutenant to the rank of major in the Intelligence Bureau.

We have not forgotten what the tyrant state of Algeria does today, hurting Muslims and launching the war against them, particularly the Salafi Group for the Call and Combat, may God protect them and guide their aim.

Have we not warned you, you enemies of God, not to ally yourselves with the Jews and the Christians, and stand in line with the US and follow their plots? Now, we reiterate that the Land of the Two Rivers is no longer safe for the enemies of God; rather, it is fire that will burn all those who follow blasphemy.

Praise be to God, the ones who captured the two Algerians, captured them from among the police force in the middle of Baghdad . Praise be to God, the members of the brigade that captured them managed to return safely, after God bestowed His victory and enabled them [to complete their task]. None of the members was captured. Praise and thanks be to God.

God is Great, God is Great. Glory be to God, His messenger, and the mujahidin."
__________________________________________________ ____________

Al-Qa’ida statement says two Algerian diplomats have been “sentenced to death”

On July 26, "Murasil Akhbar 4," the moderator of the World News Network forum, posted a statement issued by the Al-Qa' ida Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [Tanzim Al-Qa ' ida fi Bilad al-Rafidayn] in which the group announced a decision by its Shari' ah Court to execute the two Algerian diplomats held captive in Iraq.

Within this statement, the group claims to have jurisdiction within their own Shari’ah court for the passing of this death sentence over other “contemporary despotic governments,” claiming that those governments’ actions have made their representatives legitimate targets for the “mujahidin’s swords.”

Posted by the moderator of the World News Network forum on July 26, 2005:
Statement issued by Al-Qa’ida Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [ Iraq ]
Original language: Arabic

"Statement issued by the Shari' ah Court

The court' s decision on the Algerian envoys

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Praise be to God, who says: "In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding." [part of a Koranic verse]. May God ' s peace and blessings be upon he who obeyed the Sunnah and [the Holy] Book [Prophet Muhammad], upon his household and good companions, and also upon those who follow them charitably until doomsday.

Due to the apostasy of the contemporary despotic governments that gave their legislation and constitutions precedence over God ' s shari ' ah and injunctions, that ruled Muslims evoking instruments other than the Islamic shari ' ah, that did not make do with this, but also fought those who called for obeying the auspicious shari ' ah, killed honest mujahidin and God-fearing scholars, and supported Jews, Christians, and infidels in the course of their war against Islam and Muslims; the ambassadors of these governments and their representatives wherever they are have become legitimate targets for the mujahidin ' s swords. God says: "Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them." [Part of a Koranic verse]

The prophet, may God ' s peace and blessings be upon him, says: "Kill whoever changes his religion." This hadith is related by Al-Bukhari.

Based on the above, the Shari ' ah Court of the Al-Qa ' ida Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers has decided to carry out God ' s ruling on the diplomatic envoys of the apostate Algerian Government, who are Chief of Mission Ali Belaroussi and diplomatic attache Azzedine Belkadi by killing them.

This is the ruling that also applies to the ambassadors and envoys of the remainder of the infidel governments. There can be no destiny for them except killing. Praise be to God, backer of the mujahidin.

May God ' s peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, upon his household, and upon all his companions.

God is Great. God is Great. Pride belongs to God, to his messenger, and to the mujahidin.

magician

08-25-2005, 11:30

And there it is.

That journalist, for once, brought these matters into a clear and unambiguous light.

It is the Sharia, and the dream of a Caliphate, that is driving Muslim fundamentalists. They consider any Muslim who does not subscribe to their own interpretations of scripture to be an apostate, and this is the heart of the conflict between Shia and Sunni.

The Taliban implemented an Islamic state. They were a model, an example, of how any future Islamic state founded upon Sharia law would appear.

The madrasas are funded by any number of Islamic charities, and they do preach an unreconstructed, fundamentalist form of Islam. This problem is global. There are madrasas everywhere. These Islamic charities are primarily Saudi.

I think that TR is correct: our own Western traditions of tolerance work to our own detriment. We have a long tradition of freedom of worship. In this case, that tradition is incompatible with the defense of our societies and values, and a continuing hands-off policy towards the madrasas, the Islamic charities, and the basic contradictions inherent in Saudi policies only prolongues the inevitable.

The last century was the century of the conflict between communism and democracy.

This century will be the century of conflict between those who seek to establish an Islamic Cailphate and the rest of us.

God forbid that the next terrorist attack on US soil incorporates weapons of mass destruction. Nothing should be so feared on the planet as an America united in a demand for vengeance.

Team Sergeant

09-15-2005, 12:02

Who would have ever thought......

Notice how the iranian president mentions he will share with other "islamic nations" not nations in need of nuclear power, but "islamic nations". let's keep our heads in the sand and "hope" all the other islamic nations he shares irans nuclear tech with are all just as level headed as the iranian people. :rolleyes:

TS

Iran Willing to Share Nuclear Technology
Sep 15 12:30 PM US/Eastern

By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran

Iran is willing to provide other Islamic nations with nuclear technology, Iran's hard-line president said Thursday.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the comments after meeting Turkey's prime minister on the sidelines of a gathering of world leaders at the United Nations, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.

Ahmadinejad repeated promises that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons, IRNA reported. Then he added: "Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need."

Iran has said it is determined to pursue its nuclear program to process uranium and produce energy, despite European attempts to limit it. The United States accuses Tehran of secretly seeking to develop nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.

___

Associated Press Write George Jahn contributed to this report from Vienna.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/15/D8CKQ3G00.html

ghuinness

09-18-2005, 20:18

No big surprise here, but with the charade that is continuing at the UN thought I would post this.

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_9657.shtml

The dispute between Iran and the West on the nuclear issue can be summed up by the answer to one main question: When Iran says that it's interested in developing nuclear capacity, what does it mean?

Ali Larijani, the new secretary of the "Supreme Council for National Security" in Iran, went on a lot of trouble this week to convince the western press that Iran's intension is to gain nuclear capacity for peaceful use only. At the same time, his own brother, Mohammed Javad Larijani, who is also the head of the Physics Research Center in Iran, told an Iranian audience a completely different story.

During a speech he made at a conference on "Nuclear Technology and the Iranian people's will" on August 1st, Mohammed Javad Larijani told his audience that "It is our right to have nuclear defense and we will not be ready to give up this right..." and that "Iran's dispute with the West should have been over nuclear weapon production rather than over the nuclear fuel cycle...."

Team Sergeant

10-02-2005, 09:20

So if we're not at war with islam then would someone explain the Bali bombings? To free Indonesia? To rid Indonesia of the American military presence? (oops, there is no American military presence in Indonesia.) Or maybe, just as saudi arabia, the moslem majority does not want ANY western influence in their "mainstream" moslem majority country? This is my thoughts as the targets were tourists, western tourists.

Officials Eye Al Qaeda in Bali Bombings
Sunday, October 02, 2005

BALI, Indonesia — Indonesia (search) said Sunday it suspected two fugitives linked to Al Qaeda had masterminded the homicide bombings of crowded restaurants in tourist resorts on the Indonesian island of Bali that killed at least 26 people and injured more than 100.
Maj. Gen. Ansyaad Mbai (search), a top Indonesian anti-terror official, identified the two suspected masterminds as Malaysians alleged to be key members of the Al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah terror group. They are also accused of orchestrating the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, as well as two other attacks in the Indonesian capital in 2003 and 2004. The nightclub bombings, which also struck venues crowded with tourists on a Saturday night, killed 202 people, most of them foreigners.
In the latest attacks, three homicide bombers wearing explosive vests set off near-simultaneous explosions that devastated three restaurants crowded with diners on Saturday night.
"The modus operandi of Saturday's attacks is the same as the earlier ones," said Mbai, who identified the two suspected masterminds as Azahari bin Husin (search) and Noordin Mohamed Top.
He said the two were not believed to be among the three homicide attackers. The assailants' remains were found at the bombing scenes but they have not yet been identified, he said.
(Story continues below)
"I have seen them. All that is left is their head and feet," he told The Associated Press. "By the evidence we can conclude the bombers were carrying the explosives around their waists."
Video footage of one of the blasts showed groups of tourists, many of them apparently Westerners, seated at candlelit tables talking and sipping drinks in the seconds before the explosion. The footage, obtained by Associated Press Television News, then shows a bright flash accompanied by a loud bang and gusts of black smoke.
It was not immediately clear whether the three homicide bombers were included in the death toll which climbed to 26 on Sunday, according to Sanglah Hospital spokesman Putu Putra Wisada. Six Americans were among the injured.
Long lines formed at checkout counters at Bali's international airport with a steady stream of taxis dropping off passengers.
"We were up all night trying to change our ticket," said Veli-Matti Enqvist, 51, who had been scheduled to leave Bali with his wife on Wednesday. The couple was walking on the beach when they heard the blasts. "We finally found something ... we're going."
After the 2002 bombings, there was an immediate and massive evacuation of foreign visitors which devastated the island's tourist industry.
The latest bombings struck two seafood cafes in the Jimbaran beach resort and a three-story noodle and steakhouse in downtown Kuta. Kuta is the bustling tourist center of Bali where the two nightclubs were bombed three years ago.
The latest attacks came a month after Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono warned of possible terrorist attacks. On Saturday, he blamed terrorists and warned that more attacks were possible. The president was in Bali on Sunday to see the devastation firsthand.
"We will hunt down the perpetrators and bring them to justice," he said.
Western and Indonesian intelligence agencies have warned repeatedly that Jemaah Islamiyah was plotting more attacks in the world's most populous Muslim country. Last month, Yudhoyono said he was especially worried the extremist network was about to strike."I received information at the time that terrorists were planning an action in Jakarta and that explosives were ready," he said Saturday.
Dozens of people, most of them Indonesian, waited in tears outside the morgue in Sanglah Hospital, near the island's capital Denpasar, for news of friends and relatives missing since the attacks.
One Australian and a Japanese citizen were among those killed, along with 12 Indonesians. Hospital officials were trying to identify the other victims.
The 101 wounded included 49 Indonesians, 17 Australians, six Americans, six Koreans, four Japanese, officials said.
The White House condemned the "attack aimed at innocent people taking their evening meal."
"We also express our solidarity with the government of Indonesia and convey our readiness to assist in any way," spokeswoman Erin Healy said.
The bombers struck at about 8 p.m. as thousands of diners flocked to restaurants in tourist areas on the bustling, mostly Hindu island, which was just starting to recover from the 2002 blasts.
The head waiter at the Menega Cafe said the bomb went off at his beachside restaurant between the tables of two large dinner parties, who were sitting in the sand. Most of the 120 diners at the restaurant were Indonesian, he said.
"Everyone started screaming "Allah, Allah, help!" said Wayan Subagia, 23, who escaped with injuries to his leg. "One woman rushed to pick up her child but the little girl was already dead."
Minutes later he heard another blast at the Nyoman seafood restaurant, about 50 yards away.
At almost the same time about 18 miles away in Kuta, a bomb exploded at the three-story Raja restaurant in a bustling outdoor shopping center. The area includes a KFC fast-food restaurant, clothing stores and a tourist information center.
Smoke poured from the badly damaged building.
The bomb apparently went off on the restaurant's second floor, and an Associated Press reporter saw at least three bodies and five wounded people there.
Before the 2002 bombings, Bali enjoyed a reputation for peace and tranquility, an exception in a country wracked for years by ethnic and separatist violence.
Courts on Bali have convicted dozens of militants for the blasts, and three suspects were sentenced to death.
Since the 2002 attacks, Jemaah Islamiyah has been tied to at least two other bombings in Indonesia, both in Jakarta. Those blasts, one outside the Australian Embassy in 2004 and the other at the J.W. Marriott hotel in 2003, killed at least 23.
The group's alleged spiritual leader, Abu Bakar Bashir, who has been jailed for conspiracy in the 2002 attacks, through a spokesman denied any personal connection to the weekend explosions. There was no statement from the group, which wants to establish an Islamic state across Southeast Asia.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170994,00.html

HOLLiS

10-02-2005, 10:12

TS, exactly. From as long as I can remember the Islamic clerics have been blaming the West for the Deen of Islam fading. Our TV, internet, movies etc is causing Muslim to leave Islam or not be "good" muslims. Their goal is simple, the destruction of the anything that interferes with Islam.

I believe there is a Sura in the Qur'an that mentions the obligation of Muslim to make Islam the religion of the world and all "non-Muslims" must be subdued/destroyed.

CoLawman

10-02-2005, 10:16

[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]So if we're not at war with islam then would someone explain the Bali bombings? To free Indonesia? To rid Indonesia of the American military presence? (oops, there is no American military presence in Indonesia.) Or maybe, just as saudi arabia, the moslem majority does not want ANY western influence in their "mainstream" moslem majority country? This is my thoughts as the targets were tourists, western tourists.

To Free Indonesia?

Absolutely.... Of any western influence, even if it is tourism!

Indonesia is the world's most populous nation with 88% of it's 220 million population being Muslim. They are the only southeast Asian country to be a member of OPEC. Yet they have to import oil due to lack of investment in exploration and extraction of same.

It seems to me that anywhere Muslims are in control, or are the conscience of the government (Saudia Arabia comes to mind), DYSFUNCTIONAL is the adjective that best defines the country.

Martin

10-02-2005, 12:29

Team Sergeant

10-02-2005, 14:37

Just one thing that I find a little odd about this proposal in regard to Indonesia: Then why isn't the whole population out on the streets to rid their country of the infidels?

Martin

I would/will address this after some thought, but for now remember most of the masses are "sheeple".

To allow such atrocities without an "enormous" outcry from the sheeple majority is, IMO, a passive go ahead or nod of approval.

TS
Unbeliever

frostfire

10-03-2005, 08:55

Just one thing that I find a little odd about this proposal in regard to Indonesia: Then why isn't the whole population out on the streets to rid their country of the infidels?
My thoughts:
It seems like the government would have a hard time keeping that under wraps.

just an eye-witness account:

When I was there, cinemas (American movies) are packed more than they are packed here, fastfood esp. McDonalds (American food) are crowded nearly 24/7, people would spend 2 days to 2 weeks worth of salary for BigMac...and feeling "cool like in the movies," folks were also following the silly red carpet ordeal, fashion, etc. etc. you got the point.

To get the whole population out on the streets, the radicals have to bring the rest of the "believers" to their level of commitment.
....and they do, non-stop. If you dig recent Jakarta Post articles, the radicals are banning less-radical teachings and destroying their mosques and houses.

I'm looking forward to the day when they face the consequences of oppressing freedom.

Doc

10-08-2005, 16:38

End beheadings – shoot hostages, orders al-Qaeda
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

AL-QAEDA has abandoned hope of defeating the US-backed Government in Afghanistan and instead is concentrating on driving American forces from Iraq, even if that means ditching its brutal methods.

According to the Pentagon, the strategy is set out in a 6,000-word letter sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, in July.

Al-Zawahiri warns al-Zarqawi that his brutal tactics, which include beheading Western hostages, killing hundreds of Shia Muslim civilians and murdering Iraqi officials, could alienate Muslim public opinion. He allegedly recommends shooting, not decapitating, prisoners.

The letter, which the US military claims was intercepted in Iraq, makes clear that al-Qaeda aims to spread jihad to other Arab states and Israel.

Al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian doctor, is al-Qaeda’s ideological head and responsible for its day-to-day operations. In August he claimed responsibility for the July 7 bombings. His letter offers al-Zarqawi advice on tactics and a grand vision for the next stage in the jihad against the West and its Middle Eastern allies.

He predicts victory in Iraq — which he calls the site of “the greatest battle of Islam in this era” — but insists that it is only the first stage of a campaign across the Arab world. He sets out how an Islamic Caliphate must be established in Iraq and then the war taken to neighbouring Syria, from there to Lebanon, then Egypt and finally a battle to destroy Israel.

He considers a clash between Sunni and Shia Islam inevitable but questions the wisdom of bombing Shia targets and reminds al-Zarqawi that half of the battle against America is being fought through the media.

However, beheadings and suicide bomb attacks against Shia targets have continued unabated. This could indicate that al-Qaeda lacks control over al-Zarqawi. Although respected among Islamic militants, al- Zawahiri is a fugitive living on the Afghan-Pakistani border, while bin Laden has not been heard of for nearly a year.

Al-Zawahiri admits that al-Qaeda’s lines of communication and funding have been severly disrupted.

Doc

Also a non-believer

Bellerophon

10-19-2005, 20:29

According to the Pentagon, the strategy is set out in a 6,000-word letter sent by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, in July.

Is this the letter? http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html

Team Sergeant

10-28-2005, 09:57

I believe we’ve made a colossal mistake and should lay down our arms and embrace islam. It’s quite apparent the world’s islamic leaders mean the western world no harm.

Team Sergeant
Disarming for allah.

(hey former president carter, its once again time to take your southern baptist habitat building ass over to iran and negotiate world peace, again. Be sure to take the Rev al sharpton, jesse Jackson, diane feinstein and ted kennedy so the iranians know that you mean business.:mad: )

Iranians Rally Against Israel, U.S.
Friday, October 28, 2005

TEHRAN, Iran — Tens of thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel demonstrations across the country Friday, repeating calls by their ultraconservative president for the destruction of the Jewish state.
World leaders have condemned Wednesday's remarks by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who repeated the words of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic revolution, by saying: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173784,00.html

casey

10-28-2005, 10:11

(hey former president carter, its once again time to take your southern baptist habitat building ass over to iran and negotiate world peace, again. Be sure to take the Rev al sharpton, jesse Jackson, diane feinstein and ted kennedy so the iranians know that you mean business.

You may be on to something here TS.... After all, if carter and crew just explain to the misunderstood religion of peace represenatives that they really want to "get they're story of peace and tolerance to the world" all would be well again. Hey, that "lets sit and talk" tact worked well for Daniel Pearl during his interview with the JM group in Pakistan, right???

I will put up the money so as to add cindy sheehan to that bus/boat trip.

QRQ 30

10-28-2005, 12:31

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47103

aricbcool

10-28-2005, 17:41

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47103

QRQ 30,

Good read. Thanks for posting it.

--Aric

Martin

10-29-2005, 04:24

E-Qaeda: A special report on how jihadists use the Internet and technology to spread their message (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/08/05/CU2005080501141.html?whichDay=1) (video, Washington Post).

Martin

jatx

11-02-2005, 11:53

A Year of Living Dangerously
Remember Theo van Gogh, and shudder for the future.

BY FRANCIS FUKUYAMA
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
One year ago today, the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh had his throat ritually slit by Mohamed Bouyeri, a Muslim born in Holland who spoke fluent Dutch. This event has totally transformed Dutch politics, leading to stepped-up police controls that have now virtually shut off new immigration there. Together with the July 7 bombings in London (also perpetrated by second generation Muslims who were British citizens), this event should also change dramatically our view of the nature of the threat from radical Islamism.

We have tended to see jihadist terrorism as something produced in dysfunctional parts of the world, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan or the Middle East, and exported to Western countries. Protecting ourselves is a matter either of walling ourselves off, or, for the Bush administration, going "over there" and trying to fix the problem at its source by promoting democracy.

There is good reason for thinking, however, that a critical source of contemporary radical Islamism lies not in the Middle East, but in Western Europe. In addition to Bouyeri and the London bombers, the March 11 Madrid bombers and ringleaders of the September 11 attacks such as Mohamed Atta were radicalized in Europe. In the Netherlands, where upwards of 6% of the population is Muslim, there is plenty of radicalism despite the fact that Holland is both modern and democratic. And there exists no option for walling the Netherlands off from this problem.

We profoundly misunderstand contemporary Islamist ideology when we see it as an assertion of traditional Muslim values or culture. In a traditional Muslim country, your religious identity is not a matter of choice; you receive it, along with your social status, customs and habits, even your future marriage partner, from your social environment. In such a society there is no confusion as to who you are, since your identity is given to you and sanctioned by all of the society's institutions, from the family to the mosque to the state.
The same is not true for a Muslim who lives as an immigrant in a suburb of Amsterdam or Paris. All of a sudden, your identity is up for grabs; you have seemingly infinite choices in deciding how far you want to try to integrate into the surrounding, non-Muslim society. In his book "Globalized Islam" (2004), the French scholar Olivier Roy argues persuasively that contemporary radicalism is precisely the product of the "deterritorialization" of Islam, which strips Muslim identity of all of the social supports it receives in a traditional Muslim society.

The identity problem is particularly severe for second- and third-generation children of immigrants. They grow up outside the traditional culture of their parents, but unlike most newcomers to the United States, few feel truly accepted by the surrounding society.

Contemporary Europeans downplay national identity in favor of an open, tolerant, "post-national" Europeanness. But the Dutch, Germans, French and others all retain a strong sense of their national identity, and, to differing degrees, it is one that is not accessible to people coming from Turkey, Morocco or Pakistan. Integration is further inhibited by the fact that rigid European labor laws have made low-skill jobs hard to find for recent immigrants or their children. A significant proportion of immigrants are on welfare, meaning that they do not have the dignity of contributing through their labor to the surrounding society. They and their children understand themselves as outsiders.

It is in this context that someone like Osama bin Laden appears, offering young converts a universalistic, pure version of Islam that has been stripped of its local saints, customs and traditions. Radical Islamism tells them exactly who they are--respected members of a global Muslim umma to which they can belong despite their lives in lands of unbelief. Religion is no longer supported, as in a true Muslim society, through conformity to a host of external social customs and observances; rather it is more a question of inward belief. Hence Mr. Roy's comparison of modern Islamism to the Protestant Reformation, which similarly turned religion inward and stripped it of its external rituals and social supports.

If this is in fact an accurate description of an important source of radicalism, several conclusions follow. First, the challenge that Islamism represents is not a strange and unfamiliar one. Rapid transition to modernity has long spawned radicalization; we have seen the exact same forms of alienation among those young people who in earlier generations became anarchists, Bolsheviks, fascists or members of the Bader-Meinhof gang. The ideology changes but the underlying psychology does not.

Further, radical Islamism is as much a product of modernization and globalization as it is a religious phenomenon; it would not be nearly as intense if Muslims could not travel, surf the Web, or become otherwise disconnected from their culture. This means that "fixing" the Middle East by bringing modernization and democracy to countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will not solve the terrorism problem, but may in the short run make the problem worse. Democracy and modernization in the Muslim world are desirable for their own sake, but we will continue to have a big problem with terrorism in Europe regardless of what happens there.

The real challenge for democracy lies in Europe, where the problem is an internal one of integrating large numbers of angry young Muslims and doing so in a way that does not provoke an even angrier backlash from right-wing populists. Two things need to happen: First, countries like Holland and Britain need to reverse the counterproductive multiculturalist policies that sheltered radicalism, and crack down on extremists. But second, they also need to reformulate their definitions of national identity to be more accepting of people from non-Western backgrounds.

The first has already begun to happen. In recent months, both the Dutch and British have in fact come to an overdue recognition that the old version of multiculturalism they formerly practiced was dangerous and counterproductive. Liberal tolerance was interpreted as respect not for the rights of individuals, but of groups, some of whom were themselves intolerant (by, for example, dictating whom their daughters could befriend or marry). Out of a misplaced sense of respect for other cultures, Muslims minorities were left to regulate their own behavior, an attitude which dovetailed with a traditional European corporatist approaches to social organization. In Holland, where the state supports separate Catholic, Protestant and socialist schools, it was easy enough to add a Muslim "pillar" that quickly turned into a ghetto disconnected from the surrounding society.

New policies to reduce the separateness of the Muslim community, like laws discouraging the importation of brides from the Middle East, have been put in place in the Netherlands. The Dutch and British police have been given new powers to monitor, detain and expel inflammatory clerics. But the much more difficult problem remains of fashioning a national identity that will connect citizens of all religions and ethnicities in a common democratic culture, as the American creed has served to unite new immigrants to the United States.

Since van Gogh's murder, the Dutch have embarked on a vigorous and often impolitic debate on what it means to be Dutch, with some demanding of immigrants not just an ability to speak Dutch, but a detailed knowledge of Dutch history and culture that many Dutch people do not have themselves. But national identity has to be a source of inclusion, not exclusion; nor can it be based, contrary to the assertion of the gay Dutch politician Pym Fortuyn who was assassinated in 2003, on endless tolerance and valuelessness. The Dutch have at least broken through the stifling barrier of political correctness that has prevented most other European countries from even beginning a discussion of the interconnected issues of identity, culture and immigration. But getting the national identity question right is a delicate and elusive task.
Many Europeans assert that the American melting pot cannot be transported to European soil. Identity there remains rooted in blood, soil and ancient shared memory. This may be true, but if so, democracy in Europe will be in big trouble in the future as Muslims become an ever larger percentage of the population. And since Europe is today one of the main battlegrounds of the war on terrorism, this reality will matter for the rest of us as well.

Mr. Fukuyama is professor of international political economy at Johns Hopkins and chairman of the editorial board of The American Interest.

Martin

11-02-2005, 14:49

There was a really good article linked to on RealClearPolitics a few weeks ago, where the case was made by Jews that for someone to be integrated they need something to integrate to.

You do no one a service by forgetting and forgiving who you are to accomodate someone else who probably don't have a clue how he or she is expected to act and has no basis, hence no reason, for adaption. That means to not forget responsibility when sharing freedom. Requiring responsibility will raise the stakes immediately and make pretty clear where people are heading.

TS, regarding my previous question to you. I don't have an answer, and to be perfectly frank you make a lot of sense. If one is asked to judge a game and you close your eyes as a specific team's member is tripped, you're at least not on that team's side.

I have a problem in addressing the question, because even though I have met my fair share of immigrants from the middle east, Magreb and Malaysia/Singapore, read and talked to a few knowledgeable people, my experience in dealing with these Muslims is limited - I don't have a clear fix on their world view. The QPs opinions weigh heavily, you have a tendancy to be right.

With that said, I'm thinking that long term and cultural fear's effect on the person may have something to do with the answer of why the west is still allowed there - complacency - as well as need and greed, and image. But I really don't know, that's why I asked.

Martin

jatx

11-03-2005, 14:32

Not to beat a dead horse after my Fukuyama post abpve, but I am more worried about the products of French suburbs (and others like them) than I am about madrassas in Muslim nations. They are producing mass quantities of alienated, angry Islamic youths who can move easily through Western society without causing alarm. :munchin

Chirac Appeals for Calm as Violent Protests Shake Paris's Suburbs

By CRAIG S. SMITH

Six nights of violence in the city's immigrant-heavy northern suburbs threatened to spiral into a political crisis.
The violence, primarily the burning of cars, began as a protest over the deaths last Thursday of two North African youths who were electrocuted when they jumped over a fence surrounding a high-voltage electrical transformer. Some relatives and witnesses said the youths were running from the police, though the official account said the police were not pursuing them.

But as the car-burning spread from Clichy-sous-Bois, the suburb where the youths died, to neighboring suburbs on Wednesday, the government expressed concern that the incident could ignite broader unrest among frustrated first- and second-generation North African immigrants, who have borne the brunt of France's economic weakness.

"Emotions must quiet down," Mr. Chirac told government ministers on Wednesday, a government spokesman reported.

Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin has seized control of the government's response from his rival, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, in what appears to be an effort to assuage anger in the country's North African population over Mr. Sarkozy's blunt authoritative style. Mr. Sarkozy, who had raised temperatures with tough remarks this week, did not speak Wednesday at the government's weekly question-and-answer session before the legislature.

Burning cars as a form of protest is not unusual in the largely immigrant, working-class neighborhoods. Unemployment rates there are 30 percent or more, while the national rate is 10 percent. More than 20,000 cars have been set ablaze in France so far this year, according to a government report cited by the newspaper Le Figaro.

The periodic violence highlights France's failure to integrate immigrants into the country's broader society, a problem that has grown in urgency as the unemployment rate climbs. Most of the country's immigrants are housed in government-subsidized apartments on the outskirts of industrial cities. They benefit from generous welfare programs, but the government's failure to provide jobs has created a sense of disenfranchisement among the young. A highly observant form of Islam has grown popular among the mostly Muslim population.

But the spread of violence over six nights has particularly alarmed the government, which is already preoccupied by a contest between Mr. Villepin and Mr. Sarkozy to become the governing center-right party's presidential candidate in 2007.

Mr. Sarkozy has made zero tolerance of crime part of his tough law-and-order platform.

"If it continues, people will start to look for who to blame," said Dominique Reynié, a professor of French political life at the National Foundation of Political Sciences, referring to the violence.

According to an account by Mr. Sarkozy, the incident last week began when a group of youths in Clichy-sous-Bois were returning home after playing soccer and the police received a report that someone had broken into a nearby construction site. The police arrived, gave chase and took six youths into custody.

Mr. Sarkozy said police logs showed that the police and their detainees arrived at the local police station at 6 p.m., while a power failure caused when the two other youths made contact with the transformer did not occur until 12 minutes later. He said one youth who had survived the transformer episode confirmed that the police were not chasing him and his friends at the time.

Team Sergeant

11-03-2005, 15:59

jatx

11-03-2005, 16:10

Geeze it took you that long to figure that out?:rolleyes:

Now just where do you think the cowerdists are getting their sub-human, low IQ, islamic cruise missles from?

TS

Been worried for awhile, but the heat is definitely building! :D

frostfire

11-09-2005, 19:02

I think that the Muslims are further defining the conflict every day.

While I am a trained hearts and minds kind of guy, desperate times call for desperate measures. They are with us, or against us.

Before 9/11, I would have said that the potential for a global religious war was relatively low. Now I believe that it is approaching certainty.

With every additional act of butchery by Muslim extremists, encouraged by so many of their religious leaders, the attendant denials by their people, and the lack of Muslims taking actions against these swine on their own accord, these terrorists alienate more and more of the moderates (and apologists) around the world who have been urging caution.

Eventually, they are going to hit the infidel population hard enough that the gloves are going to come off and it will be open season in a real war on Islam. If pushed hard enough, we can push back. We have interned our citizens and deported our detractors, waged total war, and unleashed Hell on Earth before. If the Muslims do not help get this under control, assist us with tracking these people down, and drag themselves and their faith into the 21st Century, the day may come when we DO have to view all Muslims as threats and deal with them accordingly.

What would we do if NYC, LA, and Chicago were burned off the face of the planet tomorrow, or hemorraghic plague were to kill millions of our people, in the name of Allah? Blame the 19 directly responsible, or their supporters and enablers?

If the millions of "peaceful" Islamic people care about their future, they had better wise up quickly, before too much damage is done.

TR

History News Network, October 10, 2005
Selective Muslim Silence
By Judith Apter Klinghoffer
Ms. Klinghoffer is senior associate scholar at the Political Science department at Rutgers University, Camden, and the author of Vietnam, Jews and the Middle East. She is also an HNN blogger.

Where is the sane moderate peace loving Muslim world? Why is its voice so rarely raised in condemnation of Islamist atrocities? It is a question which has been raised in ever increasing urgency since 9/11 and not only by Westerners. A few Muslim commentators have raised it too, but they remained the exception rather than the rule. Last time I raised the issue, it was in the context of a number of cased involving the charge of “insulting Islam,” a charge which led to anti-Coptic riots as well as to the imprisoning a 78-year old Iranian Ayatolla and an Afghani editor of a woman’s magazine.

.........

However, the same Muslim countries, organizations and pundits can be plenty vocal and aggressive when in comes to protecting Islamists from the consequences of their own actions. In fact, they often support their causes. As human rights activist Abu Khwala explains, “fighting infidels until they either convert to Islam or submit to Muslims as 'Dhimmis' is still considered by Islamists to be a religious duty." Hence, any actions undertaken by Muslims towards that end must be vehemently defended with a total disregard of the means used and that is precisely what supposedly non Islamist Muslim leaders do.

Consider the following headline: "Muslim embassies complain over Mohammed caricatures." It all started with editors of Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper hearing reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. So, they asked cartoonists to send them drawings of Muhammad. “The cartoons,” they argue, “were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of _expression in Denmark.” It should be noted that Denmark, unlike Germany, has no laws prescribing free speech. In fact, for years Nazis and Islamists have used Denmark as a safe haven from which to continue to promote their heinous totalitarian ideologies.

Islamists may be happy to exploit Danish freedoms and publish material demeaning to Christians and Jews but what is good for the goose is apparently not good for the gander. The Muslim response came fast and furious. The Danish imam Raed Hlayhel dismissed arguments about free press arguing that "This type of democracy is worthless for Muslims. Muslims will never accept this kind of humiliation. The article has insulted every Muslim in the world." This same Imam shocked Danes when he said in a sermon during Friday prayer, that Danish women's behavior and dress invited rape. In any case, Muslim organizations not only protested vigorously. The cartoonists received death threats which led to the arrest of a 17 year old. Threats to bomb the building led to the positioning of security guards around it.

The affair was not only reminiscent of the Salman Rushdie affair but for the first time, as Danish political science professor Mehdi Mozaffari points out “acts of private individuals, and not the Danish state, could lead to the country falling prey to a terrorist attack.” The Middle East Times reports:

Last week as many as 5,000 Muslims demonstrated in Copenhagen against the paper and the drawings, which depicted Prophet Mohammed in different settings. In one of the drawings he appeared with a turban shaped like a bomb strapped to his head.

...........

Suddenly, the ever silent Muslims states found their tongues. 11 ambassadors including those from a number of Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Indonesia entered the fray not to calm the excesses of their coreligionists or condemn the threats of violence but to complain about the cartoons and Danish Islamophobia! The Turkish ambassador even seconded the Imam’s sentiments, berating the paper for “abusing Islam in the name of democracy, human rights and freedom of _expression.” The ambassadors wrote a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen notifying him that they were offended by the caricatures, demanding an official apology from the newspaper and asking for a special audience “to express their concern about what they perceive as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam campaigns in the press and certain far-right political circles.“ The Prime Minister turned down the request for a meeting pointing out that he (unlike Arab tyrants whose papers are full of anti-Semitic propaganda) has no control over the press.

At first, the Egyptian Ambassador Mona Omar Attia embarked on a direct political attack against the Prime Minister by telling a Danish news broadcast that the group planned to meet to discuss contacting other parliamentary leaders, some of whom had urged the PM to meet with the ambassadors. Eventually, a decision was reached “to let international Muslim groups take over the cause, allowing groups such as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to try to influence the prime minister.” “It's out of our hands,” said Egyptian ambassador Attia, “Now it is moving up to the international level. Therefore, we will not try to contact Denmark's political leaders.” One could imagine that “the Arab League will weigh in soon.”

So, here we are: part of the Muslim community is in the thrall of a totalitarian ideology which turns young Muslims into human bombs. Photos of Muslim and non Muslim civilian body parts flying in the middle of markets, mosques, discos and hotels have become routine. Beheadings of Christian and Jewish men and women are no longer surprising. And what do the ever-silent and passive-defensive Muslim countries, Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League vociferously condemn? They are condemning the publication of cartoons featuring Muhammad in a Danish paper. The absurdity of this action is only matched by its hypocrisy.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/17589.html

Martin

11-10-2005, 15:20

Not to dismiss the point of the article, Frostfire, but we need to keep in mind that we have not seen these caricatures. This is important because Denmark has become more xenophobic. I would not rule out that that the caricatures were distasteful. On the other hand, the reaction is still completely unproportional to everything else going on!

There has been grumblings between Swedish Folkpartiet and Danske Folkepartiet, non-related political parties, based on what some Swedes consider a growing xenophobia, not only in regards to Islam. Now, however, as the position grows in popularity, the Swedish Folkpartiet is trying to ride the wave too.

In the Swedish case it's not entirely bad, since it detracts members from more radical and true hate-parties, which would have been the only choice for those concerned with immigration here.

Martin

XDoc

12-01-2005, 10:08

an often forgoten PAM would be DA PAM 550-104 Human Factors and Considerations In Undergrounds and Insurgencies. It's a dry read but with a trained eye stuff will jump out at you. as the crux of the question is WHY are they fighting. Obviously they are motivated to fight but WHY. What the hell is motivating them? Theological motivation is the best motivator in the world and all throuough history. The next question is how do we remove the motivating stimulus? Look at the Saudies who is it that builds grand Mosques all throught the world yet when the Sunami hit they said it was because the place that it his was a sinful country and that she deserved what they got, well that explanes why the Saudies didn't give but a fraction of what the US did. The Saudies hold the Islamic world at their knees litteraly as the fith piller of the faith is to make the hadj pillgramage to Mecca. The Saudies are the BASE of the religion, get that, the BASE (al Qiedia= the base).

While in Bosnia did anyone think that it was odd that all of the Serbs, the Bosniacs, and the Croats were able to call it a Holy war yet the media could not. GOD forbid that the media call it what it was, no, they had to call it an ethnic war and ethnic clensing. What a load of crap. Everyone there knew what they were fighting for but the media knew that if they had called it what it was and said it was a Holy war that the US military would never have been commited to go in. The US would never get involved in a "Holy War". Thus there would be no story for the media to make their money.

Just because one party in the fight refuses to call it what it is dosen't mean that that is not what it is. The Islamist have been calling it a Holy war for years. Why is it so hard for us to call it that. Just because we are a polytheistic nation made up many beleafs and at times overly "tolerant" of others beliefs, does that mean that we can' t call it what the dictionary would.

How long did it take this administration to call the current situation in Iraq an "insurgency"

Call it what our opponits do and let's get on with it.
And now for the next question; How does a polytheistic nation fight a holy war?

Team Sergeant

12-01-2005, 10:55

an often forgoten PAM would be DA PAM 550-104 Human Factors and Considerations In Undergrounds and Insurgencies.

XDOC,

Learn to use the "search" button....:rolleyes: this "forgotten" DA PAM 550-104 has been discussed ad nauseum. Do you really think a website dedicated to Special Forces would forget? You forget with whom you're dealing with. Oh and BTW the actual title is "Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies"

Are you yourself SF or MI?

Team Sergeant
Master Sergeant
SF (ret)
Owner of DA PAM 550-104
Dated Sept 1966

Eagle5US

12-01-2005, 12:09

an often forgoten PAM would be DA PAM 550-104 Human Factors and Considerations In Undergrounds and Insurgencies. It's a dry read but with a trained eye stuff will jump out at you.
An often forgotten courtesy when visiting a new website would be to stop, look around, READ THE STICKYS, follow their guidelines-i.e. use of the search button; introducing yourself in the appropriate thread and so on.
These stickys can be a dry read, but stuff will jump out at you since it is specifically written for those without a trained eye.:rolleyes:

Eagle

BTW: When you answer TS's questions, be certain to validate the term "DOC" in your screen name.

Eagle

Doc

12-01-2005, 16:22

How long did it take this administration to call the current situation in Iraq an "insurgency"

Call it what our opponits do and let's get on with it.
And now for the next question; How does a polytheistic nation fight a holy war?

You need to post an introduction in the Base Camp forum under introductions too while you're at it. We like to know who we are dealing with to some degree.

Have a good one.

Doc

Jack Moroney (RIP)

12-20-2005, 15:24

Today was one of those rare days when I venture forth from the forest and go into what passes as civilization up here. On my way down Interstate 89, carefully avoiding the other five cars that I saw on my 35 mile trip, I was musing about this 72 virgin crap and trying to do the math. I mean just how many virgins do you actually need in paradise to take care of all these suicide bombers? Then it hit me as I passed the road sign indicating a "Bear Crossing". Trying to clear the image of a genuflecting bear making the sign of the cross with a jagged old furry paw, I realized you only need to have 72 virgins! Why you might ask? It is simple, these suicide bombers have all blown thier nuts off. And that was my revelation for the day as I wound my way thru the snow covered Great Northern Forest.

Jack Moroney-solver of great Islamic riddles & myths.

lrd

01-06-2006, 05:08

Interesting article by Mark Steyn:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Interview with Hugh Hewitt, discussing the article:

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001277

Pete

01-06-2006, 07:38

Interesting article by Mark Steyn:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Interview with Hugh Hewitt, discussing the article:

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001277

And some still wonder if we are at war with Islam.

200 years from now - a world under Islam - sounds scary to me.

jatx

01-06-2006, 08:46

Excellent article, thanks for posting.

Ronin556

01-10-2006, 22:58

I was musing about this 72 virgin crap and trying to do the math. I mean just how many virgins do you actually need in paradise to take care of all these suicide bombers?

What no one told them is those virgins are the fat chicks that no one wanted to make their 5th wife!
:D

hehe sorry. Couldn't resist.

Back to lurking.

NousDefionsDoc

02-17-2006, 19:00

So, are we at war with Islam or what?

Jack Moroney (RIP)

02-17-2006, 20:08

So, are we at war with Islam or what?

Actually Islam is at war with itself with the fundamentalists attempting to co-opt their religion. The fundamentalists are at war with the west as a way of showing their more timid brethern that Islam is all powerful because it currently has shown a strategic advantage over the west by attacking when and where it wants while demonstrating the impotence of cold war manuever doctrine developed for the plains of Europe as incapable of stemming their efforts. The west, not wanting to further inflame the muslim world, has declared a war on terror and refuses to identify the terrorist as being linked to Islamic Fundamentalists by name. The fundamentalists understand western culture better than the west understanding Islamic/fundamentalist culture and is playing on the west's lack of will for any insurgency and will wait us out while we die the death of a thousand cuts. US strategy is not tied to military necessity but political expediency and while unconventional warfare can play a major role in bringing about change within the target states that support terrorist activities and Islamic Fundamentalism there is no comprehensive campaign developed to do so that can withstand the political oversight and idiots who reside on captial hill who put their own careers ahead of the needs of the country. Just a simplified overview from a forest dweller where all avenues of approach are covered by surveillance and direct fire.

Gypsy

02-17-2006, 21:10

Colonel Sir, I wish there were more Men like you and our other QPs in our government today.

Ambush Master

02-17-2006, 21:22

Actually Islam is at war with itself with the fundamentalists attempting to co-opt their religion.........................

To Shite and Touchet Sir!! Very well put!!

Later
Martin

Roguish Lawyer

02-19-2006, 15:06

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060219/D8FS99201.html

Muslims Assault U.S. Embassy in Indonesia

Feb 19, 10:53 AM (ET)

By ALI KOTARUMALOS

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - Hundreds of Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad tried to storm the U.S. Embassy on Sunday, smashing the windows of a guard post but failing to push through the gates. Several people were injured.

Pakistani security forces, meanwhile, sealed off the capital of Islamabad to block a planned mass demonstration and fired tear gas and gunshots to chase off protesters. In Turkey, tens of thousands gathered in Istanbul chanting slogans against Denmark, Israel and the United States.

Protests over the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September and have been republished in other European publications and elsewhere, have swept across the Muslim world, growing into mass outlets for rage against the West in general, and Israel and the United States in particular.

Christians also have become targets. Pakistani Muslims protesting in the southern city of Sukkur ransacked and burned a church Sunday after hearing accusations that a Christian man had burned pages of the Quran, Islam's holy book.

That incident came a day after Muslims protesting in the Nigerian city of Maiduguri attacked Christians and burned 15 churches in a three-hour rampage that killed at least 15 people. Some 30 other people have died during protests over the cartoons that erupted about three weeks ago.

In Jakarta, about 400 people marched to the heavily fortified U.S. mission in the center of the city, behind a banner reading "We are ready to attack the enemies of the Prophet."

Protesters throwing stones and brandishing wooden staves tried to break through the gates. They set fire to U.S. flags and a poster of President Bush and smashed the windows of a guard outpost before dispersing after a few minutes.

The U.S. Embassy called the attacks deplorable, describing them as acts of "thuggery."

A protest organizer said the West, and particularly the United States, is attacking Islam.

"They want to destroy Islam through the issue of terrorism ... and all those things are engineered by the United States," said Maksuni, who only uses one name.

"We are fighting America fiercely this time," he said. "And we also are fighting Denmark."

In Pakistan, where protests last week left five people dead, police put up roadblocks around Islamabad to keep people from entering the capital for a planned mass protest called by a coalition of six hard-line Islamic parties, the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal - United Action Forum.

Authorities also detained several lawmakers and Islamic leaders during raids in three cities and announced they would arrest anyone joining a gathering of more than five people to prevent the demonstration.

Opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a senior figure in the Islamic coalition, was eventually given permission to lead a small rally through a square in the city center. The protesters chanted "God is great!" and "Any friend of America is a traitor."

But when about 100 other protesters tried to reach the square, officers fired tear gas and at least one gunshot to chase them off. More gunshots were heard later in the city, but it wasn't clear who fired them. At least two policemen were injured, one bleeding from the head. Several demonstrators also were hurt.

A crowd of 700 people, some throwing stones at police, tried to march toward Islamabad's heavily guarded diplomatic enclave about 1.3 miles from the square but with blocked by troops in armored personnel carriers.

Police also blocked about 1,500 protesters from reaching Islamabad from the city of Peshawar by putting shipping containers and sandbags on a bridge along a highway leading to the capital, said Mohammed Iqbal, a key member of the religious alliance.

Elsewhere in Pakistan, about 600 people staged a protest in Chaman, a town near the Afghan border, burning Danish flags and an effigy of the Danish prime minister.

Such protests prompted Denmark on Sunday to temporarily recall its ambassador to Pakistan, Bent Wigotski, because it was impossible for him "to perform his job duties during the present circumstances," the Danish Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Team Sergeant

02-20-2006, 11:44

Now why in the world would any intelligent being think we’re at war with islam?

Afghan cartoon protesters threaten to join al Qaeda
Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:43 AM ET Reuters 2006

By Dawood Wafa

JALALABAD, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Hundreds of Afghan students shouted support on Monday for Osama bin Laden and threatened to join al Qaeda during a protest against cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad.
In an attempt to cool the controversy after a weekend of rioting in countries including Nigeria, where 28 people were killed, and Libya, where 11 died, Pope Benedict said the world's religions and their symbols had to be respected.
Pakistan's main Islamist alliance vowed to broaden its campaign with more protests targeted at the U.S. and Pakistani presidents.
The protest in the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad passed off without violence. Students gathered at the university campus chanted "Death to Denmark", "Death to America" and "Death to France", a witness said.
They also shouted support for al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahri.
Shouting "Death to Karzai", they demanded President Hamid Karzai close the embassies of Denmark, the United States and France and expel their forces from Afghanistan.
"If they abuse the Prophet of Islam again we will all become al Qaeda," the students shouted.
Two weeks ago in Afghanistan, at least 10 people were killed in several days of protests over the cartoons but violent demonstrations there have largely petered out.
VIOLENCE
The cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper last year and reprinted in European papers, have sparked worldwide protests by Muslims who believe it is blasphemous to depict the Prophet.
In a speech to the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican, the Pope said: "In order to promote peace and understanding between peoples and mankind it is both vital and urgent that religions and their symbols are respected and that believers are not the object of provocations that wound their religious feelings." Continued ...

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-20T164249Z_01_SP306320_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS.xml&rpc=22

Team Sergeant
Infidel
And I laughed at the cartoons......

Pete

02-20-2006, 15:31

Now why in the world would any intelligent being think we’re at war with islam?
.............................
Team Sergeant
Infidel
And I laughed at the cartoons......

I still find it hard to understand why a lot of people think we are NOT at war with Islam.

There is something very wrong with a "religion" that spins it's members up into this kind of reaction over some cartoons.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Christians did some really crappy things in the past, and so did most other religions. But Islam has not gone through the reformation period that most main religions have. It's still stuck in the 13th century.

Until the moderates force the religion through it's reformation Islam is like a mad dog running down the street. Kill it or get out of the way.

jatx

02-22-2006, 08:25

February 22, 2006
Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
and HASSAN M. FATTAH
AMMAN, Jordan, Feb. 21 — In a direct challenge to the international uproar over cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, the Jordanian journalist Jihad Momani wrote: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras, or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony?"

In Yemen, an editorial by Muhammad al-Assadi condemned the cartoons but also lamented the way many Muslims reacted. "Muslims had an opportunity to educate the world about the merits of the Prophet Muhammad and the peacefulness of the religion he had come with," Mr. Assadi wrote. He added, "Muslims know how to lose, better than how to use, opportunities."

To illustrate their points, both editors published selections of the drawings — and for that they were arrested and threatened with prison.

Mr. Momani and Mr. Assadi are among 11 journalists in five countries facing prosecution for printing some of the cartoons. Their cases illustrate another side of this conflict, the intra-Muslim side, in what has typically been defined as a struggle between Islam and the West.

The flare-up over the cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper, has magnified a fault line running through the Middle East, between those who want to engage their communities in a direct, introspective dialogue and those who focus on outside enemies.

But it has also underscored a political struggle involving emerging Islamic movements, like Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Arab governments unsure of how to contain them.

"This has become a game between two sides, the extremists and the government," said Tawakkul Karman, head of Women Journalists Without Constraints in Sana, Yemen. "They've made it so that if you stand up in this tidal wave, you have to face 1.5 billion Muslims."

The heated emotions, the violence surrounding protests and the arrests have sent a chill through people, mostly writers, who want to express ideas contrary to the prevailing sentiment. It has threatened those who contend that Islamic groups have manipulated the public to show their strength, and that governments have used the cartoons to establish their religious credentials.

"I keep hearing, 'Why are liberals silent?' " said Said al-Ashmawy, an Egyptian judge and author of books on political Islam. "How can we write? Who is going to protect me? Who is going to publish for me in the first place? With the Islamization of the society, the list of taboos has been increasing daily. You should not write about religion. You should not write about politics or women. Then what is left?"

While the cartoons have infuriated Muslims, the regional dynamics underlying the conflict have been evolving for decades, during which leaders have tried to stall the rise of Islamic political appeal by trying to establish themselves as guardians of the faith.

In the end, political analysts around the region say that governments have resorted to the very practices that helped the rise of Islamic political forces in the first place. They have placated the more extreme voices while arresting and silencing more moderate ones.

Jihad Khazen, a columnist for the pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat, said: "The Islamists wanted to prove their strength. The government replied in kind, saying that we are all Muslims and we care about our religion, and I think the truth was trampled on in the process."

In Jordan, King Abdullah II, who has been trying to control the most extreme religious forces in the region, came out with such a powerful condemnation of Shihan, the newspaper Mr. Momani edited, that even some of his allies were taken aback.

The newspaper printed three cartoons without obscuring them, including one depicting the prophet in a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse. Many of the king's supporters said he felt the need to respond as firmly as he did partly because of the rise of Hamas, which won parliamentary elections in Gaza, and to strip the Islamists in Jordan of an issue to rally around.

"What Shihan did was a corruption on earth, which cannot be accepted or excused under any circumstances," the Royal Court said in a statement.

But now there seems to be a growing concern and in some circles a degree of regret for unleashing a wave of anger that has claimed lives. In Jordan, authorities moved quickly to release the journalists from detention. In Libya, where spontaneous protests are unheard of, allowing protests over the cartoons seemed a safe bet for the authorities — until protesters began criticizing the government. At least 11 people were killed in clashes with the police.

Some of the world's most renowned Islamic religious leaders and scholars recently issued a declaration that, though sharply critical of the drawings, sought to rein in the violence and cautioned Muslims against becoming international pariahs. In so doing, they have begun to echo the sentiments of the journalists facing criminal charges.

"We appeal to all Muslims to exercise self-restraint in accordance with the teachings of Islam," the statement said. It added that "violent reactions" can lead to "our isolation from the global dialogue."

To many journalists, proof that Mr. Momani and Mr. Assadi face charges because of the region's broader political dynamics — and not because of the nature of the cartoons — can be found in Egypt.

After all, Ahmed Abdel Maksoud and Youssra Zahran are free. They are journalists with the Egyptian weekly Al Fajr, one of the first Arab newspapers to publish the cartoons. They wrote a story about the caricatures and reprinted them in October — months before the conflict erupted — to condemn the drawings.

"The feelings of the Muslims are being exploited for some purpose," said Adel Hammoude, editor in chief of Al Fajr. "Religion is the easiest thing to use in provoking the people. Egyptians will never go out on the street in protest about what happened in the case of the sinking ferry or against corruption or this or that."

That thinking is widespread in Yemen, where three journalists languished in a squalid cell, escorted to court by machine-gun toting police. It is echoed in Jordan as well, where two journalists await trial.

Mr. Momani appears in court on Wednesday, while two of the Yemeni journalists were released Tuesday pending their trial. The third begins his trial on Wednesday.

Government officials in both countries say the journalists were arrested for having printed blasphemous cartoons. In Jordan, a spokesman said the king felt especially obligated, because his family is a direct descendant of the prophet.

"If freedom of the press affects national unity in a tribal system with high levels of illiteracy, one has to consider how far it can go," said Yemen's foreign minister, Dr. Abu Bakr al-Qirbi. "All societies have red lines."

But in Yemen, with presidential elections scheduled for September, many see a more political motive.

"They've now found a good reason to put us here — they say the public demanded it," said Mr. Assadi in an interview in his jail cell. "The Yemeni government has many reasons to arrest Yemeni journalists. They want to keep people busy as long as they can, so that they can cover over issues like corruption."

Mr. Assadi, who once worked as a part-time correspondent for The New York Times, is the editor of The Yemen Observer, an English-language paper owned by an adviser to Yemen's president. Mr. Assadi has been sharing a prison cell with Abdulkarim Sabra, the managing editor of the weekly Al Hurriya, and Yehiya al-Abed, a reporter for that paper.

The three stand accused of insulting their faith by publishing the images, a crime approaching heresy. In each case the intention was to condemn the drawings, and The Observer obscured the image with a black X. A fourth man, Kamal al-Aalafi, editor-in-chief of the weekly Al Rai al Aam, became a fugitive after escaping arrest for similar charges.

jatx

02-22-2006, 08:26

"When I saw all the demonstrations, I thought that Muslims should be able to see what the fuss was all about," said Mr. Sabra during an interview in jail. "I condemned them; I said these drawings don't represent our prophet, burn them."

The Yemen Observer had called for Muslims to accept the apology of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first printed the caricatures, and urged Muslims to avoid violence. Mr. Assadi said that call was especially unpopular with the government and the Islamists. The Observer recalled its print run and republished a new issue just two days after the initial publication, but to no avail.

"Anyone who insults the prophet must face the sword," said one imam in a recent Friday sermon in Yemen. Another announced, "The government must execute them."

In Jordan, Mr. Momani is free from jail, but a prisoner in his home. He has no work, no immediate prospects, a criminal case against him and a lifetime of friends who privately support his message but say they dare not support him publicly.

Mr. Momani was not the first to print the cartoons in Jordan. Hisham Khalidi, whose newspaper, Al Mehwar, printed the cartoons a week earlier with a story condemning them, is awaiting trial.

But Mr. Momani's timing was particularly bad, just one week after the Hamas victory in Gaza, political analysts said. Jordanian officials expelled Hamas leaders years ago and saw their recent victory as a potential threat to national stability.

From the beginning, Mr. Momani felt the cartoon issue was being manipulated by Islamic groups eager to flex their muscles, and he asked his readers to consider why the protests began so many months after publication. He says he did not expect such a backlash, but that in hindsight, he understands why the authorities acted as they did.

"They wanted to show the Islamic movement that they are the defenders of the prophet" Mr. Momani said in an interview. "They used me."

Mr. Momani expressed exasperation when asked why he printed the cartoons. He insisted that it was the work of journalists to inform, and that he did so after speaking to many people who were outraged without ever seeing the cartoons.

"I am telling my people, 'Be rational, think before you go into the streets,' " he said. "Who harms Islam more? This European guy who paints Muhammad or the real Muslim guy who cuts a hostage's head off and says, 'Allah-u akbar?' Who insults our religion, this guy or the European guy?"

Michael Slackman reported from Amman for this article, and Hassan M. Fattah from Sana, Yemen. Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo.

Team Sergeant

02-22-2006, 09:42

February 22, 2006
Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
and HASSAN M. FATTAH
AMMAN, Jordan, Feb. 21 — In a direct challenge to the international uproar over cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad,

The First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.

The first Cartoon War was launched in 2006.

islam has come a long way……:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

Infidel and still laughing at the cartoons.....

Sten

02-22-2006, 09:43

The Crusades are making more sense to me every day.

jatx

02-22-2006, 10:12

The First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.

The first Cartoon War was launched in 2006.

islam has come a long way……:rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

Infidel and still laughing at the cartoons.....

I don't disagree, but do like to see these signs of (modest) internal dissent...

Team Sergeant

02-22-2006, 11:45

I don't disagree, but do like to see these signs of (modest) internal dissent...

I would not call this "modest"........ it would not surprise me if the shiite's destroyed every sunni mosque in Iraq after this attack.

Shrine Attack Brings Reprisals and Fear
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Associated Press

SAMARRA, Iraq — A large explosion heavily damaged the golden dome of one of Iraq's most famous Shiite shrines Wednesday, spawning mass protests and triggering reprisal attacks against Sunni mosques. It was the third major attack against Shiite targets this week and threatened to stoke sectarian tensions.

Following the blast at the Shiite holy site, a Sunni cleric in Baghdad was killed after gunmen sprayed him with bullets as he entered a mosque, the Iraqi army said.

Shiite leaders called for calm, but militants attacked Sunni mosques and a gunfight broke out between Shiite militiamen and guards at the offices of a Sunni political party in Basra. About 500 soldiers were sent to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad to prevent clashes between Shiites and Sunnis, Army Capt. Jassim al-Wahash said.

A leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, said 29 Sunni mosques had been attacked nationwide. He urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control."

A government statement said "several suspects" had been detained and some of them "might have ... been involved in carrying out the crime."

No group claimed responsibility for the 6:55 a.m. attack on the Askariya shrine in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, but suspicion fell on Sunni extremist groups such as Al Qaeda in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The shrine contains the tombs of two revered Shiite imams, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.

Whole story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185640,00.html

Martin

02-22-2006, 12:37

Are we at war with Islam?
Yes.

They need to clean their house out. If they do that, I am willing to maybe reconsider.

Martin

The Reaper

03-07-2006, 17:36

Off an email, no attribution, I wish I knew the lady who wrote it.

TR

Thanks, tk27, corrected to add:

Because They Hate
By Brigitte Gabriel
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2006

[Editor's Note: Below are selected excerpts from Brigitte Gabriel's speech delivered at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC, Saturday February 18, 2006].

We gather here today to share information and knowledge. Intelligence is not merely cold hard data about numerical strength or armament or disposition of military forces. The most important element of intelligence has to be understanding the mindset and intention of the enemy. The West has been wallowing in a state of ignorance and denial for thirty years as Muslim extremist perpetrated evil against innocent victims in the name of Allah.

I was ten years old when my home exploded around me, burying me under the rubble and leaving me to drink my blood to survive, as the perpetrators shouted “Allah Amber!” My only crime was that I was a Christian living in a Christian town. At 10 years old, I learned the meaning of the word "infidel."

I had a crash course in survival. Not in the Girl Scouts, but in a bomb shelter where I lived for seven years in pitch darkness, freezing cold, drinking stale water and eating grass to live. At the age of 13 I dressed in my burial clothes going to bed at night, waiting to be slaughtered. By the age of 20, I had buried most of my friends--killed by Muslims. We were not Americans living in New York, or Britons in London. We were Arab Christians living in Lebanon.

As a victim of Islamic terror, I was amazed when I saw Americans waking up on September 12, 2001, and asking themselves "Why do they hate us?" The psychoanalyst experts were coming up with all sort of excuses as to what did we do to offend the Muslim World. But if America and the West were paying attention to the Middle East they would not have had to ask the question. Simply put, they hate us because we are defined in their eyes by one simple word: "infidels."

Under the banner of Islam "la, ilea ill Allah, muhammad rasoulu allah," (None is god except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) they murdered Jewish children in Israel, massacred Christians in Lebanon, killed Copts in Egypt, Assyrians in Syria, Hindus in India, and expelled almost 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands. We Middle Eastern infidels paid the price then. Now infidels worldwide are paying the price for indifference and shortsightedness.

Tolerating evil is a crime. Appeasing murderers doesn't buy protection. It earns one disrespect and loathing in the enemy's eyes. Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.

America and the West are doomed to failure in this war unless they stand up and identify the real enemy: Islam. You hear about Wahabbi and Salafi Islam as the only extreme form of Islam. All the other Muslims, supposedly, are wonderful moderates. Closer to the truth are the pictures of the irrational eruption of violence in reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed printed by a Danish newspaper. From burning embassies, to calls to butcher those who mock Islam, to warnings that the West be prepared for another holocaust, those pictures have given us a glimpse into the real face of the enemy. News pictures and video of these events represent a canvas of hate decorated by different nationalities who share one common ideology of hate, bigotry and intolerance derived from one source: authentic Islam. An Islam that is awakening from centuries of slumber to re-ignite its wrath against the infidel and dominate the world. An Islam which has declared "Intifada" on the West.

America and the West can no longer afford to lay in their lazy state of overweight ignorance. The consequences of this mental disease are starting to attack the body, and if they don't take the necessary steps now to control it, death will be knocking soon. If you want to understand the nature of the enemy we face, visualize a tapestry of snakes. They slither and they hiss, and they would eat each other alive, but they will unite in a hideous mass to achieve their common goal of imposing Islam on the world.

This is the ugly face of the enemy we are fighting. We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them.

The United States has been a prime target for radical Islamic hatred and terror. Every Friday, mosques in the Middle East ring with shrill prayers and monotonous chants calling death, destruction and damnation down on America and its people. The radical Islamists’ deeds have been as vile as their words. Since the Iran hostage crisis, more than three thousand Americans have died in a terror campaign almost unprecedented in its calculated cruelty along with thousands of other citizens worldwide. Even the Nazis did not turn their own children into human bombs, and then rejoice at their deaths as well the deaths of their victims. This intentional, indiscriminate and wholesale murder of innocent American citizens is justified and glorified in the name of Islam.

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage” our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievances”. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.

Our mediocre attitude of not confronting Islamic forces of bigotry and hatred wherever they raised their ugly head in the last 30 years, has empowered and strengthened our enemy to launch a full scale attack on the very freedoms we cherish in their effort to impose their values and way of life on our civilization.

If we don't wake up and challenge our Muslim community to take action against the terrorists within it, if we don't believe in ourselves as Americans and in the standards we should hold every patriotic American to, we are going to pay a price for our delusion. For the sake of our children and our country, we must wake up and take action. In the face of a torrent of hateful invective and terrorist murder, America’s learning curve since the Iran hostage crisis is so shallow that it is almost flat. The longer we lay supine, the more difficult it will be to stand erect.

tk27

03-07-2006, 18:38

The authors name is Brigitte Gabriel (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21364), a Lebanese immigrant who has founded the American Congress for the Truth (http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/).

Unrelated to Ms Gabriel but related to this thread:
Survival strategy: Middle Eastern Islam, Darwin and terrorism by Ralph Peters.
Armed Forces Journal, February 2006. (http://www.afji.com/story.php?F=listfeb)

Gypsy

03-07-2006, 19:11

Excellent piece, TR.

Yet apathy is the weapon by which the West is committing suicide. Political correctness forms the shackles around our ankles, by which Islamists are leading us to our demise.

Couldn't agree more.

NousDefionsDoc

03-07-2006, 19:27

Great gouge Boss. Thanks

Martin

03-11-2006, 09:35

11 March New York Times - Muslim's Blunt Criticism of Islam Draws Threats (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/international/middleeast/11sultan.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1142087486-YoeEXpFw/0WX2gXECtnCiw) by John Broder.

The video (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=reform&ID=SP110706) available from MEMRI.

English transcript of her interview (http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050), available from MEMRI.

Martin

dennisw

03-11-2006, 12:08

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a brave woman. I cannot imagine the depth of her courgae. Whether it's communism or Islamism, it does not appear that the rest of the World cannot peacefully coexist with these folks. Their methodolgy is all about terror and intimidation, and abouting obtaining power at any costs.

I recently read an artical about muslims having killed around 300,000 non muslims in the Sudan. That's a ton of people. That doesn't count the folks who fled the country. These folks are like a street gang, but on a international level. Who's going to stop them and where?

As a nation and people, we need to take the blinders off, because it appears they have thrown down the gaunlet.

magician

03-19-2006, 18:54

From the March 20, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0320/p09s01-coop.html

Al Qaeda's hand in tipping Iraq toward civil war

Creating chaos in Iraq serves Al Qaeda's goal of uniting the Muslim world under one caliph.
By Abdel Bari Atwan

LONDON - The Feb. 22 bombing of the golden mosque in Samarra - considered one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines - triggered the unprecedented levels of sectarian violence currently under way in Iraq. The hand behind this strike at the Shiite majority in all probability points to Al Qaeda, intent on fomenting the low-level civil strife that has churned for months into something far greater.

A full-out civil war in Iraq would strengthen Al Qaeda's growing reach in Iraq. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in this Land of the Two Rivers, has long expressed a vitriolic hatred for the "heretic and atheist" Shiites, the "secret allies of the Americans." In a June 15, 2004, letter to Osama bin Laden, Mr. Zarqawi described Shiites as "a sect of treachery and betrayal through the ages."

He had earlier claimed responsibility for the assassination of Iraqi Shiite leader Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir al-Hakim in August 2003. And his expressed hatred for the Shiites leads me to believe he was also behind the March 2, 2004, massacre of 185 Shiite pilgrims in Karbala and Baghdad and a string of other attacks on Shiite civilians. Studying this pattern of aggression reveals that Zarqawi's strategy to create such internal chaos to the detriment of US troops and the Iraqi military is indeed being carried out.

Thus it is highly likely that Zarqawi's group carried out the bombing of the golden mosque in Samarra last month. The Shiite majority, who have most to gain from maintaining stability in Iraq, have to this point exercised some restraint in retaliating against attacks on their members, but the destruction of one of their most sacred shrines unleashed a wave of reprisals and summary executions that has already resulted in hundreds (if not thousands) of Sunni and Shiite deaths.

In a letter to Zarqawi dated June 2005, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr. bin Laden's deputy, questioned whether targeting Shiite civilians might alienate the more moderate Sunni element from Al Qaeda. Zarqawi, however, disregarded such concerns, reasoning that in the event of the all-out civil war he hopes for, moderate and radical differences will disappear - a prognosis that may well prove gruesomely correct.

Zarqawi's rationale is threefold: Civil war in Iraq will undermine the current political process by preventing the engagement of Sunni factions and unseating the Shiite leaders; it will render the country ungovernable and ensure the failure of the United States project in the region; finally, an expanded conflict would draw on the huge reserves of Sunni Muslim military support available in neighboring countries - either on a national level or in terms of individual mujahideen pouring into Iraq to protect fellow Sunnis from annihilation at the hands of Iran-backed Shiite militia.

Sectarian civil strife could rapidly spread throughout the region. Many Sunni leaders are already unnerved by the growing influence of Shiite Iran in Iraqi internal affairs, and sectarian tensions have been brewing in several countries including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon. Civil war in Iraq may well prompt the Kurds to declare independence, drawing Turkey into the arena.

All of this is in keeping with the five-stage plan posted on the Internet in March 2005 by Al Qaeda's main military strategist, Mohammed Makkawi, who described the third stage thus: "expand the [Iraqi] conflict throughout the region and engage the US in a long war of attrition ... create a jihad Triangle of Horror starting in Afghanistan, running through Iran and Southern Iraq then via southern Turkey and south Lebanon to Syria."

The neoconservatives in the US have been pursuing a dangerous policy of constructive anarchy in the Middle East, planning to rebuild it according to their own design and requirements. As long ago as 1997, former secretary of Defense Richard Perle, along with other architects of the Iraq war, wrote that a post-Saddam Iraq would be "ripped apart" by sectarian conflict but he urged US military intervention nonetheless. This policy has completely backfired and the US has lost any semblance of control over the political process and the leaders they created. Instead of the promised "national unity government," we are witnessing a level of ethnic cleansing last seen in the Balkans conflict.

Al Qaeda's project, meanwhile, is one of destructive anarchy with the aim of removing the US and corrupt dictatorships from the region in order to clear the way for its ultimate goal: uniting the Muslim world under one Islamic leader, or caliph.

Al Qaeda has become a major player in the Middle East, having been virtually wiped out in Afghanistan after 9/11. This is entirely because of the US invasion of Iraq, which provided Zarqawi's fledgling mujahideen with a new haven and training ground, and inflamed the jihadi spirit in thousands of young men who flock to join him every week.

It is possible that Zarqawi has overestimated the cohesive effect of the sectarian conflict among the various Sunni factions in the present insurgency. The eventual loyalty of the large Baathist element in the insurgency is another unknown.

However, a regenerated Al Qaeda is flourishing and expanding. With its new horizontal structure, it has loosely affiliated "branches" in several regions including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Europe. It now represents a real threat to both oil production and Israel, the twin pillars of America's foreign policy.

Iraq has become a magnet for radicalism as it heads toward fragmentation. The situation for the US military is increasingly dangerous. America is already engaged in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program; if this escalates, as seems increasingly likely, the nearly 140,000 US soldiers in Iraq will become hostages at the mercy of their present allies, the Iran-backed Shiite militia, and their current enemies, the Sunni insurgent groups and Al Qaeda. The risk for the US has to be that those who are divided on sectarian grounds in Iraq will briefly pause in their destruction of each other to turn on a new, common enemy.

For Al Qaeda, everything is going entirely according to plan.

• Abdel Bari Atwan, editor in chief of al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper in London, is the author of "The Secret History of Al Qaeda."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related linksl (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0320/p09s01-coop.html)

Martin

04-03-2006, 16:10

From Svenska Dagbladet, 03Apr06
A big number of websites on the internet were hijacked this monday. Instead of the companies' regular first page were threatening messages that there would be trouble if you do not respect muslims.

[...] Many traveling agencies and komvux [GED schools] in Skara have had their frontpages replaced.

Peter Blom, executive of Websolutions, says to Sveriges Radio Skaraborg that the hijacking was done from a Swedish address.

[...]

M

Team Sergeant

04-03-2006, 16:49

Five-O

04-08-2006, 13:00

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Interesting site.

SRT31B

04-09-2006, 22:12

"When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods wherever you find them, and sieze them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them with every kind of ambush; but if they convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms, let them go their way." Sura 9:5

"O Prophet, strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is hell, an evil refuge indeed." Sura 9:73

If this is what muslims are taught from birth and live their lives by, we may not be at war with islam... but it really looks like islam is at war with us. All this talk about killing and siezing doesnt seem all that peaceful either. I asked one of "the guys" I work with about that... he said, "It's peaceful for muslims."

Hmm... I don't know why I missed that....

frostfire

04-22-2006, 02:12

scary, I knew the person and his dad....
www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/stories/0420metdetain.html
A Georgia Tech student born in Pakistan has been in federal custody for nearly a month, apparently because authorities suspect a videotape he made of a building may have been related to terrorism, his family said.

Syed Haris Ahmed, a 21-year-old mechanical engineering major who had become increasingly religious in his Islamic faith, was arrested by the FBI March 23 and has been held since, his family said....

Ahmed's family denied that he could be involved in anything related to terrorism. He came to the United States with his family in 1997, is an American citizen and lived with his family near Dawsonville before moving to an off-campus apartment near Georgia Tech....

Ahmed's younger sister, Samia Ahmed, 18, said her brother told her that authorities found a video on the Internet and apparently traced it to him. "He said, 'I made a video but didn't distribute it to anyone,' " she said.

"He said [it was] a building, not an important building," added his mother, Faiqa Ahmed. Neither woman knew the location of the building or when the tape was made.

Samia Ahmed said her brother perhaps had made the video while he was out of state on a trip with some friends. She did not know where or with whom.

Agents confiscated computer hard drives and data CDs from the family home, the family said....

Ahmed's sister and mother spoke Wednesday from a couch at the family's large home near Dawsonville, where they have lived for five years. They described Syed Ahmed as a likable but reserved young man who was trying to find himself....

Samia Ahmed said her brother's interest in Islam had been growing. "He's religious and liked the simple life," she said. "He wants us to abide by the rules. He isn't against anyone; he just doesn't want us to lose our faith."

Lately, he was getting more interested in Islamic studies and was trying to teach himself Arabic so he could read the Koran.

"He was trying to learn everything," she said. "He's still very innocent in his mind. He's still a child."

Faiqa Ahmed said her son's grades dropped after transferring about two years ago to Georgia Tech from North Georgia College and State University, but he was pulling them up. She and her daughter said he had traveled to Pakistan in 2005 to visit cousins.

Asked what her son thought about the current troubles in the Middle East, Faiqa Ahmed said, "We don't talk political stuff. We are ladies."...
:

The follow-up news (copy and paste):
buzzbrockway.com/?p=499#comments
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_re_us/terrorism_arrests_3
or visit jihadwatch.org

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Two Atlanta-area men in federal custody as part of a terrorism probe discussed possible locations for a U.S. attack, including military bases and oil refineries, according court documents unsealed Friday.

The U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta on Thursday unsealed an indictment against Georgia Tech student Syed Ahmed, 21.

Ahmed was arrested last month in Atlanta and pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of material support for terrorism. (Watch as Ahmed's mother and sister say he's been wrongly accused -- 1:33)

Ahmed was denied bail. His attorney, Jack Martin, declined comment after hearing excerpts of the documents read.

Ehsanul Sadequee, 19, was arrested this week in Bangladesh and handed over to the FBI. He is expected to be arraigned in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, on a charge of making false statements during an interview with an FBI agent.

After reviewing the court documents, Sadequee's attorney, Shereef Akeel, said, "It is a very serious allegation. But it is out of character from the way this young man has lived his life."

Sadequee's sister Sharmin said Thursday night that her brother is not a terrorist and "we are very shocked and startled and hurt" by his arrest.

The two men, both U.S. citizens, knew each other through the Atlanta Muslim community, a Sadequee family member said.

An affidavit from FBI agent Michael Scherck says the duo traveled in March 2005 from Atlanta to Canada, where they met with three men who are the subject of an FBI international terrorism investigation.

Ahmed "explained that, during some of these meetings, he, Sadequee and the others discussed strategic locations in the United States suitable for a terrorist strike, to include oil refineries and military bases," the affidavit says.

"They also plotted how to disable the global positioning system in an effort to disrupt military and commercial communications and traffic."

The affidavit alleges the "assembled group developed a plan to receive military training at one of the several terrorist-sponsored training camps." It also says Ahmed traveled to Pakistan in an attempt to get such training.

The government says that Sadequee lied about the meetings when an FBI agent questioned him last year. He was traveling to Bangladesh to get married, according to his family.

At a news conference Thursday in Atlanta, U.S. Attorney David Nahmias said Ahmed was charged with providing material support for terrorism, not planning or carrying out terrorist acts.

FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said "no imminent threat" existed at any point during the investigation.

Court documents reveal the investigation included court-authorized wiretapping, recounting a conversation between Ahmed and Sadequee's sister.

The FBI affidavit also says agents found two CD-ROMs in the lining of Sadequee's suitcase when he was leaving the United States. One disc contained pornography and the other was encrypted with a code the FBI was unable to crack, according to the affidavit.

It also says Sadequee had maps of the Washington area with the discs.
perhaps this will get more people up to speed on how real the threat is:
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

ah well, at least there's one good news:
CAIR Backs Down from Anti-CAIR (www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011123.php#more)

Pete

04-22-2006, 04:24

.....scary, I knew the person and his dad....

Isn't it funny how they are all such "nice young men" until they fly a plane into a building, start shooting civilians or blow themselves up?

The keys to his actions were in the story. Nice of the MSM to print it. Getting more into his religion and wanting the family to follow? Islam-getting more into your religion means killing others.

How many "nice young men" have to kill Americans here in the US before the bone heads realize it's the religion not the individual?

There is a bunch of this out there but the MSM is doing a good job of keeping it below the radar. Funny how the press and libs don't understand that they will be some of the first to be chopped when Sharia comes to town.

Ambush Master

06-22-2006, 11:13

Very interesting read by Steven Pressfield:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/274138_focustribes18.html?source=mypi

I think this guy broke the code!!!

:munchin

Later
Martin

Martin

06-22-2006, 12:09

Yes.

They need to clean their house out. If they do that, I am willing to maybe reconsider.

Martin
I was being simplistic. I do not believe we are at war with Islam yet, but I think that is a serious medium-long term risk because of some members willingness to that means. Before then the muslim world are in the process of adaption, which is both friendly and hostile. That process could partly be called a power struggle and being at war with itself. This whole deal holds a resemblance of insurgency, IMHO.

Interesting link about tribes. I think religion and tribalism are both part of culture and that it may not be their center of gravity, but that culture is where the hostilities stem from and that is where adaption have to take place. It is the rudder of the ship. Then we get into governance and freedom.

I think many of these things, like the EU, China, Islam, and whatnot, is more about dealing with power and governance, after realizing values of both parties as important. Of course we will still face what for us can only be felt as evil, be it the murders of thousands or the flogging of one, so maybe it is not as much about the end state as it is about the striving for something good...

Haven't been here much lately. I hope you guys are doing alright!

Back to my hideout,
Martin

Richard

06-27-2006, 18:45

Not at war with Islam? Not right to describe Islamic terrorists as being Islamic? Most of the time they are not even called terrorists anymore by the MSM and up-for-reelection politicians, but called insurgents or rebels...as if that makes them something less than what they are and more acceptable to...???

But why shouldn't they be called Islamic terrorists? If a person ascribed to the writings of Marx and Lenin and blew up a bank to strike a blow at capitalism, wouldn't it be fair to call him a communist terrorist?

Look at the terrorist movements we're facing. Hezboallah (party of God), Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Al-Qaida--all of these orginzations take their inspiration from the Koran. I admit that I am not an expert on Islam, but I think I can figure out what this religion is about. I am a big believer in actions speaking louder than words--that what a person does is far more important than what a person says. Islamic terrorists kill non-believers simply because they aren't believers, and Koranic sanctioned murder is their calling card.

They want a world governed by sharia law, a law encompassing not only private morality but all facets of life, a system of law forged in 7th century Arabia that treats women and non-muslims like chattel (dhimmitude), that says war must be waged until Islam rules all of the world. Well, IMO this concept flies right in the face of Islam as being the so-called religion of peace.

But we are told that somehow this violence we are seeing and experiencing is not Islamic, that it has no place in their religion of peace. Well, they are right about the violence having no place, but wrong in declaring that it is not Islamic as it is a definite part of their religion. Islam has declared war on us and its warriors are fighting us in a very vicious manner. Personally I don't care about their theology; let's just recognize it for what it is and either win this war or prepare to become dhimmis in an Islamic ruled world.

IMO Victor Davis Hanson's contextual writings on our battles with Islam are the best. http://www.victorhanson.com/

Firebeef

06-27-2006, 20:06

Victor Davis Hanson rocks! I know it's probably been said, but I'm gonna say it anyways:

Are we at war with Islam? From reading our (liberal) press, and watching what goes on in the day-to-day civilian world, it sure doesn't seem like it, but one thing is damn sure, Islam is at war with us.

Martin

06-28-2006, 05:28

Do you then believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are not worth the current efforts?

How about the hatred between different tribes, leaders and brands of Islam? Is it not possible that we are talking about levels of extremism at a time when Islam has to adapt, even if it may be doubtful if it will?

There is a lot that lead me to answer yes, as you do, but maybe a better discussion would be to war game both sides.

I would love to hear what the trained members think about re-orientation/integration programs for insurgents.

Got to go.

Martin

Team Sergeant

07-11-2006, 10:17

Seven Explosions Hit India Train Stations During Rush Hour

FOXNEWS
Tuesday, July 11, 2006

MUMBAI, India — Seven explosions hit Mumbai's transit system on Tuesday, killing 131 people and injuring more than 300, police said. Shortly after the bombings, police arrested members of an Islamic group in India.

The explosions, which occurred as commuters were returning home from work during the evening rush, tore apart locomotives and scattered bodies around the tracks, as shown on Indian television.

“More casualties are expected,” Global Radio News reporter Arun Asthana said.

The Indian home minister said on Indian television that authorities had information of an attack but did not know when or where it was to occur.

“There is no information about who is behind these blasts,” Asthana said, but soon after the attacks, police arrested members of Lashkar-e-Toiba, an Islamic group in India responsible for previous attacks in India.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202920,00.html

We're not the only ones islam is at war with.
TS

smp52

07-11-2006, 23:16

We're not the only ones islam is at war with.
TS

Team Sergeant:

Before I delve into this, a little background history on myself. I am a son of an Indian immigrant. My father came here in 1970, got his BS in Mechanical Engineering, worked, realized he wanted to be independent, so he owned an Auto Body shop for 20 years with his buddies and was self employed as a Mechanic. I was born in the Chicago burbs, but was sent off for schooling in India between the ages of 7 through 16 with regular trips back home to Chicago in the summers.

I've lived through curfews during riots there, have had a distant relative of my mom die in the 1993 bombings in Bombay (Mumbai) and an acquaintence of my parents gunned down in the Pan Am Flight 73 Hijackings in 80s. I can't say I necessarily feel the pain since I was too young to comprehend any of that as youngling. My sister fortunately was on the first Air India flight leaving Toronto when Air India (the second one that day) was bombed in the 80s by Khalistani Canadian terrorists. The monster has lurked around.

I've gone the other way around on this. I used to be the opinion of that Islam, the religion, was to blame. While in India, it was pretty common to hear of all the terrorist attacks. People may be desensitized to it in some ways. My stay there was during the beginning and maturation of the Kashmir insurgency. I lived in the state of Gujarat, which has a history of Hindu-Muslim riots.

I feel that men, who don't want to see a future beyond their local tribal tradtions have gravitated towards the revisionist salafist movements in order to assert their position by force. Plenty of folks yell and scream death to , but most of those situations seem to be fuelled more by a mob dynamic. How many of those idiots who scream and yell actually wind up taking the step and murdering/becoming a terrorist? From a few sources I've read/reading, people who make the act of actually killing vs 'going with the flow' of the mob and apathetically/passively/actively supporting the global jihad activities have different psychologies.

I'll try to make an analogy here. Nazi Germany had an incredible machine with soldiers fighting us and their leaders, a select group of men, actively leading their sheeple to a facist ideology. The propoganda and psychological opeations altered the mindset of a modern European nation to conduct some of the worst atrocities ever known. But was the individual German, a member of the Nazi party, a r[I]eal Nazi? They all said 'Heil Hitler' and moved along. Massive rallies supported the leaders as they conducted war and genocide. A significant population was Nazi, but I see a difference between the average soldier and the SS/core leadership from whatever I've read. The equivalency I'm drawing here is Nazi=Salafist.

To me, Salafists are the Nazi party leadership, who through their propoganda machine have unleased their version of Islam on the masses. Many Sheeple, ordinary muslims, have bought into their well oiled machine just like ordinary Germans bought into the Nazi Party's. These people range the specturm from the educated profiles of AQ/EIJ's membeship, to the uneducated Afghani Pakistani NWF type folk. Each though, seems to play to a different part of Jihad (muslim majority land occupation vs Global ambitions). It is also interesting to see how the original Kashmir seperatist groups like JKLF have been sidlelined by the global jihadi Lashkar types. JKLF looked for Kashmiri liberation, LET has a goal to blanket the Indian Subcontinent in Islamic Rule, again. Unfortunately, events like these have been old news and continue to be current news for the subcontinent.

I understand this thread has been around for some time, I've read through it. I'm not out to change opinions, I figured I'd throw my viewpoint out among professionals and get feedback.

Solid

07-12-2006, 02:12

But why shouldn't they be called Islamic terrorists? If a person ascribed to the writings of Marx and Lenin and blew up a bank to strike a blow at capitalism, wouldn't it be fair to call him a communist terrorist?
--- Richard

Sir,
I do not believe we are at war with Islam as a whole, but instead facets of islam. I therefore term (and this is policy with many think-tanks) these terrorists as "Islamist" terrorists. The "ist", as in Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Capitalist... suggests that they are not necessarily representative of all islamIC peoples.

I think that this point is important because Wahabism is not representative of all of islam, and I truly believe that certain moderate strains of islam can easily co-exist with other religions without causing instability. As has been said numerous times, the key to overcoming this one is long term economic, political, educational, social reform to remove the negative structures which currently enable or promote the existence of this violent form of Islam. The same, I believe, can be said for the war against Communism. We did not defeat 'communism' per se, but instead defeated those structures in the Soviet bloc which put people in the position that believing in communism seemed natural.

JMO,

Solid

casey

07-12-2006, 05:00

How many of those idiots who scream and yell actually wind up taking the step and murdering/becoming a terrorist?

Well, I can think of 19 way back in Sept of 2001 here in the US, an unk number in Beslan, 9 + in Madrid, 4 last July in the UK, and then another 5 several days later, how many you looking for?????

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-12-2006, 05:34

I feel that men, who don't want to see a future beyond their local tribal tradtions have gravitated towards the revisionist salafist movements in order to assert their position by force. Plenty of folks yell and scream death to [insert infidel community here], but most of those situations seem to be fuelled more by a mob dynamic. How many of those idiots who scream and yell actually wind up taking the step and murdering/becoming a terrorist? From a few sources I've read/reading, people who make the act of actually killing vs 'going with the flow' of the mob and apathetically/passively/actively supporting the global jihad activities have different psychologies. .

.

As I stated earlier, I truly believe that Islam is at war with itself. Having said that I look at this movement more like a guerrilla campaign where those that are extremists are leading an insurgency to wrest control to copt the religion and move it back to the fundamentalist ideals in order to establish a new Caliphate. If you understand insurgencies and how they are structured, the overt arm will always be small and will conduct small operations with the greatest chance of success so that they can use those successes to draw new recruits to the movement. The attacks have to be splashy and successful as the psyop aspect is often more important than the tactical. I mean what can be more powerful than someone willing to show that is thinks nothing about dying for his beliefs? Behind those overt guerrillas are the support base of auxillary and underground which is huge. It provides all the resources, intelligence, leadership, communications support, the entire infrastructure. To be successful they cannot run around yelling "I am a terrorist, jihadist, or even overtly identify with the tenets of the movement if they are to be successful in building and maintaining their movement. Even those who are openly verbal are having their shots called for them wittingly or unwittingly. So you cannot judge the size of this movement by the number of those "expendable" guerrillas who carry out the attacks. You need to think more in terms of just how many folks needed to orchestrate those attacks in order to pull them off. This movement is international in scope and it is not, as the press and administration likes to call it, a Global War on Terrorism but a Global War For Islam which is part of the problem because for folks who think only in terms of GWOT they are missing the point. Terrorism is a tactic, but it is not the only facet in play here, but the overt choice of action that is displayed for public consumption.Right now Islam is at war with itself using their success against the infidels to show that they have to power to establish a new Caliphate and once that Caliphate has been established the war with the infidels will really get cranked up and we will move to phase III of guerilla warfare with the newly established Caliphate.

Solid

07-12-2006, 07:16

Colonel,
Given that Islam is at war with itself, with the extremist wahabbis/salafists fighting to wrest control to copt the religion and move it back to the fundamentalist ideals in order to establish a new Caliphate, would it not then be dangerous for the US (or any of us) to think of the GWOT as a 'war against Islam'? It seems to me that the more we make this war Us vs. Them, with no regard for the fact that the people we are fighting are not representative of all of Islam, the more we help the Salafists gain support for their cause?

If muslims think that if they are not to militarize with the salafists, they will be exterminated or forced to change, are they not more likely to militarize?

Sorry if the above sounds like rhetoric, those are genuine questions.

Thanks,

Solid

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-12-2006, 10:34

I never said it was a Global War Against Islam but a Global War For Islam waged by muslim fundamentalists using everything and anything they can to show the non-fundamentalists that the non-Muslim world is powerless to stop them. It will only become a Global War Against Islam if and when the fundamentalists do in fact co-opt the religion and purify it to suit their view of the world. At that point we non-Muslims are all infidels and present a target rich environment because co-existence between fundamentalists and infidels is not a possibility.

I also did not say that it was Us vs Them, what I said was that the depth of this movement goes far and beyond what you see on the surface with the overt acts of "terrorism". Like any counter-insurgency effort the Us has to use the military in a supporting role to allow the actions (economic, informational, diplomatic, cultural, etc) necessary to remove or resolve the real or perceived problems that are allowing those who would wish to co-opt the religion for their personal agenda. Military action by itself can only surpress problems and/or provide temporary security to allow other activities that are needed to resolve problems and create security to defeat the insurgency.

smp52

07-12-2006, 11:41

Terrorism is a tactic, but it is not the only facet in play here, but the overt choice of action that is displayed for public consumption.Right now Islam is at war with itself using their success against the infidels to show that they have to power to establish a new
Sir,

I agree, terrorism is a tactic used by the salafists to gain power and push aside others within Islam to get their word out. This is a power struggle within the community. At the heart of this, you're right, it is a war within Islam.
Like any counter-insurgency effort the Us has to use the military in a supporting role to allow the actions (economic, informational, diplomatic, cultural, etc) necessary to remove or resolve the real or perceived problems that are allowing those who would wish to co-opt the religion for their personal agenda.
Agreed.

Let me play out a quick scenario if you can bear with me.

As a muslim (I'm not, but just for the sake of this argument), everytime I hear a westerner talk about how "Islam is a violent ideology" it makes me uneasy. I'm a 28 year old shopkeeper who isn't really convinced the salafists have my best interest, but definitely see them winning ground. From my small corner of the world, it looks like they're winning and I'd rather be with the winners than the losers. Plus, the west thinks my Islam is violent. The discussion comes up on every news network. So be it then. They keep talking about 'Islam', but what do they know?

In India, you hear grumbles from the hindu fundamentalists (not all that different from the revisionist salafists in my opinion) that muslims are the problem. One group, as it seems, is attacking the overarching ideology (the west) while the other who have more daily interractions with the people is attacking the followers of it (countries where significant muslim non-muslim interraction takes place: India, Thailand, et. al)

What I'm leading to is as you mentioned the subtle tools of warfare (economic, diplomatic, political, cultural, etc) needs to feed the appropriate propganda to decouple the salafist structure from the population they are looking to co-opt (or did I misread this from your post). It may be one small thing, but anytime a newsflash goes across the screen saying "Islamic Terror", my attention as an ordinary muslim is drawn to it. Shia/Wahhabi/Salafist terror just doesn't ring the same bell drawing my attention.

How do we unleash a propoganda campaign and take the initiative by convincing those who feel we are fighting Islam, or losing? Is it a self defeating cycle in the media everytime the word "Islam" goes up, we draw more attention to the salafists than the other way around? The glorification of terrorist acts by the media for attention/validation is sickening. Within minutes a title is attached to the attack, 24 hour news networks have theme song, and we're inundated with redundant images with no real news value.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-12-2006, 13:43

How do we unleash a propoganda campaign and take the initiative by convincing those who feel we are fighting Islam, or losing? Is it a self defeating cycle in the media everytime the word "Islam" goes up, we draw more attention to the salafists than the other way around? The glorification of terrorist acts by the media for attention/validation is sickening. Within minutes a title is attached to the attack, 24 hour news networks have theme song, and we're inundated with redundant images with no real news value.

It is an education process and it is not just for those in school. The basic American is ignorant of anything outside of his ability to order a cafecrapochino in some phoney affected tone. Look around you, what are people concerned about? How many even know we have troops deployed in about 80 countries around the world? How many congress critters give a damn about anything other than getting elected/re-elected and many of them on the backs of some pseudo campaign to support the troops without really understanding what the overall program is? How do you instill patriotisim in Americans when the colors they care most about are not red/white and blue but the bottom line colors of black or red? How do you tell Americans that folks out there want them dead because their very freedoms that they all take for granted , which are being paid for in blood/disease/injury by folks in uniform, are a threat to their maintaining power over their own manipulated masses? Who do you get to deliver the word? Politicians-no one trusts them. Teachers-most have been liberalized to the point that any conflict, including spit balls in class, is unwarranted. Clergy-many have their own issues that over shadow their ability to deal with reality. The media-well we all know about the media. So you tell me, you want to have a propaganda program start by defining the target audience. You will not find a single audience by multiple audiences and each message needs to be tailored to reach them. Propaganda is not the answer, education is, but good luck finding the proper conduit and context. So look within yourself, how did you arrive at the conclusions you did? Perhaps that is the place to start.

smp52

07-12-2006, 14:33

Thank you, Sir. Your insight and thoughtful explanations are appreciated. An honest education is fundamental and I understand the process will never stop. The more I learn, the more I realize there is a lot more I don't know. I'm definitely here to learn and keep the education process going.

CoLawman

07-12-2006, 23:02

So look within yourself, how did you arrive at the conclusions you did? Perhaps that is the place to start.

Colonel, I believe this would make an excellent thread. It caused me to stop and think. And there is no quick response. Provocative question.

Are we at war with Islam?

I believe that Islam is at war with the entire world. The bombings in India underscores this premise. Off the top of my head; The US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, England, Israel, Spain, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Indonesia, India and Somalia have suffered the effects of this unconventional war.

Then you have the Kofi Annan constantly siding with the enemy. Yesterday he declared Israel's actions terroristic. He is a despicable human being that is no better than the terrorists he advocates for.

Ahhh.....just in Israel bombs Beirut International Airport......Standing by to see what Syria and Iran do now.

Martin

07-13-2006, 05:00

COL Moroney, we are on the same page. (it seems)

Always interesting to read your posts.

Thanks!

M

Pete

07-13-2006, 05:57

COL Moroney, we are on the same page. (it seems)

Always interesting to read your posts.

Thanks!

M

Martin;

You are kind of on the front lines of things. Some of your larger cities, from our understanding of the news, have some big problems with newer Muslims.

With all the talk of "Eurabia" it gives the US a little more time to look at things.

I wonder how many E & E plans of Europeans include the phrase "United States"?

Pete

Martin

07-13-2006, 06:28

Martin;

You are kind of on the front lines of things. Some of your larger cities, from our understanding of the news, have some big problems with newer Muslims.

With all the talk of "Eurabia" it gives the US a little more time to look at things.

I wonder how many E & E plans of Europeans include the phrase "United States"?

Pete
Pete (I think you told me not to call you Sir before),

I have a hard time imagining that many E&E plans have been created. I know mine has it, and that of my best friend.

As it stands in this argument, I am furthering reading up to better "wargame" (speculating about possible courses of action for both sides), but I am a little restricted. And as Roycroft pointed out to me, it may not be the best idea to put up for public discussion.

I don't think it is primarily a problem of newer Muslims, at least in Sweden. Here I reckon that it is my age-group, and a little up, that is of greatest concern regionally. Equally important is western self-denial.

M

jatx

07-13-2006, 06:32

Martin;

You are kind of on the front lines of things. Some of your larger cities, from our understanding of the news, have some big problems with newer Muslims.

With all the talk of "Eurabia" it gives the US a little more time to look at things.

I wonder how many E & E plans of Europeans include the phrase "United States"?

Pete

I'm not sure if this was posted before, but it speaks to your concern:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Personally, I believe that the genie is out of the bottle in Europe. There will be a marked change in what Europe "means" within our children's lifetimes, narrowing our set of Western-minded allies and leaving the US even more alone in its defense of core Western values.

Martin

07-13-2006, 06:53

Personally, I believe that the genie is out of the bottle in Europe.
For some. I think the conversation topics around Europe make it very clear that it is not something that has gained force yet. There is growing awareness and a little bit more search for answers, while also marked understanding and anger as can be witnessed in the Netherlands, France, and elsewhere. Yet the train is not moving fast enough.

There will be a marked change in what Europe "means" within our children's lifetimes, narrowing our set of Western-minded allies and leaving the US even more alone in its defense of core Western values.
While I still say the future is not yet set in stone (give it five years to be certain), I think that is the most likely end state.

M - Longing to come over to the US side of the pond.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-13-2006, 07:10

For some. I think the conversation topics around Europe make it very clear that it is not something that has gained force yet. Yet the train is not moving fast enough..

While I will not provide the specifics or the location, 20 years ago in Europe I serviced a protagonists dead drop that contained an instuction manual outlining terrorist training programs developed by a group not indigenous to Europe. Prior to this, no one was aware of any link between the two groups. So I would say that the train has been moving steadily for some time and that light you all see is the headlight on that on coming train.

jatx

07-13-2006, 07:20

While I still say the future is not yet set in stone (give it five years to be certain), I think that is the most likely end state.

I am not as concerned about current attitudes as I am long-term demographic change. It would take a prolonged period of frenzied breeding for Europeans to dig themselves out of this hole. I've run the population projections myself, and they aren't pretty.

So if you don't make it to the US, take one for the team and breed wildly! :D

Martin

07-13-2006, 07:23

While I will not provide the specifics or the location, 20 years ago in Europe I serviced a protagonists dead drop that contained an instuction manual outlining terrorist training programs developed by a group not indigenous to Europe. Prior to this, no one was aware of any link between the two groups. So I would say that the train has been moving steadily for some time and that light you all see is the headlight on that on coming train.
Roger that, Sir.

Just to clarify, my response was only about public awareness. Maybe I used the metaphor badly, as you seem to use it rather as the threat being the train.

When I grow up I am going to make sense. :)

M

Martin

07-13-2006, 07:31

I am not as concerned about current attitudes as I am long-term demographic change. It would take a prolonged period of frenzied breeding for Europeans to dig themselves out of this hole. I've run the population projections myself, and they aren't pretty.
Please send them to my e-mail when you have time, I'd love to have a look at the projections you've run.

So if you don't make it to the US, take one for the team and breed wildly! :D
I will do my best. :D

M

Solid

07-14-2006, 02:32

Colonel,
I did not intend my post as a counter-argument to yours, rather than a confirmation of your (and my) viewpoints on the subject.

I'd imagine that many people on this forum either hated or were loathe to see the movie Syriana, but for me the movie was less a leftist indictment of the US and more simply spelling out the reality of the islam, oil, foreign involvement, CIA etc situation- that it is unbelieveably complicated, and that no matter what intentions are, no matter how hard plans and movements are thought out... they will more often than not have an unforeseen and possibly negative effect.

The reason I bring up Syriana is because I think the "everything is complex" point really resonates with this thread. While we have established that the US is not (yet) at war with Islam, but rather engaging in a fight FOR islam, we have not yet really addressed realistic solutions to push the muslim moderates into the majority. Given that everything is almost impossibly woven together, I'm interested in what approach people would take to winning the war for Islam?

Thanks,

Solid

Jack Moroney (RIP)

07-14-2006, 05:25

Colonel,
I did not intend my post as a counter-argument to yours, rather than a confirmation of your (and my) viewpoints on the subject.

I'd imagine that many people on this forum either hated or were loathe to see the movie Syriana,

You have a right to express whatever you want, this is an open forum. As far as Syriana I never expect anything out of Hollywood without understanding before hand there is going to be a strong bias twist to it depending on who is in it and who produced it. I rented it for the entertainment value of watching that slime Clooney get the snot kicked out of him.

HOLLiS

07-14-2006, 15:32

You have a right to express whatever you want, this is an open forum. As far as Syriana I never expect anything out of Hollywood without understanding before hand there is going to be a strong bias twist to it depending on who is in it and who produced it. I rented it for the entertainment value of watching that slime Clooney get the snot kicked out of him.

I really like a good movie, but in my limited experiences on this planet I am of the conclusion that any connection to reality and a Hollyweird movie is purely accidental.

Gypsy

07-14-2006, 17:38

I rented it for the entertainment value of watching that slime Clooney get the snot kicked out of him.

Read a comment somewhere that from doing the movie he felt like he "survived" the same type of treatments as POWs. He is such an idiot.

Cincinnatus

07-14-2006, 18:08

Some of these bozos are so pampered it's astounding. I saw the making of the movie thing for, IIRC, "City of the Dead", wherein Matt Dillon (I think that's his name) was talking about how arduous the filming was. They were in Cambodia and " we didn't have air conditioning, except in our dressing rooms."

Russell Crowe made a similar comment about filming "Proof of Life" - how difficult the trek was to the location and that they had to get up so early that he decided to just spend the night in his trailer rather than go back to the hotel. He clearly thought this was some sort of hardship and I remember thinking half the world would think your trailer was a palace.

Poor babies.

x SF med

07-15-2006, 06:14

... to push the muslim moderates into the majority.

The issue is - moderates are the majority, but the radicals at both ends control the media, public opinion, and guns.

HOLLiS

07-15-2006, 16:41

[QUOTE=Jack Moroney]As I stated earlier, I truly believe that Islam is at war with itself. QUOTE]

In the years that I have studied Islam and listened to opponents and proponents argue, I think your statement is probably the most exact description of what is going on.

600 years ago this happened in Christian's Europe, sectarian warfare broke out part in name of the reformation. Some of the conflicts then, are very similar today in Islam. Many of the Islamic countries suffer from poverty, illiteracy and despotic regimes that use religious extremism as a control over the population. Europe was not much different. The dark ages is named from a Western perspective, Islam is still in it's own Dark ages.

gaijinsamurai

07-18-2006, 08:38

HOLLiS

07-18-2006, 09:16

As far as what is currently happening in Gaza and Lebanon, we are seeing the results of two successful fundamentalist groups (Hamas and Hezbollah), who have been able to gather national attention and support through their appeal as corruption-free and standing up to the West/Israel.
I can see why both groups have become popular; but with the current fighting, it is obvious which sides are going to lose: Once again, the Arabs will have a big black eye.
The Lebanese and Palestinians need to stop and ask themselves if fundamentalism will really get them anything. In general, the Arab/Muslim world needs to do some soul-searching as well. The Palestinians need to ask themselves if their tactics have gotten them anywhere, and they all need to ask themselves who their real enemy is.

I think that is happening, especially when reading the comments of other Arab governments. Saudis were the first to come out against Hezbullah, though not mentioning their name. Tha Arab league is not mustering it's forces is a good sign. It may be the days of rogue terrorists that served foreign power's interests are ending.

Lebonese reaction has been pretty interesting. Maybe the Lebonese will finally carry out the UN resolution and assume control of all of it's territory.

Other report I read, stated some of the Arab countries are nervous of Iran's ambitions.

Slantwire

07-18-2006, 12:07

Other report I read, stated some of the Arab countries are nervous of Iran's ambitions.

Wouldn't surprise me. While I have no doubt they'd love to see the Caliphate restored an Islamic world order, I doubt they want to see it run by Persians. Kind of like how the Soviets didn't really want the world brought to the Chinese flavor of socialism, "fraternal socialist allies" notwithstanding.

NousDefionsDoc

07-18-2006, 16:56

Interesting analogy Pinhead.

gaijinsamurai

07-18-2006, 19:27

I remember in the 1980's it was fear of Iranian power which lead so many Arab governments to support Saddam Hussein.
Actually, I think there are a lot of Arabs and Muslims who truly are moderate, and are embarrassed/disgusted by the current trends towards fundamentalism. They may still be nationalistic to some degree, and highly critical of some of the US' policies in the region, which is understandable. Those are the types of people we can have a diologue with, and will be the hope for a better future for their own people. I can only their voices will grow stronger in the future.

CoLawman

07-18-2006, 19:36

They may still be nationalistic to some degree, and highly critical of some of the US' policies in the region, which is understandable.

And what US policies in the region would you agree they should be critical of?

:munchin

tk27

07-18-2006, 23:49

Wouldn't surprise me. While I have no doubt they'd love to see the Caliphate restored an Islamic world order, I doubt they want to see it run by Persians. Kind of like how the Soviets didn't really want the world brought to the Chinese flavor of socialism, "fraternal socialist allies" notwithstanding.
Neither al-Assad in Syria, the Houses of Saud and Al-Sabah, Mubarak in Egypt , or any other government in the Middle East wants the return of the Caliphate. To do so would be to relinquish power; this is why all these governments have aided in the fight against AQ, albeit to different degrees. Yes, this includes Syria.
The greater objection from the region to Iranian control of the Caliphate would not be over ethnicity, but rather the fact that the region is predominantly Sunni while the Iranians are Shiite. This is why revolutionary Iran has largely abandoned its efforts to export its ideology to the Muslim world and focused on consolidating its influence with sectarian Shiite groups in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere in its neighborhood.
IMHO, I think the Sino-Soviet split was a result of competing national interests and think the analogy is not a good fit.
I remember in the 1980's it was fear of Iranian power which lead so many Arab governments to support Saddam Hussein.
It wasnt just the Arabs. I often forget how ugly Realpolitik can get.
And what US policies in the region would you agree they should be critical of?
If I were a Muslim living in an Arab country what US policy would I be critical of? How much time do you have?
Once you overcome mirror imaging it’s easier to answer that question.

Slantwire

07-19-2006, 05:59

Neither al-Assad in Syria, the Houses of Saud and Al-Sabah, Mubarak in Egypt , or any other government in the Middle East wants the return of the Caliphate. To do so would be to relinquish power;

Very true; I think I may have spouted off too quickly. Certainly the existing regimes wouldn't want to yield power. It's the religious leaders who want a Caliph.

Both Shiite and Sunni want a Caliph, it's just that neither group wants him to be a member of the other group.

IMHO, I think the Sino-Soviet split was a result of competing national interests and think the analogy is not a good fit.

Maybe not. I meant it in the sense that we tend to lump followers of Islam together the same way we lumped Communists together. The Sovs and ChiComs had their "fraternal socialist ally" public line while not seeing eye-to-eye; Shiite and Sunni both speak of Muslims vs the infidel while they blow each other up.

As for ethnic tension, maybe that's not a prime driver in the Arab - Iranian relationship, but it exists. Islamic Arabs are not blind to ethnicity. I think the janjaweed prove that pretty easily.

gaijinsamurai

07-19-2006, 19:47

Colawman, I didn't say Arab moderates SHOULD be critical of our policies, i wrote that their criticism is UNDERSTANDABLE. There is a difference.
For example, i can UNDERSTAND why Palestinians and other Arabs resent our close relationship to Israel. I can also UNDERSTAND why Saudi and Egyptian dissidents grow cynical when we talk about human rights in some dictatorial countries like Cuba and Iran, yet have such close relations with Mubarak and the Saudi Royal Family.
Did I make myself clear?

CoLawman

07-19-2006, 22:38

If I were a Muslim living in an Arab country what US policy would I be critical of? How much time do you have?
Once you overcome mirror imaging it’s easier to answer that question.

Trying to respond without hijacking the thread. So will start a new thread to share some of my thoughts and hopefully get your thoughts as well.

The Reaper

08-09-2006, 20:16

I found this to be an excellent analysis.

TR
*
History lesson
By Raymond S. Kraft, a California lawyer

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war.* America had stood down most of it's military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII, there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks.* And a big chunk of our Navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler.* Actually, Belgium surrendered in one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed ! Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could.* Britain has been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping losses and the near decimation of its air force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany. Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but more than a million soldiers.* More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won the war.

I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things.* And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs.* They believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated.* They want to finish the Holocaust, -destroy Israel, -purge the world of Jews.* This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East, for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas.* Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihads, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC, not an OPEC dominated by the well educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century and into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements.* We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere.* And we cannot do it everywhere at once.* We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein.* Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades.* Saddam is a terrorist. Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq.* We have focused the battle.* We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won't have to get here, or anywhere else We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928.* It did not begin with Pearl Harbor.* It began with the Japanese invasion of China.* It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it.* It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again ... a 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion (U.S. GDP in 2006 = 13.04 trillion dollars, which means that the IRAQ war has cost the U.S. approximately 12.5% of a full years GDP), which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York.* It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11. But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that.* It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly.* Always has been, and probably always will be.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is.* It will not go away on its own.* It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East.* The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war.* And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them.* Or somebody does.

The Reaper

08-09-2006, 20:16

We have four options.

• 1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
• 2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).
• 3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.
• 4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

We can be defeatist peace activists as anti war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes.* All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always, win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win.* The pacifists always lose, because the anti pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism.* Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40 year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam.* It may last a few more years, or most of this century.* It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives into the Jihad.

It will take time.* It will not go with no hitches.* This is not TV.

The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.* Forty two years.* Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan.* WWII resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 2,500 KIA in Iraq.* The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6th, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism.* In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years.* Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem? The US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in America.

Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most? The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California.

NousDefionsDoc

08-09-2006, 20:30

I like it. I shall spread the word (I'm stealing it...)

Gypsy

08-09-2006, 20:42

That is an outstanding piece, thanks TR. I shall be sharing it as well.

funnyman

08-09-2006, 22:26

I live in the North East. Most of my friends (the civilians) are left-wing nuts. Most of my Army buddies and myself are either Republican, Independent or Constitutionalists. At lunch one day, a good friend's wife told me in an angry outburst, "we (America) should just mind our own business" with respect to Iraq. She and the other lefty friends of mine (who I don't really seem to hang around with anymore..) are all highly educated and successful. They drive to work in their SUVs or BMWs, get a Starbucks, and work behind a desk all day. Not that there's anything wrong with that because I do that too. The difference is that they're blinded by their self-imposed social eliteness. They can't imagine that there are people who *don't* drink lattes and surf the web all day. They imagine a perfect world where there is no evil, no starvation, no war, no genocide. They argue that the war in Iraq is about oil, but they don't stop for a second to think about how their lives would be changed without that oil - or with oil at 3X the current price. They say that the GWOT is creating terrorists, without conceeding that terrorists hated us before we invaded Iraq. They actually think we deserved 911, yet they continue the daily activities that supposedly justified 911. They don't believe that all over the world, (insert politically correct term dejour for nut-job Islamics) are engaged in a full-time job of planning our deaths. These Americans are exactly the isolationist/pacifists that the previous post mentioned. They're idealists. Their idealism needs to be tempered by realism. So what will take our present-day pacifists to wake up as they did for WWII? Maybe if Al-Qaida nukes the local Starbucks :eek: .

When they say we shoudn't have gone into Iraq because it's not part of the GWOT, I ask them this: what would you do if your neighbor told you they wanted to kill you and your family. You saw that neighbor unloading AK-47s from a U-Haul truck. Would you call the police, or just say "oh well, it's his right to hate me. I'm sure I must've done something to offend him. If he kills my family we deserve it" and watch as your family is mauled? The conversation always ends there. I say kill the enemy in HIS house, before he breaks into mine.

Part of the problem with the isolationist/pacifists here is that the US has become a society that's afraid to stand up for what's right. When I was young, if I swore in public, any nearby adult would chastize me. Today, every teen walks around dropping F-bombs and no one says a thing. We're afraid to spank our misbehaving children for fear of being sued by the ACLU. We let burglers sue owners because the burgler got hurt breaking into the owner's home. We've become so politically correct that we're afraid to take sides on the smallest issues for fear of being labeled a racist or intolerant. As a society, we've got to get back some moral fiber if we don't want this great country of ours to end up in the shitter.

For what I believe are biblical reasons, there is evil in this world. And it needs to be put to rest. There's lots of it, so it's good we got started.

Just my $.02
-FM

CoLawman

08-09-2006, 22:52

Count me in on forwarding TR's post. Thanks TR.

smp52

08-10-2006, 12:07

I was surfing the web for some articles and came across this one (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2412/Sufism_and_the_Struggle_Within_Islam_Part_I).

Based upon the source publishing it, I would take things with grains of salt. However, it is a long and interesting take on the history of Islam focusing on the Sufi movement's evolution and conflict within Islam itself. No bibliography provided to see all the source material.

I have found some inconsistencies in the article like the following:

Khwaja Muinuddin Chishti (1142-1236), founder of the Chishti Order, was a Persian from Khorasan, but settled among the Hindus of Rajasthan. His followers adopted the saffron color of the robes of the Hindu sages for their own coarse robes, and generally interchanged ideas and rituals with and even adopted the habits of the Hindu sadhus (mendicants). Like the sages of the Upanishads, he preached under a tree. He consciously spurned Delhi, seat of the Moghul court, for provincial Rajasthan.

Delhi was under the rule of Muslim Sultans, however, the Mughals (Moghals) hadn't entered the picture in the years Chishti lived. It was the Slave dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_dynasty)started by Qutubudin Aybak that ruled in his later years.

Since it is a long article, fact checking it would take quite a bit of time. But the central theme of conflict within Islam and its different branches evolving through history (Fall of the Caliphate, Turk, Persian, Mughal rule, Colonialism, and modern day middle eastern socialist regime and fundamentalist regimes) is interesting.

BMT (RIP)

08-10-2006, 15:36

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-08-10T213650Z_01_N10383008_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Another convert to our way of thinking.

BMT

tk27

08-10-2006, 21:24

Say we are at war with Islam. If AQ bombs the Sears Tower today, where do we bomb tomorrow?

We lump AQ, Iran, Iraq, the Israeli – Palestinian issue, Hezbollah, balance of power politics, and personal, tribal & sectarian violence altogether at our own peril. True, Islam is the thread that runs through the lot. But focusing only on that factor is just as naïve and detached from reality as isolationist-pacifism.
Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2 hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that.* It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly.* Always has been, and probably always will be.
At least I found one thing I agree with in his essay.
If he truly believes this why is his analysis so theologically apocalyptic?
They're idealists. Their idealism needs to be tempered by realism.
Please do not bastardize the term realism. Neo-conservatism is not realism. Current President Bush is of a completely different international relations school of thought from his father President George H.W. Bush, an actual realist.

When they say we shoudn't have gone into Iraq because it's not part of the GWOT, I ask them this: what would you do if your neighbor told you they wanted to kill you and your family. You saw that neighbor unloading AK-47s from a U-Haul truck...
Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Richards J. Heuer, Jr. Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999.
Chapter 11: Biases in Perception of Cause and Effect, subsection Overestimating Our Own Importance:
" In analyzing the reasons why others act the way they do, it is common to ask, "What goals are the person or government pursuing?" But goals are generally inferred from the effects of behavior, and the effects that are best known and often seem most important are the effects upon ourselves. Thus actions that hurt us are commonly interpreted as intentional expressions of hostility directed at ourselves. Of course, this will often be an accurate interpretation, but people sometimes fail to recognize that actions that seem directed at them are actually the unintended consequence of decisions made for other reasons. "
Part of the problem with the isolationist/pacifists here is that the US has become a society that's afraid to stand up for what's right....moral decline...
Hogwash.
I share a considerable amount of social conservatism with you, but to directly link a perceived moral decline in our society to problems with radical Islamists is bull. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson days after 9/11 said that civil liberties groups, feminists and pro-abortion groups bear partial responsibility b/c they turned God’s anger against America. This bull is just a lite version of what the oxygen-stealing Phelps family (the jackals that protest soldier’s funerals because gays are getting married) spew.

Our country and Western Civilization itself would shake hands with the Devil himself if he could meet our demand at a cost below $25 a barrel.

It would be easy to interpret my cynicism as a lack of will or resolve, it is not. IMHO our country neither knows itself or its enemy and I think our current public discourse proves that, and this needs to be overcome for our own survival.

CoLawman

08-10-2006, 23:14

[QUOTE=tk27]Say we are at war with Islam. If AQ bombs the Sears Tower today, where do we bomb tomorrow?

I would say that we have done considerably more than bomb in retaliation for 9/11. To suggest we would have to .........bomb tomorrow in retaliation ignores the fact we are fully engaged in a war against those that would bomb the Sears Towers. Thus we stay the course (with renewed bipartisan support) if such a thing were to occur. All that goes out the window if a Sears attack was linked to Iran of course..........then you know where we bomb tomorrow!

We lump AQ, Iran, Iraq, the Israeli – Palestinian issue, Hezbollah, balance of power politics, and personal, tribal & sectarian violence altogether at our own peril. True, Islam is the thread that runs through the lot. But focusing only on that factor is just as naïve and detached from reality as isolationist-pacifism.

The common thread you mention is exactly where we need to focus. We are at war with the Islamo Fascists or whatever you want to call the Muslims who have declared war on us. We need to focus on the root cause. Trying to explain away the menace of Islam is exactly why we are engaged in a global war NOW!

There is no detachment from reality. We are at war with a religion, not a country. Evidence of this fact is the report that the current plot by homegrown Muslims in Britain preparing to blow up airlines full of passengers.

Lose focus on the Islamic factor and you do so at your own peril

At least I found one thing I agree with in his essay.

To be continued...........

CoLawman

08-10-2006, 23:52

Tk,
Mr. Kraft's article IMO cuts through the BS. The central theme being we destroy them! You cannot negotiate or rehabilitate these terrorists. You must kill them.

What is occurring in Israel right now is brought about by those (Olmert, Rice, and perhaps POTUS) who lose focus. They begin to look at the big picture, not unlike yourself, and fail to see the forest for the trees. This in no way is meant to be an insult to you.

If Israel stops now Hezbollah wins. Nasrallah wins as does Iran and Syria. If the cease fire occurs before Hezbollah and Nasrallah are destroyed then we (the western world) will suffer the consequences.

Those who concentrate on the big picture rather than focus on the cause are often students of history...........in rote only. They can recite it but they never learn from it.

When Hezbollah killed our Marines we failed to focus on the cause. When Buckley was kidnapped and killed we failed to focus. When our embassy in Iran was invaded we lost focus. The menace grows while our articulate and analytical civilian leaders continue to examine the big picture.

We must fight them now and destroy them now. I was much fonder of POTUS when he talked the talk and told the sponsors of terrorism that they would suffer the same fate as the terrorists. I fear that too many talented and bright individuals, similar to yourself, have caused him to lose that focus that you believe will result in our demise.

There are those times when someone needs their ass kicked.

Team Sergeant

08-11-2006, 07:44

Neither al-Assad in Syria, the Houses of Saud and Al-Sabah, Mubarak in Egypt , or any other government in the Middle East wants the return of the Caliphate. To do so would be to relinquish power; this is why all these governments have aided in the fight against AQ, albeit to different degrees. Yes, this includes Syria.

You write like you're a professor as if you actually know the answers. Tell me something you ever been in the middle east, seen or worked with the people you speak of?

You talk of middle eastern "governments" like the people actually have a choice. All these governments you speak of "Yes, this includes Syria" are friggin dictatorships and the very reason they do not want the return of caliphate you speak of.

You don't agree with me, go and flip off (insult publically) the saudi king, let me know how many rights you were afforded before they throw in jail or worse.

Get real, we've written in this very thread why these dictators have taken on "al quada" it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism and everything to do with being tribal, a thousand years behind the civilized world, and a huge fear that the terrorists might gain a foothold in their dictatorship run countries. The house of saud didn't get involved in hunting terrorists until the terrorists targeted the "house of saud", other wise they would have left them alone.

Also don't apply 21st century politics to 10th century camel jockies, these idiots still teach (in their own universites) that there is only one true religion and that is islam and one day it will rule the world..... Oh and by the way, they also teach the same thing here in the religious tolerant United States.

TS

tk27

08-11-2006, 09:50

I would say that we have done considerably more than bomb in retaliation for 9/11. To suggest we would have to .........bomb tomorrow in retaliation ignores the fact we are fully engaged in a war against those that would bomb the Sears Towers. Thus we stay the course (with renewed bipartisan support) if such a thing were to occur. All that goes out the window if a Sears attack was linked to Iran of course..........then you know where we bomb tomorrow!
I absolutely agree that we have responded to 9/11 the right way. What I intended to say was, if we are at war with Islam and we get attacked, where do we respond? There is no command and control of Islam, do we nuke Mecca? If this could actually work we would have threatened to do so already. This is the problem, and the problem of saying we are at war with something that we can’t confine to a geographic area (war with Islam).
When Hezbollah killed our Marines we failed to focus on the cause. When Buckley was kidnapped and killed we failed to focus. When our embassy in Iran was invaded we lost focus. The menace grows while our articulate and analytical civilian leaders continue to examine the big picture.
There was no specific agenda or goals by these groups?
You write like you're a professor as if you actually know the answers. Tell me something you ever been in the middle east, seen or worked with the people you speak of?
Sir, if my language is pompous it is because I am a guest on this board, the mods have made it perfectly clear that poor language and immaturity is not welcome. I probably go overboard with the five-dollar words in response to this. As far as an ivory tower arrogance in my thinking? Probably, I imagine reading and studying will do this, this is why I consider it important to listen and talk to people who have BTDT. No I have not worked with the people I speak of.
You talk of middle eastern "governments" like the people actually have a choice. All these governments you speak of "Yes, this includes Syria" are friggin dictatorships and the very reason they do not want the return of caliphate you speak of.
What’s wrong with dictators self interest coinciding with our national interest and us exploiting that?

Team Sergeant

08-11-2006, 10:00

What’s wrong with dictators self interest coinciding with our national interest and us exploiting that?

Nothing, just don't use the word "government" as if it really exists anywhere in the middle east. There are no governments just dictatorships in varying degrees.

Use all the ten dollar words you desire, just be prepared to stand behind them.

TS

Team Sergeant

08-11-2006, 10:24

This is the problem, and the problem of saying we are at war with something that we can’t confine to a geographic area (war with Islam).

You know nothing about war fighting and it shows.

We've not fought wars based on geographic area for decades but in dimensions. Just as we are now with islam and its currently fought worldwide and in five dimensions.

You knowledge of warfighting is sorely lacking.

TS

smp52

08-11-2006, 11:49

Just as we are now with islam and its currently fought worldwide and in five dimensions.

What irks me, particularly from the socialist left, is that everytime the United States takes actions and drops precision tactical weapons (bombs), the standard "We're bombing everything and anything" spin cycle starts up. If someone said that in WWII it would make sense. We did do that and for good reason (and primarily technological limitations). Are we doing a good job of selling the idea that we're fighting this war on multiple dimensions? I was told earlier in this thread by the Colonel that education is the key. We educate people by teaching them lessons by bloodying them up, by working with them, by helping them, etc.

Recently at a Quality Assurance meeting, many of us were discussing how to let the powers that be understand that quality over quantity is a good thing and not mutually exclusive (at least in the ammo world).

Many of our efforts in structuring quality assurance have not historically worked well simply because people, who sign on (and enforce) don't actually buy the idea in the first place nor has the big bureaucracy moved its focus from the purchase and sort mentality to correct, prevent, and get it right the first time (in the volume necessary). A mentality of attrition warfare still exists. People at many levels preach Toyota's manufacturing principles, but only in sound. In application, it becomes business as usual. Our conclusion was we need to do a better job in selling the idea everytime we encounter a problem or have a chancce to speak to ANYONE for that matter.

All the publicity, even from the Government, focuses on the tactical side of 'big war'. This idea of 'asses need to be kicked' is good and quite necessary, but it can't become the rally cry or motto. People, the loud mouth right and left, are focusing merely on kicking ass (Direct Action) or its prevention, but what really intrigues me is your (all QP's and other services) UW/FID role along with how we use other tools of warfare (political, economic, diplomatic, social, ....)in the bag with strategic purpose - remove the jihadist threat.

My Dad used to tune to the Voice of America on shortwave radio before cable television was allowed in India. That and the BBC were the only sources for news broadcast not within socialist government control. What type of resources are we pouring into VOA? I don't know anymore. Obviously the answer is out there, but I'd bet that most Americans don't even know such a thing exists. This definitely goes back to what the Colonel said and it is quite a large and duanting task. From our side, are we even speaking the same language with some of these folks to get them to listen/learn/understand?

I also take exception to this quote in what was posted earlier:

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam.* It may last a few more years, or most of this century.* It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives into the Jihad.

Focusing merely on western civilization or the Judeo-Christians Vs. Salafists/Jihadists/Islamofascits is myopic. These guys are fighting everyone. Not just the west. Fighting the biggest dog on the block gets the attention of everyone, but their goals are to become the Alpha of the pack that includes African tribes, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests, et. al. Terrorism didn't start with 9-11, it just caught our (American) short attention span.

Trip_Wire (RIP)

08-11-2006, 12:10

This "speech" was an opinion piece created by Ben Caspit, a journalist writing for Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper, who expressed his viewpoint in the form of a "Suggested Speech for Prime Minister Olmert." Caspit's editorial has since been translated into English and widely circulated via e-mail, losing its original attribution in cyberspace and creating the impression that it is the text of a speech actually delivered by Prime Minister Olmert. (Just posting the facts.) TS

Ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, I, the Prime Minister of Israel, am speaking to you from Jerusalem in the face of the terrible pictures from Kfar Kana. Any human heart, wherever it is, must sicken and recoil at the sight of such pictures.

There are no words of comfort that can mitigate the enormity of this tragedy. Still, I am looking you straight in the eye and telling you that the State of Israel will continue its military campaign in Lebanon.

The Israel Defense Forces will continue to attack targets from which missiles and Katyusha rockets are fired at hospitals, old age homes and kindergartens in Israel. I have instructed the security forces and the IDF to continue to hunt for the Katyusha stockpiles and launch sites from which these savages are bombarding the State of Israel.

We will not hesitate, we will not apologize and we will not back off. If they continue to launch missiles into Israel from Kfar Kana, we will continue to bomb Kfar Kana. Today, tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. Here, there and everywhere.

The children of Kfar Kana could now be sleeping peacefully in their homes, unmolested, had the agents of the devil not taken over their land and turned the lives of our children into hell. Ladies and gentlemen, it's time you understood: the Jewish state will no longer be trampled upon.

We will no longer allow anyone to exploit population centers in order to bomb our citizens. No one will be able to hide anymore behind women and children in order to kill our women and children. This anarchy is over. You can condemn us, you can boycott us, you can stop visiting us and, if necessary, we will stop visiting you.

Today I am serving as the voice of six million bombarded Israeli citizens who serve as the voice of six million murdered Jews who were melted down to dust and ashes by savages in Europe. In both cases, those responsible for these evil acts were, and are, barbarians devoid of all humanity, who set themselves one simple goal: to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth, as Adolph Hitler said, or to wipe the State of Israel off the map, as Mahmoud Ahmedinjad proclaims.

And you - just as you did not take those words seriously then, you are ignoring them again now. And that, ladies and gentlemen, leaders of the world, will not happen again. Never again will we wait for bombs that never came to hit the gas chambers. Never again will we wait for salvation that never arrives. Now we have our own air force. The Jewish people are now capable of standing up to those who seek their destruction - those people will no longer be able to hide behind women and children. They will no longer be able to evade their responsibility.

Every place from which a Katyusha is fired into the State of Israel will be a legitimate target for us to attack. This must be stated clearly and publicly, once and for all. You are welcome to judge us, to ostracize us, to boycott us and to vilify us. But to kill us? Absolutely not.

Four months ago I was elected by hundreds of thousands of citizens to the office of Prime Minister of the government of Israel, on the basis of my plan for unilaterally withdrawing from 90 percent of the areas of Judea and Samaria, the birth place and cradle of the Jewish people; to end most of the occupation and to enable the Palestinian people to turn over a new leaf and to calm things down until conditions are ripe for attaining a permanent settlement between us.

The Prime Minister who preceded me, Ariel Sharon, made a full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip back to the international border, and gave the Palestinians there a chance to build a new reality for themselves. The Prime Minister who preceded him, Ehud Barak, ended the lengthy Israeli presence in Lebanon and pulled the IDF back to the international border, leaving the land of the cedars to flourish, develop and establish its democracy and its economy.

What did the State of Israel get in exchange for all of this? Did we win even one minute of quiet? Was our hand, outstretched in peace, met with a handshake of encouragement? Ehud Barak's peace initiative at Camp David let loose on us a wave of suicide bombers who smashed and blew to pieces over 1,000 citizens, men, women and children. I don't remember you being so enraged then. Maybe that happened because we did not allow TV close-ups of the dismembered body parts of the Israeli youngsters at the Dolphinarium? Or of the shattered lives of the people butchered while celebrating the Passover seder at the Park Hotel in Netanya?

What can you do - that's the way we are. We don't wave body parts at the camera. We grieve quietly. We do not dance on the roofs at the sight of the bodies of our enemy's children - we express genuine sorrow and regret. That is the monstrous behavior of our enemies. Now they have risen up against us. Tomorrow they will rise up against you. You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste more.
And Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza -- what did it get us? A barrage of Kassem missiles fired at peaceful settlements and the kidnapping of soldiers.

Then too, I don't recall you reacting with such alarm. And for six years, the withdrawal from Lebanon has drawn the vituperation and crimes of a dangerous, extremist Iranian agent, who took over an entire country in the name of religious fanaticism, and is trying to take Israel hostage on his way to Jerusalem - and from there to Paris and London.

An enormous terrorist infrastructure has been established by Iran on our border, threatening our citizens, growing stronger before our very eyes, awaiting the moment when the land of the Ayatollahs becomes a nuclear power in order to bring us to our knees. And make no mistake - we won't go down alone. You, the leaders of the free and enlightened world, will go down along with us.

So today, here and now, I am putting an end to this parade of hypocrisy. I don't recall such a wave of reaction in the face of the 100 citizens killed every single day in Iraq. Sunnis kill Shiites who kill Sunnis, and all of them kill Americans - and the world remains silent. And I am hard pressed to recall a similar reaction when the Russians destroyed entire villages and burned down large cities in order to repress the revolt in Chechnya. And when NATO bombed Kosovo for almost three months and crushed the civilian population - then you also kept silent.

What is it about us, the Jews, the minority, the persecuted, that arouses this cosmic sense of justice in you? What do we have that all the others don't? In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle.

I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don't, you may regret it later, when it's too late.

Jack Moroney (RIP)

08-11-2006, 13:20

What’s wrong with dictators self interest coinciding with our national interest and us exploiting that?

The problem is that our national interests are often defined by politicians whose long range focus is the next election. That means that they have 2 year, 4 year and 6 year focii. For instance as long as I can remember we, in the military, have defined the rise of islamic fundamentalism as a threat to our national security interests and it took 9/11 for the political functionaries to wake up, albeit temporarily, to this threat. Politicians who align themselves with with what they have often inadequately defined as our "national interest" do so mainly for personal political gain which does not go beyond the next election cycle. So the problem is not our alignment with some dictator and exploiting it to our advantage, the problem is the correct identification of just what are and are not in our national interest.

CPTAUSRET

08-11-2006, 14:25

Trip_Wire:

That speach sounded too good to be true! Too bad!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/olmert.asp

Thanks CPT!

Richard

08-11-2006, 20:56

IMO, dealing with a group like Hizbollah is like dealing with teen punks...the only thing that teen punks and young Islamic terrorist punks are motivated by are (1) fear for their personal safety and (2) public humiliation. A plan to deal with such punks is simple. In fact, it involves just three steps:

1. Ignore the UN and its call for a restrained response . In the case of Lebanon, Israel should act decisively with the intention of killing as many members of Hezbollah as possible,...using proper interrogation methods whenever it is necessary to find them.

2. After Hezbollah is reduced to 12 living members, heed the UN call for restraint by making humiliation Israel’s top priority. Sparing the lives of the last dozen Hezbollah members – one for each of Israel’s twelve tribes - will not necessarily be an act of compassion. I would recommend that each of the twelve be subjected to mandatory sex changes to maximize deterrence through public humiliation. It’s only fair since they’ve been beheading people for years. But if the public won't allow such action, I suppose it would be good enough to dress the last twelve – I would call them the “Dainty Dozen” – in pink thong underwear before putting them on display in cages in downtown Tel Aviv. Their cages could also be painted fuschia, equipped with one Toy Poodle apiece, a stack of Playgirl Magazines, and a faux leopard skin bathrobe just in case it gets cold at night. Their diet would consist solely of quiche, French pastries, and peach wine coolers to help numb the pain of their embarrassment.

3. Install a UN Peacekeeping force of 12 American feminist professors from Berzerkley or any similiar university. This special peacekeeping force will be comprised of feminists with PhDs in psychology or multi-cultural studies (by far, the most annoying feminists) who will meet with the “Dainty Dozen” on a daily basis to ask them the crucial question, “Why do you hate us?” These types of feminists certainly annoy the hell out of me whenever I run into them at academic conferences and the like. Imagine how irritated the terrorists will be when they are sentenced to a lifetime of sharing their feelings with a feminist who refuses to wear a burqua.

If you agree with the plan, you can make it a reality by voting for me in 2008. If you don’t like it, just vote for Hillary. That should give them all one more reason to hate us.

Richard

dennisw

08-11-2006, 23:07

3. Install a UN Peacekeeping force of 12 American feminist professors from Berzerkley or any similiar university. This special peacekeeping force will be comprised of feminists with PhDs in psychology or multi-cultural studies (by far, the most annoying feminists) who will meet with the “Dainty Dozen” on a daily basis to ask them the crucial question, “Why do you hate us?”

I believe subjecting them to feminists would be construed as cruel and unusual punishment. :D

lksteve

08-12-2006, 08:19

I believe subjecting them to feminists would be construed as cruel and unusual punishment. i see it as two birds, one stone...

Ambush Master

08-12-2006, 13:50

Tk,
Mr. Kraft's article IMO cuts through the BS. The central theme being we destroy them! You cannot negotiate or rehabilitate these terrorists. You must kill them.

We must fight them now and destroy them now.

There are those times when someone needs their ass kicked.

In the infamous words of Clint Smith on 60 Minutes II a couple of years ago:

"Some people need to be shot"

They want a fight, we should give them no LESS!!!

Take care.
Martin

CoLawman

08-12-2006, 18:52

[QUOTE=tk27]I absolutely agree that we have responded to 9/11 the right way. What I intended to say was, if we are at war with Islam and we get attacked, where do we respond? There is no command and control of Islam, do we nuke Mecca? If this could actually work we would have threatened to do so already. This is the problem, and the problem of saying we are at war with something that we can’t confine to a geographic area (war with Islam).

tk,

You write as if you have concluded that the terrorists should be categorized or classified as individuals acting independent of command and control. Terrorists are not like other menaces found around the world, like; burglars, robbers, vandals, car thieves, and rapists. Those are menaces that ply their trade without consideration of geographical borders.

Terrorists ply their trade without consideration of geographical borders. However their actions can be attributed to definable "command and control" entities. A recent example is the homegrown terrorists of Britain. At first blush this example would seem to support your premise. But upon closer examination one learns that orders were coming from Pakistan with a connection to Al Queda.

Ayatollahs, Imams, and State sponsors of terror are the Command and Control.
They provide the training, funding, technology, documents, etc. to the Islamic terrorists throughout the world.

They also provide the recruitment and propaganda vital to their missions. POTUS understands this. Review his speeches since 9/11 and you will find ample proof that he is on track. Whether he continues to act on his knowledge and vision is dependent upon when the next election is. (This point was aptly covered by a QP prior to my post).

tk27

08-13-2006, 12:19

Terrorists ply their trade without consideration of geographical borders. However their actions can be attributed to definable "command and control" entities. A recent example is the homegrown terrorists of Britain. At first blush this example would seem to support your premise. But upon closer examination one learns that orders were coming from Pakistan with a connection to Al Queda.
Yes and it appears that because AQ leadership played too much of a central role the plot was broken up. They have and will learn from these mistakes. Cells will continue more and more to be homegrown and self-organizing, inspired by bin Laden’s movement but not under its control.
Ayatollahs, Imams, and State sponsors of terror are the Command and Control.
They provide the training, funding, technology, documents, etc. to the Islamic terrorists throughout the world.
What state actively sponsors AQ? The Iranian’s support Hezbollah as do the Syrians (some would say that after Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon ’04 they lost influence to restrain Hez and this explains Hezbollah’s recent belligerence), Libya cut ties with terrorists for foreign investment, and Saddam supported Hamas but not AQ.

Refusing to distinguish between AQ and Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups only benefit them. It does them the benefit of aggregating them all together, this allows them to constitute themselves as a global jihad and only validates this to the Islamic world. This is inherently counterproductive to any wise strategy designed to disaggregate a global insurgency. (See LTC. Killcullen’s Countering Global Insurgency (http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdf))

I have in PDF (too big to attach) James Fallows recent article in The Atlantic, We Win.: A New Strategy For The Fight Against Terror. It is very thought provoking and I think a good assessment of where we are and where we are headed. It draws from Brian Michael Jenkins at RAND (I believe a QP also), LTC Killcullen, Michael Scheuer, Peter Bergen, Martin van Crevald, Bruce Hoffman, Daniel Benjamin, and James Woosley among others. I would be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on it. I could make a summary of it as well as find a host for it if there is interest for a thread.

Richard

08-14-2006, 04:12

Here's a good summary of the current situation as I see it.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/asay/asay1.asp

Richard :munchin

Team Sergeant

08-14-2006, 08:45

Yes and it appears that because AQ leadership played too much of a central role the plot was broken up. They have and will learn from these mistakes. Cells will continue more and more to be homegrown and self-organizing, inspired by bin Laden’s movement but not under its control.

What state actively sponsors AQ? The Iranian’s support Hezbollah as do the Syrians (some would say that after Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon ’04 they lost influence to restrain Hez and this explains Hezbollah’s recent belligerence), Libya cut ties with terrorists for foreign investment, and Saddam supported Hamas but not AQ.

Refusing to distinguish between AQ and Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist groups only benefit them. It does them the benefit of aggregating them all together, this allows them to constitute themselves as a global jihad and only validates this to the Islamic world. This is inherently counterproductive to any wise strategy designed to disaggregate a global insurgency. (See LTC. Killcullen’s Countering Global Insurgency (http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdf))

I have in PDF (too big to attach) James Fallows recent article in The Atlantic, We Win.: A New Strategy For The Fight Against Terror. It is very thought provoking and I think a good assessment of where we are and where we are headed. It draws from Brian Michael Jenkins at RAND (I believe a QP also), LTC Killcullen, Michael Scheuer, Peter Bergen, Martin van Crevald, Bruce Hoffman, Daniel Benjamin, and James Woosley among others. I would be interested to hear everyone’s thoughts on it. I could make a summary of it as well as find a host for it if there is interest for a thread.

TK27 and Solid,

I've had enough..... this discussion will not be led by two 20 year old's that have read one Rand paper on terrorism and think it's the answer to global terrorism.

There are men on this board that have not only hunted and killed these terrorist cowards but have also written doctrine on how to fight the global war on terrorism. I defer to their thoughts on the subject and not to two kids that have never traveled any further than the raisins in their cereal bowls.

I am no longer interested in your opinions as they do not hold water, your open source information is lacking in depth and history. We've also answered many of the questions you seem to continue to post.

Tell you what after you've spent a decade or so hunting the terrorist cowards you can again post on this subject, or when you get your PhD in political science or middle eastern affairs. Until then you are both done on this thread.

You may still ask questions, period.

Team Sergeant

Tired of the sheeple telling the hunters how to capture or kill the wolf.

edit to add:

Oh and one more thing to put some of what you both have posted in perspective;

While serving in Desert Storm we found out that saddam and his coward armies were placing explosives on the oil wells and were going to blow them in the event of hostilities.

I remember reading a very authoritative think-tank “paper” stating that if saddam were allowed to blow those oil wells (about 600) that it would take decades to put them out and that it would be the beginning of the end of the world as we knew it.

Red Adair and his men put out the fires in a few months.

I don’t put much credence in think-tank papers written by those that have never actually met or have any experience with the beast they often write about.

tk27

08-14-2006, 17:31

Understood TS.

Richard

08-18-2006, 07:07

Here's something to think about.

www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

Richard

Black Beard

08-23-2006, 18:07

Got a question about our foreign policy and "America's" war against terrorism. Will you entertain? Sounds like you speak from much experience and would like to get your take on some things. Thanks

Team Sergeant

08-23-2006, 20:53

Got a question about our foreign policy and "America's" war against terrorism. Will you entertain? Sounds like you speak from much experience and would like to get your take on some things. Thanks

Ask away.... there are people on here that know more about foreign policy than I.

I just spent 20 years "enforcing" American policy on an international level.....

TS

Black Beard

08-24-2006, 18:22

Team Sergeant

08-26-2006, 11:16

Not to get into politics, but want to know first, in your opinion; do you agree with how our government has waged the war against terrorism? (If you don't mind I would rather go one question at a time, these conversations tend to get involved.) Let's just start from 9-11-01 and the Trade Towers. Remember Pres. Bush's speech shortly after that, and what he said we were going to do? (okay 2 questions) Thanks!

First off terrorism didn’t start Sept 11th 2001 so we cannot start there. The terrorist cowards that planned that attack were well known to the United States intelligence services, the United States military and current and former presidents of the United States.

2nd we change governments every 4 to 8 years, sure most laws stay the same but make no mistake when a coward sits in the most powerful position in the world soliciting oral sex from young girls, it sends a “national” level message to the world. (Review your history and you might come to realize what message "jimmy "coward" carter" sent the world by allowing a terrorist country to hold American hostages for over a year.)

3rd referring back to the 2nd paragraph how the United States prosecutes the war on terrorism also changes dramatically every 4-8 years and the very reason "known" terrorists were permitted to perpetrate the attack on 9/11.

4th when dealing with aggressive moslem tribes with the collective intelligence of a colony of dust mites one should not wonder why diplomacy does not always work. (i.e. the current situation in iran and its demented leader)

Couple that with an ideology of islamic world supremacy, zero tolerance for "unbelievers" and a level of hate for westerners that far exceeds their love for their own children (i.e. placing bombs on their own children only to blow themselves up in a crowd) should show we have cultivated a group (millions) that actually believe they could defeat western ideology.

Yes "we" cultivated a faction that knows every few years the United States will not pursue their leaders, will not gather intelligence concerning their world wide activities, will not send Americas military warriors to fight them. But, will, send food and comfort whenever the media parades their children dying of hunger while their dust mite intelligent tribes wage fierce turf battles in some 5th world country like an army of ants, not caring that it is their children that suffer.

We've been waging this war for decades, centuries, no, we've been waging this war for over a millennia. All we’ve done is change the names of the players and upgraded the weapons systems.

There is no comprehensive answer. We have no longer have a nation with intestinal fortitude.

It’s not going to end in our lifetime.

So long as there are men there will be wars.
Albert Einstein

Team Sergeant

7624U

08-26-2006, 13:39

Couple that with an ideology of islamic world supremacy, zero tolerance for "unbelievers" and a level of hate for westerners that far exceeds their love for their own children (i.e. placing bombs on their own children only to blow themselves up in a crowd) should show we have cultivated a group (millions) that actually believe they could defeat western ideology.

We've been waging this war for decades, centuries, no, we've been waging this war for over a millennia. All we’ve done is change the names of the players and upgraded the weapons systems.

Team Sergeant

+1

For anyone that has doubt first read the Qur'an in english at this link
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/HolKora.html

Here is just a chapter for someone that is to lazy to look

"Muhammad"

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

"47.1": (As for) those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, He shall render their works ineffective.

"47.2": And (as for) those who believe and do good, and believe in what has been revealed to Muhammad, and it is the very truth from their Lord, He will remove their evil from them and improve their condition.

"47.3": That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord; thus does Allah set forth to men their examples.

"47.4": So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

"47.5": He will guide them and improve their condition.

"47.6": And cause them to enter the garden which He has made known to them.

"47.7": O you who believe ! if you help (the cause of) Allah, He will help you and make firm your feet.

"47.8": And (as for) those who disbelieve, for them is destruction and He has made their deeds ineffective.

"47.9": That is because they hated what Allah revealed, so He rendered their deeds null.

"47.10": Have they not then journeyed in the land and seen how was the end of those before them: Allah brought down destruction upon them, and the unbelievers shall have the like of it.

"47.11": That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them.

"47.12": Surely Allah will make those who believe and do good enter gardens beneath which rivers flow; and those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat, and the fire is their abode.

"47.13": And how many a town which was far more powerful than the town of yours which has driven you out: We destroyed them so there was no helper for them.

"47.14": What! is he who has a clear argument from his Lord like him to whom the evil of his work is made fairseeming: and they follow their low desires.

"47.15": A parable of the garden which those guarding (against evil) are promised: Therein are rivers of water that does not alter, and rivers of milk the taste whereof does not change, and rivers of drink delicious to those who drink, and rivers of honey clarified and for them therein are all fruits and protection from their Lord. (Are these) like those who abide in the fire and who are made to drink boiling water so it rends their bowels asunder.

"47.16": And there are those of them who seek to listen to you, until when they go forth from you, they say to those who have been given the knowledge: What was it that he said just now? These are they upon whose hearts Allah has set a seal and they follow their low desires.

"47.17": And (as for) those who follow the right direction, He increases them in guidance and gives them their guarding (against evil).

"47.18": Do they then wait for aught but the hour that it should come to them all of a sudden? Now indeed the tokens of it have (already) come, but how shall they have their reminder when it comes on them?

"47.19": So know that there is no god but Allah, and, ask protection for your fault and for the believing men and the believing women; and Allah knows the place of your returning and the place of your abiding.

"47.20": And those who believe say: Why has not a chapter been revealed? But when a decisive chapter is revealed, and fighting is mentioned therein you see those in whose hearts is a disease look to you with the look of one fainting because of death. Woe to them then!

"47.21": Obedience and a gentle word (was proper); but when the affair becomes settled, then if they remain true to Allah it would certainly be better for them.

"47.22": But if you held command, you were sure to make mischief in the land and cut off the ties of kinship!

"47.23": Those it is whom Allah has cursed so He has made them deaf and blinded their eyes.

"47.24": Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Nay, on the hearts there are locks.

"47.25": Surely (as for) those who return on their backs after that guidance has become manifest to them, the Shaitan has made it a light matter to them; and He gives them respite.

"47.26": That is because they say to those who hate what Allah has revealed: We will obey you in some of the affairs; and Allah knows their secrets.

"47.27": But how will it be when the angels cause them to die smiting their backs.

"47.28": That is because they follow what is displeasing to Allah and are averse to His pleasure, therefore He has made null their deeds.

"47.29": Or do those in whose hearts is a disease think that Allah will not bring forth their spite?

"47.30": And if We please We would have made you know them so that you would certainly have recognized them by their marks and most certainly you can recognize them by the intent of (their) speech; and Allah knows your deeds.

"47.31": And most certainly We will try you until We have known those among you who exert themselves hard, and the patient, and made your case manifest.

"47.32": Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way and oppose the Apostle after that guidance has become clear to them cannot harm Allah in any way, and He will make null their deeds.

"47.33": O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle, and do not make your deeds of no effect.

"47.34": Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah's way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.

"47.35": And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.

"47.36": The life of this world is only idle sport and play, and if you believe and guard (against evil) He will give you your rewards, and will not ask of you your possessions.

"47.37": If He should ask you for it and urge you, you will be niggardly, and He will bring forth your malice.

"47.38": Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah's way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you have need (of Him), and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you.

Take it for what its worth but when someone takes a ideology any ideology not just Muslem
to the extreme you have what we have now a struggle for souls, and Minds.
To many people crowded together, someone is going to fight.

Gypsy

08-26-2006, 18:03

Wasn't sure if I should post this link in the Literary section instead, since sometimes movies are mentioned. Please move if appropriate.

Haven't seen this yet, but a friend has ordered the pre-release video and promised to pass it along after viewing. Based on the reviews and trailer I thought some here might like to see this.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/eventlist.php

Today, WWIII is raging, but few are aware of it.
War has been declared by Radical Islam against the West, but much of the the West, like Chamberlain did in his time, tends to discount the threat, choosing instead to appease it. Today, even those with courage enough to recognize the conflict, fear to identify the enemy, instead calling it a 'war on terror', as if terror—a means of battle, not an enemy—and not some specific group of people, was the foe.

Oh, and check out the Timeline link and the Resources sections.

NousDefionsDoc

08-26-2006, 18:24

WWIV. WWIII was already fought - we won.

Black Beard

08-27-2006, 16:02

I only know what I see and hear, and try to decipher between what's propaganda and what's not. If, in fact, we are fighting this war on terrorism effectively why have we backed off in so many corners of the world, (or do I just not hear about what's going on)? I would like to believe that we are still doing something about Abu-Saef in the Phillipines. Just one example, there are so many more, and I realize you gentlemen have gone over them. President Bush stated that we would fight this to every corner of the world and it just seems we as a country have eased up in so many areas! Afgahnistan seems to be building up again, according to popular political opinion, and why do we consider Pakistan an ally when the country is cleary infested with and sending these terrorists, in masses, over the border to fight us? Are we lacking manpower in the military so much that we can't afford to fight them the way we should, or is it all political bureaucracy that's preventing it? Again these are only a few examples, and I may be way off course, but it seems we let these countries dictate to us if we stay or go, and how we cannot fight this the way we should! Credit, and God Bless you all who read this and have been fighting against these terrorists for so long. I don't want to get slammed, so if i'm way off course just let me know, (as I know you will). I really just want some type of understanding as to why it at least looks as if we let them push us around, (in most cases). Should we not finally have a "no-tolerance" policy with these KILLERS!!! This is why i'm joining again at 35 yrs. old, and I would like the confidence that in SF our Gov. will allow us to fight this war effectively and where and how we should. Please help me understand, not the terrorist mentality but possibly the American Government's also. Thank you all! BB

The Reaper

08-27-2006, 16:42

Musharraf in Pakistan is walking a very fine line trying to support us.

The majority of his own citizens would prefer that we be ejected from Pakistan, receive no support, and in fact, that the government fully and openly support the Taliban.

Cooperating with us is very unpopular there.

TR

Black Beard

08-27-2006, 18:10

I heard a couple years ago that there are, or were, attempts on Musharraf's life a couple times a week on average. Seems like the infidels have him by the balls, and he can't really make too many moves to help the sit. So with Pakistan, we are trying to make a difference diplomatically-am I correct? If they're literally breeding so many terrorists over there shouldn't we make it priority to do militarily? (FID taking place?) Maybe our Government thinks, or wants us to think we're fighting them by stomping them out at the borders, (in the mountains), in Afgahnistan. It just seems like we are really backing off on operations over there. Like I said before, maybe I just don't know what's going on, but I'd like to think that much has been obvious. We are suppose to be turning a lot of the responsibility over to NATO in the near future, and I just don't understand. Hate to see our soldiers die over there on those past "special missions" that seemed to be making a big diff. at the time, and now we're letting up before the job is done. Taliban and AQ still getting stronger in those parts-true or not?? That's where we went first, then left for Iraq before we really "WON". Just don't understand, seems awful political to me. Thanks for the reply Sir! BB

Jack Moroney (RIP)

08-27-2006, 18:58

[QUOTE=Black Beard] So with Pakistan, we are trying to make a difference diplomatically-am I correct? If they're literally breeding so many terrorists over there shouldn't we make it priority to do militarily? (FID taking place?) Maybe our Government thinks, or wants us to think we're fighting them by stomping them out at the borders, (in the mountains), in Afgahnistan. It just seems like we are really backing off on operations over there.

Okay, let's define the effort. First we are not fighting a global war on terrorism, regardless of what folks are labeling it ,we are fight Islamic Fundamentalists who use terrorism, among many other techniques, to attempt to co-opt their own religion in order to build their base of support. There are more elements of national power than diplomacy and military that can and are being used to support our national interest in defeating/controlling islamic fundamentalism. You mention FID-in FID the military plays a supporting role not a dominant role and in order for FID to be effective the country in which we are supporting with FID has to take the actions necessary to resolve the problems that are contributing to the growth and support of the fundamentalists that are conducting the terror campaigns both against us and their secular brethern. In order for that to happen we have to help shore up those governments with whatever means we can so that they can gain legitmacy with their own people and solve their own problems with the appropriate measures that fit their culture and needs which may or may not coincide with what we see as appropriate to the way we view things. Islamic Fundamentalists are not the only problem with which we are dealing that require military resources and there are many actions on going world wide that take folks from the visible theather of operations in SWA. Your desire to see things come to a speedy conclusion is understandable but not realistic, you cannot just kill them all and let Allah sort them out, this is an insurgency that has been growing for decades and it is going to take many years to resolve the problems that allowed it to foment and it has to be solved within Islam. This is an very simplistic view of a complicated situation and this topic really has been heavily addressed already.

The Reaper

08-27-2006, 19:28

tk27

08-27-2006, 22:18

Musharraf is doing a far better job, IMHO, than anyone likely to replace him.
Sir, How do you think the 2007 election is going to play out? What is your take on Musharraf's opposition? What do you think the US government positition will be?

Black Beard

08-28-2006, 03:27

Thanks for the insight! I don't at all expect there is or will be a simple and expedient solution to this problem. It's clearly, quite a tangled web with decades of history backing it up, I do understand that. It just seems that some days we're taking "one step forward and......, and it gets frustrating, (more so i'm sure for those on the ground fighting it!). To fully understand it is asking way too much, but I just wanted some opinion from those much more educated in it than myself. Thank you both again, and Reaper I will take your advice. I try not to take things at face value, and try to research what I hear, because I know a lot probably doesn't hold water right out of the gate. Thanks again Gentlemen!! BB

Team Sergeant

09-02-2006, 14:19

Such a beautiful, tolerant, benevolent, religion…….(Am I the only person in the world that holds islam synonymous with terrorism?)

Team Sergeant
"UNBELIEVER"
"INFIDEL"

Qaeda urges non-Muslims to convert to Islam

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda called on non-Muslims especially in the United States to convert to Islam and abandon their 'misguided' ways or else suffer, according to a video tape posted on a Web site on Saturday.

The speaker was identified as Azzam the American, also known as Adam Yahiye Gadahn -- an Islamic convert from California wanted for questioning by the FBI and who U.S. authorities believe to be involved in an information campaign for al Qaeda.

"To Americans and the rest of Christendom we say, either repent (your) misguided ways and enter into the light of truth or keep your poison to yourself and suffer the consequences in this world and the next," Gadahn said in English.

He appeared in the video dressed in a white turban and seated in front of a computer and books.

Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawhari made a brief statement at the beginning of the tape -- dated September 2006 -- urging viewers to listen carefully to the message, entitled: "An Invitation to Islam".

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-09-02T174900Z_01_L02687203_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURTIY-QAEDA-TAPE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

casey

09-02-2006, 16:56

….(Am I the only person in the world that holds islam synonymous with terrorism?)

Team Sergeant
"UNBELIEVER"
"INFIDEL"

TS, I thougth we had an agreement: you do the odd days - I do the even...

Kuffar T

incommin

09-02-2006, 18:38

I look at what Muslim radicals are doing in the name of Islam and I think about history and the Spanish Inquisition. Has any religion been free of individuals who haven't done terrible things in the name of their religion? Can you be at war with an idea or faith? Or are we at war with a group of people who are using an idea or faith? Protestants and Catholics have gone to war against each other on numerous occasions. That doesn't make either religion bad. People are bad! Do you blame a gun that launches a round that kills someone or do you blame the person who pulled the trigger? I am a Baptist. We have nuts within my religion too.

There is no simple answer. Painting a whole religion as evil isn't an answer. Are the Muslim soldiers now serving in the US military evil? Were the Muslim soldiers I served with evil?

Jim

kgoerz

09-02-2006, 19:51

Monsoon65

09-02-2006, 20:35

Such a beautiful, tolerant, benevolent, religion…….(Am I the only person in the world that holds islam synonymous with terrorism?) ......

Team Sergeant
"UNBELIEVER"
"INFIDEL"

I read this article today, and remembered reading the stories from a few days ago about the Fox reporters that were rolled up in Gaza and forced to convert to Islam.

Someone on the radio called it, "Religion from the barrel of a gun" and I had to agree.

incommin

09-03-2006, 05:10

Muslim/Islam Religion teaches the young from the start hate and destruction of other religions and the west. Not everywhere but it is the Majority. The Mainstream Muslim’s are the fanatics not the other way around. That entire region would be ten times worse off then Africa if it wasn't for the Oil they have. If we ever get off our buts and come up with an alternate Fuel Source we will definitely be on the wining side.

Is it the radical Wahhabi sect pushing this or all sects????? I think the majority of Muslims just want to live in peace and raise their families. They could care less about spreading Islam and the destruction of other religions in other countries.

Team Sergeant

09-03-2006, 07:03

Is it the radical Wahhabi sect pushing this or all sects????? I think the majority of Muslims just want to live in peace and raise their families. They could care less about spreading Islam and the destruction of other religions in other countries.

incommin,

A must read to really understand what we face today. I found you the best "source" I could.

TS

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21695.pdf#search=%22Modern%20spread%20of%20Wahha bism%22

CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RS21695
Updated January 25, 2006
The Islamic Traditions of
Wahhabism and Salafiyya
Christopher M. Blanchard
Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and subsequent investigations of these attacks have called attention to Islamic puritanical movements known as Wahhabism and Salafiyya. The Al Qaeda terrorist network and its leader, Osama bin Laden, have advocated a message of violence that some suggest is an extremist interpretation of this line of puritanical Islam. Other observers have accused Saudi Arabia, the center of Wahhabism, of having disseminated a religion that promotes hatred and violence, targeting the United States and its allies. Saudi officials strenuously deny these allegations. This report1 provides a background on Wahhabi Islam and its association to militant fundamentalist groups; it also summarizes recent charges against Wahhabism and responses, including the findings of the final report of the 9/11 Commission and bills relevant to this issue in the second session of the 109th Congress. It will be updated periodically.

Background on Wahhabism
Definitions. “Wahhabism” generally refers to a movement that seeks to purify the Islamic religion2 of any innovations or practices that deviate from the seventh-century teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. In the West, the term has been used mostly to denote the form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and which has spread recently to various parts of the world. In most Muslim nations, however, believers who adhere to this creed prefer to call themselves “Unitarians” (muwahiddun) or “Salafiyyun” (sing. Salafi, noun Salafiyya). The latter term derives from the word salaf meaning to “follow” or “precede,” a reference to the followers and companions of the Prophet.

Some Muslims believe the Western usage of the term “Wahhabism” unfairly carries negative and derogatory connotations. Although this paper explains differences in these terms, it will refer to Wahhabism in association with a conservative Islamic creed centered in and emanating from Saudi Arabia and to Salafiyya as a more general puritanical Islamic movement that has developed independently in various places in the Islamic world.

History of Wahhabism.

Wahhabism is a puritanical form of Sunni Islam and is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, although it is much less rigidly enforced in the latter. The word “Wahhabi” is derived from the name of a Muslim scholar, Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1791). Frustrated by the moral decline of his society, Abd al-Wahhab denounced many popular beliefs and practices as idolatrous. Ultimately, he encouraged a “return” to the pure and orthodox practice of the “fundamentals” of Islam, as embodied in the Quran and in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. In the eighteenth century, Muhammad bin Saud, founder of the modern-day Saudi dynasty, partnered with Abd al-Wahhab to begin the process of unifying disparate tribes in the Arabian Peninsula. Since the foundation of modern Saudi Arabia in 1932, there has been a close relationship between the Saudi ruling family and the Wahhabi religious establishment.

Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia Today. With the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism gained new ground and was used as the official basis for determining laws and conduct in Saudi society. Wahhabism is the basis for practices such as the segregation of the sexes, the prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol, a ban on women driving, and numerous other social restrictions. Wahhabism also has shaped the Saudi educational structure, and Saudi schoolbooks generally denounce teachings that do not conform to Wahhabist beliefs.5 The puritanical and iconoclastic philosophies reflected in this sect historically have resulted in conflict with other Muslim groups. Wahhabism opposes most popular religious practices such as saint veneration, the celebration of the Prophet’s birthday, and practices associated with the mystical teachings of Sufism. In September 2005, the State Department again designated Saudi Arabia as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act “for particularly severe violations of religious freedom.”

According to the State Department’s 2005 International Religious Freedom Report on Saudi Arabia, in spite of efforts by some senior Saudi government officials to promote tolerance of other religions and steps to remove some intolerant material from textbooks, members of the Shi’a Muslim minority continue “to face political and economic discrimination,” and non-Muslim groups are not granted freedom of worship, whether public or private.6 Harassment of citizens by Wahhabist religious police reportedly increased during 2005.

Political and Religious Factors
What Is Salafiyya? As noted above, among adherents in general, preference is given to the term “Salafiyya” over “Wahhabism.” These terms have distinct historical roots, but they have been used interchangeably in recent years, especially in the West.

Wahhabism is considered by some Muslims as the Saudi form of Salafiyya. Unlike the eighteenth-century Saudi roots of Wahhabism, however, modern Salafi beliefs grew from a reform-oriented movement of the early twentieth century, which developed in various parts of the Islamic world and progressively grew more conservative. In line with other puritanical Islamic teachings, Salafis generally believe that the Quran and the Prophet’s practices (hadith) are the ultimate religious authority in Islam, rather than the subsequent commentaries produced by Islamic scholars that interpret these sources.7 Salafis also generally maintain that they are “the only [Muslim] group that will be saved on Judgment Day.”8 Salafiyya is not a unified movement, and there exists no single Salafi “sect.”

However, Salafi interpretations of Islam appeal to a large number of Muslims worldwide — in Africa, Asia, North America, and throughout the Middle East.

The Use of Violence. According to a number of scholars, the use of violent jihad9 is not inherently associated with puritanical Islamic beliefs. Among certain puritanical Muslims — be they self-described Salafis or Wahhabis — advocacy of jihad is a relatively recent phenomenon and is highly disputed within these groups. Some scholars date the ascendancy of militancy among Salafis to the 1980s war of resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The war against the Soviets gained wide support throughout the Muslim world and mobilized thousands of volunteer fighters.

Radical beliefs spread rapidly through select groups of mosques and madrasas (Islamic religious schools),10 located on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which were created to support the Afghan resistance and funded primarily by Saudi Arabia. Similar U.S. and European funding provided to Pakistan to aid the Afghan mujahideen also may have been diverted to fund the construction and maintenance of madrasas. Following the war, Jihadist Salafis with ties to the Afghan resistance denounced leaders of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt as “apostates” and as vehicles for facilitating Western imperialism. The Afghan Taliban group also emerged from this network of institutions. Jihadist Salafi groups such as Al Qaeda continue to advocate the overthrow of the Saudi government and other regimes and the establishment of states that will sustain puritanical Islamic doctrine enforced under a strict application of shari’a or Islamic law.

Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda Terrorist Network.

The Al Qaeda terrorist network arose in the early 1990s, directly out of the radical Salafi Jihadist is intended to polarize the Islamic world into two clearly delineated factions: between the umma (Islamic community) and those regimes which are closely allied with the United States and the West.11 Attacks inside Saudi Arabia, in particular, have aimed to undermine the Saudi ruling family, to expose its allegedly “misguided” or insufficient dedication to Wahhabi Islam, and to jeopardize its protectorship of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s holiest cities. Since the 1990s, Al Qaeda has called for a war against the United States, alleging that “U.S. crimes against Islam” were part of a “Zionist-Crusader” plot intended to annihilate Muslims.12 Many Islamic scholars, including some Wahhabi leaders, have condemned the September 11 attacks against civilians as having no roots
in the Islamic religion and view Bin Laden as a hijacker and a usurper of their religion.13 Bush Administration officials have echoed this sentiment, noting that the United States has “an interest in the voices of the moderates, the people who do not want their religion stolen away from them by extremists like Osama bin Laden.”

Although the majority of Salafi adherents do not advocate the violence enshrined in Bin Laden’s message, this ideology has attracted a number of followers throughout the Muslim world. Analysts note that some receptive groups are drawn to the anti-Western political messages preached by Bin Laden and his organization, despite the fact that these groups may hold different religious beliefs. Some experts have cautioned against “homogenizing” these groups and organizations into a monolithic entity.

lrd

09-03-2006, 15:59

Such a beautiful, tolerant, benevolent, religion…….(Am I the only person in the world that holds islam synonymous with terrorism?)

Team Sergeant
"UNBELIEVER"
"INFIDEL"

....

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-09-02T174900Z_01_L02687203_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURTIY-QAEDA-TAPE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

From the Counterterrorism Blog: http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/09/the_azzam_threat_a_prelude_to_1.php

Counterterrorism Blog
The "Azzam" Threat: A prelude to Future Jihad in America
By Walid Phares
PS: This is a short version posting. The longer version will be posted later.

The video tape issued by al Qaeda’s “as-sahhab” production, in which Ayman Zawahiri introduces Jihadist Adam Gahdan to the world as a senior speaker to the American people on behalf of the movement, should be taken seriously. Not necessarily at the level of detecting the next Terror attack but at the level of understanding this prelude to Future Jihad both in America and within the West. I wasn’t surprised at all by the 45 minutes elaboration by convert Gahdan regarding all of the issues he raised. For “Azzam al Amrikee” is the clearest specimen of Jihadism’s second generation within the US, in as much as the 7/7 videos revealed the type of future Jihadists for Great Britain’s second generation. However, when one would listen carefully to the taped video, you’d find a treasure of knowledge and indicators for the current state of thinking of al Qaeda and its ideologues. In short it is a sample of what is on the mind of Salafi Jihadists for the United States and the West. Following are few of the issues I noted:

1) The hand behind the message

In short, Azzam’s videotaped message is indeed “American.” Experts have heard it in US and Canadian cities and internet is flowing with it. Whether Gadahn was reading from a prompter or not –and I believe he was with great skills- I tend to believe that such a speech –rather than being dismissed as mere propaganda- is a message coming to us from what’s already inserted inside America, which leads me to the second point

2) Who is it destined to?

It is basically addressed to those who will carry a “Jihad in America,” possibly asserting Adam Gahdan as their leader. Also, this is a very intelligent move to pierce the linguistic shield of America’s media and reach US citizens directly, as a way to spread confusion at least among those who have a hazy understanding of the Jihadists.

3) The ideological platform

In short, the “Azzam” video reconfirms clearly, in an English language that academic translators won’t be able to distort, that al Qaeda’s movement worldwide and in the United States is seeking total annihilation or conversion of the enemy: American and other democracies.

4) Argumentation tactics:

The “speech writer,” emulating many commentators on al Jazeera or al Manar, hopes to rally many among those who “hate Bush and Blair” but stops short of stating that Jihadism will hate all future US Presidents and British Prime Ministers “if they do not convert.” He reminds us of the Crusades, Inquisition, Hiroshima, and killings in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously, the “writer” skips the Genocides of Sudan, and the massacres of Algeria, the Kurds, Shiites perpetrated by Salafists or Baathists.

5) The enemies of Jihad in America

Sensationally but not unexpectedly, he “name” a number of intellectual-enemies in this country: Daniel Pipes, Steven Emerson, Robert Spencer and Michael Spencer. Rarely Jihadi Terrorists at this high level media exposure named symbols of their enemy’s intelligentsia. And in addition to “experts” named in the tape, Gadahn goes on a ferocious attack against American “Tele-Evangelists” and their media, showing the other type of foes al Qaeda is very upset with.

6) The “friends” of al Qaeda?

“Azzam” names “sympathetic” personalities for whom he has messages for action; He asks journalist Seymour Hirsh to “reveal more” than what was published in a New Yorker article on the War: Obviously an open call by al Qaeda to M Hirsch to resume the attack against the US War on Terror. Then “Azzam” turn to two British journalists and thank them for their “admiration and respect for Islam” encourage them to do the final step: Convert. He names British MP George Galloway and journalist Robert Fisk. But more troubling in Gadahn’s tape was his direct call to Jihadists within the US Armed forces to work patiently till the time comes and they should continue to aggregate while escaping the surveillance of their military authorities. This theme, which I covered briefly in Future Jihad, is of great concern to US national security. The “Azzam” speech brings further concerns as to the credibility of this threat.

7) The Al Qaeda offer: Conversion or fire

“Azzam”’s mission in this tape was to deliver a message. His bottom line is this: We –the Jihadists- have you cornered everywhere and you are not going to win this war. His central message is typically Jihadic: “Surrender, convert or the fire:” Meaning war on Earth, all of it, and Hell fire after death.

****

This fascinating and revealing taped-speech bring the American public even closer to what lays ahead for this generation and the next one as long as the Jihadist ideology is spreading inside America and worldwide.

****

Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a visiting Fellow with the European Foundation for Democracy. He is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America.

By Walid Phares on September 2, 2006 7:28 PM

incommin

09-04-2006, 07:04

TS,

Thanks for the post. Here is what I understand.

1. There are radical Muslims that want to turn time back to the 7th century when Islam controlled everything between Spain and Iraq.

2. Islamic clerics, all over the world, hate the influences of the west and the impact they are making on Islamic cultures. There have been some clerics that have stated words to the effect that "Islam is the religion of the one true god so Islam should be the religion of the world".

3. Religious fanatics that are willing to die for their religion are the most dangerous enemy one can face. And sleeper cells within a religion will be very hard to find.

4. Loss of power and influence is strong motivation for fighting.

5. Islam wants to convert others but does not want its believers to be converted.

6. Religious nuts of any religious faith are dangerous.

Having said all that, are we fighting against a whole religious faith or fringe nuts within that faith?

Jim

Peregrino

09-04-2006, 09:14

Team Sergeant

09-04-2006, 09:35

TS,

Having said all that, are we fighting against a whole religious faith or fringe nuts within that faith?

Jim

Jim,

I've made up my mind concerning islamic ideology.

I'll ask you, why did the islamic people attack the United States on 9/11? Why were there millions dancing in the streets after these attacks?

Like you I would like to think its a few fanatics we're facing. I've little doubt its much more than that.

TS

Omar Ahmad
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies.
A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Jack Moroney (RIP)

09-04-2006, 10:03

Despite Christian practices, especially from the Middle Ages through the Post-Reformation, the Bible does not exhort its adherents to "Convert, Enslave, or Kill" non-believers. The Koran does. Practicing Islamics tend to take the Koran literally. FWIW - Peregrino

Absolutely. When the lion lays down with the lamb it is because he is just not ready to eat. This religion was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the box cutter. The 1.2 billion adherants are being duped by those that want to co-opt their religion and I see very few that are standing up to turn in their brethern who advocate the conversion or death of the infidels. Just my opinion.

7624U

09-04-2006, 10:37

Absolutely. This religion was spread by the sword and has been maintained by the box cutter.

+2

That made my day :D

Dan

09-06-2006, 15:06

Here's a video that ya'll might be interested in seeing:

www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

x SF med

09-06-2006, 16:27

Friendly and peaceful little group, aren't they?

incommin

09-07-2006, 06:56

So when do we start the 10th crusade? When do we stop being politically correct? How do you wipe out a religion? How many generations will it take to take the hate out of Islam? I don't have any issues with killing people who want to harm my family and our way of life. The question is how do you do it?

The Reaper

09-07-2006, 07:25

x SF med

09-07-2006, 08:30

Then we can just fence the region off and wait till their Reformation is over. TR

Their reformation may require Lucifer rather than Luther, and a huge fence, possibly a wall. Actually, they need to look at their own roots for their reformation, Isalm was a different animal prior to the Crusades, expansionistic, yes, but a much more tolerant version than the current vintage. Take a look at the cultural resurgence sparked by the Moorish cultural influence in Spain during that time - 3 Popes were trained in the Quadrividium by the Calif of Seville or the Calif of Toledo. I think that internal politics (religious and secular), and economics had a huge part to play in this current radical resurgence. I will not condemn the people, nor condone the leadership -we all know there can be huge differences between the two, and some of the populace will follow the leadership in order to survive the purges (see Naziizm, Bolshevism, Maoism, early militant Catholicism, British/French/German Reformations).

Just my .02 - take it or leave it.

incommin

09-08-2006, 05:11

By making this country energy independent. The POTUS should have announced a Manhattan project for alternate energy sources commercially available to Americans in less than ten years when prices hit $50 per barrel.

Then we can just fence the region off and wait till their Reformation is over.

TR

Take away their oil revenues and let them learn to eat sand or live in peace with the rest of the world. I like that.

Monsoon65

09-10-2006, 20:47

By making this country energy independent. The POTUS should have announced a Manhattan project for alternate energy sources commercially available to Americans in less than ten years when prices hit $50 per barrel.

Then we can just fence the region off and wait till their Reformation is over.

TR

And the frustrating part is that we can do this. Sure, it's not going to be done overnight, but we can do it. JFK said we'd have a man on the moon by the end of the decade, and we did. Carter should have made a similar statement as soon as Iran got uppity in the 1970's.

deanwells

09-11-2006, 04:48

Team Sergeant

09-11-2006, 07:14

Lack of Education breeds gerbils for manipulation by those who are educated and given the gift of gab to move the masses into oblivion.

A barstool debater once told me that in a neighborhood bar. What do the QP's think about this statement?

One does not need an education to compel those gerbils to do anything. (Remember, mohammed was illiterate.)

Patriot

09-11-2006, 13:13

Out of curiosity I googled up the Quran, and conducted some searches, for things like fighting, war, battle, slaves, divorce, etc.

If this book (the Quran) is the source they use to guide them in life then I have to say yes, we are at war with Islam. Some muslims choose to engage us in battle, others are engaging us by other means. But, they are seeking our downfall because according to the Quran it is the duty of all muslims to endeavour to make Islam the dominant religion on earth.

deanwells

09-12-2006, 01:19

One does not need an education to compel those gerbils to do anything. (Remember, mohammed was illiterate.)

I concur

Team Sergeant

09-14-2006, 10:19

That quote is going to leave a mark........;) (I hope the Pope is sporting body armor....)

Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger

The Pope's comments came on a visit to Germany
Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

A senior Pakistani Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Gamdi, said jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword.

Turkey's top religious official asked for an apology for the "hostile" words.

In Indian-administered Kashmir, police seized copies of newspapers which reported the Pope's comments to prevent any tension.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope's comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam.

'Abhorrent'

In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born pontiff explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity and the relationship between violence and faith.

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of Byzantine, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperors words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

The Pope is due to visit Turkey in November and the Turkish response was swift and strong, the BBC's Sarah Rainsford reports from Istanbul.

Religious leader Ali Badda Kolu said the Pope's comments represented what he called an "abhorrent, hostile and prejudiced point of view".

Whilst Muslims might express their criticism of Islam and of Christianity, he argued, they would never defame the Holy Bible or Jesus Christ.

He said he hoped the Pope's speech did not reflect "hatred in his heart" against Islam.

Many Turks see Benedict as a Turkophobe and commentators call his words just before the holy month of Ramadan "ill-timed and ill-conceived", our correspondent adds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5346480.stm

incommin

09-14-2006, 12:53

My son in law, USAF LTC, sent me this:

On July 15, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London
attacks. One of the guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has
filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the
Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Kil lers," is based on
interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and
would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to
a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.

Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film?

A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD
(Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the persona
lities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again
and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all
smiling one second before they blow themselves up.

Q - Why is this film especially important?

A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable
phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real
problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the f inger against a
culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where
their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in
the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their
only certitude.

Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that
other experts do not know?

A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of
an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event,
generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are
talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no
opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from
the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute.
So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to
a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is
no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated
subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot
satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam
describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be
allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others
and killing thems elves to reach this redemption becomes their only
solution.

Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families
and survivors of suicide bombings?

A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with
seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic,
which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that
what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like
interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the
absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, m y son is dead." Her son
had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride
than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.
This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation
of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people
whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to
be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They
don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have
to destroy .

Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond
punishment. Is death the ultimate power?

A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after- life. They
are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the
ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this
single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever
happen to them, since they become God's sword.

incommin

09-14-2006, 12:55

Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the
psychopathology.

A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally
inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually
have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable
idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts,
but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't
see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an
Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly
battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this
deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the
after-life in Paradise.

Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or
to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge,
and what He tells them to do.

Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on
earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in
their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims
and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the
absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect
other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy
of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for
today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to
become extremists.

Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.

A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing
God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women,
forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge
of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.

Q - What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?

A - Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist
organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through
different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide
bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the
Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the
West (mainly symbolized by Israel).

Q - Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide
bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?

A - There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein
($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are
gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their
children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very
attached to their families, might find in this financial support another
reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy
and then committing suicide.

Q - Why are so many suicide bombers young men?

A - As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a
sure way to become a hero. The shaheed are the cowboys or the firemen of
Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what
kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?

Q - What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?

A - The U.N. is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or
ex-communist countries. Their hands are tied. The U.N. has condemned Israel
more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro,
Idi Amin or Kaddahfi . By behaving this way, the U.N. leaves a door open by
not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through
UNRWA, the U.N. is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas,
representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestini an
refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the U.N. has maintained
Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50
years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which
still live in deplorable conditions. Four hundred million dollars are spent
every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of
UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric
Cantor on this sub ject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred").

Q - You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb'
simultaneously. Explain what you mean.

A - Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second
the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform
representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it.

Q - How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism
in general?

Continuation:

A - Stop being politically correct and stop believing that this culture is a
victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism.
Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat
him in order to make peace one day with the German people.

Q - Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers?
Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new
wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?

A - Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical
Islamists. Everywhere Islam expands there is regional conflict. Right now,
there are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps
in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal
mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who
cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much
more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there
will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the
beginning.

JMI

09-14-2006, 16:06

Not sure if this has been posted before.

Obsession:The Movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5862460287603221198)

I ordered a copy, and will look to order "Suicide Killers" as well.

Gypsy

09-14-2006, 18:02

Not sure if this has been posted before.

Obsession:The Movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5862460287603221198)

I ordered a copy, and will look to order "Suicide Killers" as well.

Yep, about two pages back C... ;)

JMI

09-15-2006, 00:42

Yep, about two pages back C... ;)
Ah yes, who else but L to beat me to it.

Here is a another one for those like me that need edumacating:
RELENTLESS (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2533702461706761547)

I think it is a good 1 hour web movie on the history of Israeli - Palistinian conflict.

Team Sergeant

09-17-2006, 18:42

That quote is going to leave a mark........;) (I hope the Pope is sporting body armor....)

Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger

islam is such a kind, tolerant, merciful and understanding religion……
Team Sergeant

Italian nun slain in Somalia, Pope link speculation

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Gunmen killed an Italian nun at a children's hospital in Mogadishu on Sunday in an attack that drew immediate speculation of links to Muslim anger over the Pope's recent remarks on Islam.

The Catholic nun's guard also died from pistol shots in the latest attack on foreign personnel in volatile Somalia.

The assassinations were a blow to Mogadishu's new Islamist rulers' attempt to prove they have pacified one of the world's most lawless cities since chasing out warlords in June.

The bodyguard died instantly, but the nun, from the Missionaries of the Consolation order based in Nepi near Rome, was rushed into an operating theater after being hit by three or four bullets in the chest, stomach and back.

"She died in the hospital treatment room," doctor Ali Mohamed Hassan told Reuters. "She was shot outside the hospital, going to her house just across the gate."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060917/wl_nm/somalia_italian_dc_3

dennisw

09-17-2006, 19:26

islam is such a kind, tolerant, merciful and understanding religion……
Team Sergeant

Also, imagine the great courage required to shoot an unarmed nun.

The Reaper

09-17-2006, 19:38

Also, imagine the great courage required to shoot an unarmed nun.

In the back.

TR

lrd

09-17-2006, 21:49

islam is such a kind, tolerant, merciful and understanding religion……
Team Sergeant

A few pictures to illustrate your point:

http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html

incommin

09-18-2006, 05:18

We are a peaceful religion and if you say otherwise we will kill you!

Can't get much clearer than that.

Jim

37F5V

09-18-2006, 07:42

mugwump

09-18-2006, 09:07

It seems to me that Islam is doing nothing but validating the quote that the Pope read. Who is to say this isn't a calculated move to draw such a negative response from Radical Islam? Makes you go hmmm.
Go Pope Benedict XVI !

"An Iraqi militant group led by al-Qaeda has threatened to massacre Christians in response to remarks about Islam by Pope Benedict XVI that have caused offence across the Muslim world.

The Pope quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who criticised the teachings of Mohammad for endorsing the use of violence, in a speech to an academic audience at a German university last Tuesday."

"Irony" must not tranlate into Arabic.

Team Sergeant

09-18-2006, 10:55

Even more benevolent and understanding islamic behavior.....
Bring it on.....:rolleyes:

TS

Group's warning to the West: Convert or be killed

Associated Press
Sept. 18, 2006 07:15 AM

CAIRO, Egypt - An al-Qaida-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters returned to the streets across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."

Protests also raged in Iraq, where angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in Basra, and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."

The pope on Sunday said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his speech last week in which he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."

Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," he said during his weekly appearance before pilgrims in Italy.

The statement of regret - the pope's second in two days - helped ease some tensions.

In Turkey, where outrage against Benedict's remarks had been swift, Catholic bishops decided Monday that no changes were necessary in his upcoming visit in November - his first to a Muslim country, Vatican spokesman George Marovic said.

Marovic said the trip was expected to go on as planned, and the bishops had discussed the details of a religious ceremony the pontiff is to lead in Istanbul.

However, State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who oversees the religious affairs in Turkey, said he expected Turkish authorities to cancel the visit if Benedict does not offer a full apology.

"We are expecting the authorities to unilaterally cancel this visit. The pope's coming to Turkey isn't going to foment the uniting of civilizations, but a clash of civilizations," he said.

The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey.

The appeal by Fikret Karabekmez, a former legislator for the banned pro-Islamic Welfare Party, called for Benedict to be tried under several Turkish laws, among them obstruction of freedom of belief, encouraging discrimination based on religion, and inciting religious hatred.

A prosecutor in the ministry will evaluate the request and decide whether to open a case.

Angry reactions also persisted in other corners of the Muslim world, where many demanded more of an apology by the pope than Sunday's statement of regret.

"Muslims have all this while felt oppressed, and the statement by the pope saying he is sorry about the angry reaction is inadequate to calm the anger - more so because he is the highest leader of the Vatican," Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on national television in Pakistan the pope had apparently forgotten it was Christianity that was spread by the sword during the Crusades.

Elsewhere, protesters rallied in the city of Muzaffarabad, in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. "His apology is not sufficient because he did not say that what he said was wrong," said Uzair Ahmed, from Pasban-e-Hurriyat, a Pakistani political group.

Even in China, where the government exerts tight controls over religious activities, a top religious official said Benedict had insulted the nation's Muslims.

"This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan, president of Islamic Association of China, was quoted as saying in an interview with the Xinhua news agency.

In the Middle East, where Muslims threw firebombs at seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the weekend, Christian leaders posted guards outside some churches.

"We are afraid," said Sonia Kobatazi, a Christian Lebanese, after Mass at the Maronite Christian St. George Cathedral in Beirut, Lebanon, where about a dozen policemen carrying automatic weapons stood guard.

Christians - a minority in the Mideast that varies from nearly 40 percent in Lebanon to tiny communities in the Gulf states - generally live in peace with the majority Muslims. But relations are sometimes strained and outbreaks of violence have occurred in recent years. Some worry the flap over the pope will lead to a new round.

The protests and violence have stirred up memories of the fury over cartoons that were published in a Danish newspaper of the Prophet Muhammad. Angry demonstrations took place in many countries, and some of the violence was directed at Western targets and Christian churches.

37F5V

09-18-2006, 11:18

Even more benevolent and understanding islamic behavior.....
Bring it on.....:rolleyes:

TS

Exactly..... lately I would prefer to just get in on and get it over with. If only it were that easy.

stakk4

09-18-2006, 11:28

No really, their hearts and minds tactics have worked. I am convinced that the Pope was way off the mark. :rolleyes:

The Turkish authorities are threatening to cancel his visit if he does not issue a full apology? Every time I turn on CNN its "The Pope is sorry for...." or "The Pope apologized...." They don't care that he has apologized, they only want to stir the jihad.

I have to add, that this many people in the islamic community have shown up to jump all over the Pope, but I have yet to hear one come out and say that shooting an innocent nun in the back is wrong.

S

Texian

09-18-2006, 17:39

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."
Isn't that a sort reiteration of what the Pope said?

Yet NO muslim I've heard of has said anything, much less issued a fahtwah (sp?), against religous terrorism (enlighten me if I'm mistaken about this, please).

Gypsy

09-27-2006, 20:38

Came across this elsewhere...

From The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

frostfire

09-28-2006, 07:00

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1384

Patriot

10-05-2006, 09:58

In the past, I've tried very hard to separate the radical element of islam from the non-radical when commenting on islam. Over the last few months, I've been reading the Q'ran, Sira and Hadith to gain some perspective. I've also been going over the history of islam. I have to finally admit to myself, that I think islam does indeed seek to become the dominant religion on earth by any means necessary. It is commanded in the Q'ran. When Muhammed was preaching in his early days in Mecca, the people rejected him. Greatly angerd at the rebuff, he moved to Medina where his preaching became confrontational and violent, in Mecca his sermons emphasized peaceful co-existance with Jews and Christians. That all changed when he went to Medina, and became "General" Muhammed. Muslims point to the Christian Crusades all the time, but astoundingly, people don't stop to realize that muslims had been invading Europe for centuries before and had even conquered Spain and many other European states, towns and cities. The muslims are responsible for the Christian Crusades because they were literally a defensive response. And the deafening silence from "moderate" muslims after terrorist attacks now appears to me to be tacit approval. Not all muslims will pick up the sword in their fight against the infidel. Some choose to use economic war, culture war, propaganda war, taking part in civil disturbances and riots in the streets of Europe, etc. I'm still trying not to group all muslims into the catagory of enemies of the west, but it's becoming more difficult to do.

Team Sergeant

10-05-2006, 18:09

I don't believe it!!!:rolleyes:

Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union
By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent

(Filed: 05/10/2006 Oct 5th 2006)

Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.

Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was warned of an 'intifada'

As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.

Instead, officers – especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups – faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.

Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.

The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.

However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.

Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.

As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".

david.rennie@telegraph.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml

Gypsy

10-05-2006, 19:12

Wish I could say I was surprised...

Team Sergeant

10-10-2006, 14:28

Nice of Dubai to show the tape publically in it's entirety, I'm sure it netted a few more demented cowards to fight for islam. TS

DUBAI (Reuters) - A man believed to be a top al Qaeda militant who escaped from a U.S. jail near Kabul was shown in a new videotape broadcast on Tuesday exhorting followers in Afghanistan to fight on until they attack the White House.

"Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House," Abu Yahya al-Libi was shown telling fighters in the tape aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.

The channel said the tape was one-hour long, showing footage of Libi urging fighters to train hard and even to try to acquire nuclear technology.

"You have to get well prepared by starting with exercise, and then you have to learn how to use technology until you are capable of nuclear weapons," he said.

Libi was shown in the footage bearded and wearing a long grey Muslim robe while standing in front of a group of fighters.

Libi is believed to be the alias of Libyan Mohammad Hassan who along with three other al Qaeda militants broke out of the U.S. jail at Bagram Air Base last year.

Analysts say he is an influential militant preacher, better known for recruiting fighters than for actual combat.

Arabiya said the authenticity of the tape could not be verified, but experts had told its bureau in Afghanistan the video was filmed in the southeast of the country.

British troops in Iraq said in September they killed one of the four al Qaeda escapees -- Omar Faruq, one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants -- in the city of Basra.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-10T173326Z_01_L10612526_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-QAEDA-LIBI.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Martin

10-23-2006, 05:08

smp52

10-30-2006, 20:28

I would like to ask those with experience in the Middle East or South Asia what nationality means for the moslems in the regions? I have only a shallow appreciation.

I can offer up some perspective on South Asia from personal experience. This by no means is a qualified opinion of an expert, merely a point of view from someone who lived there and has interest in the geopolitics of that area.

Muslim identity in South Asia (I'm grouping India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, ignoring Nepal and Sri Lanka) is quite complicated. My perspective is based primarily from an Indian one.

The partition of British India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India) into India and Pakistan (east and west) was violent, least to say. Even though Gandhi's fear if no partition ensued was civil war, Hindu-Muslim violence happened regardless to the tune of many dead. Probably one of the largest mass migrations in modern times with Muslims from India migrating to Pakistan and Hindus/Sikhs/Christians moving to India. It was an absolute mess and the political lines were drawn, but the disruption of family units, leaving things behind, etc. was quite traumatic.

Once the partition ended, you still had a significant minority of Muslims in India. With East and West Pakistan on either side. 3 wars between India and Pakistan, with the last one resulting in the creation of Bangladesh.

Where does that leave Muslims on the subcontinent?

In India, there are Muslims that are progressive and loyal to the republic and in government service (Armed forces, Bureaucracy, Politics, prominent businessmen; the President is a non practicing Muslim - a scientist), those that are not (consider themselves Muslim first, then Indian or see the government as an oppressor), then the vast majority that are too poor or hamstrung by life to really have lofty opinions. They take care of their families, live life's daily grind, always aware that political stuff can explode into a religious conflict disturbing the status quo. Most know India is their home and at the end of the day, undercutting India doesn't do them any good. Not to their pocket books, not to their families, or community.

Cricket matches between India (with Muslim players having a good history on the secular Indian team) and Pakistan are VERY competitive. If Pakistan wins, sometimes you'll hear firecrackers going off in Muslim ghettos. Best analogy I can draw is a Latino (Mexican) immigrant here waving a Mexican flag over an American one. But that doesn't do credit to the whole picture.

Kashmir, 3 wars, local demographics, etc. plays into a very rich and layered history. The Muslim populations (as rest of the South Asia) are not homogeneous, divided by language, different sects of Islam (sunni-shia/inter sunni), socio-economics, a certain order (Local Pakistan Muslims consider themselves 'real' over those that immigrated to Pakistan, West Pakistanis-East Pakistanis/Bangla, etc.)

Islamists are brewing trouble in places like Bangladesh. Here is a story (http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110009088) of a journalist that is facing accusations, false, which may eventually kill him.

LongWire

11-06-2006, 12:46

I would like to ask those with experience in the Middle East or South Asia what nationality means for the moslems in the regions? I have only a shallow appreciation.

I am asking because of the merging of politics and religion in Islam, and the Brittish poll about supporting the insurgency due to the invasion of Iraq. From the outset, you may thus think that Iraq symbolizes a geographical area rather than a grouping of people. The support could come from both a relative unity in Islamic perception of war against Islam.

It would be interesting to hear and be corrected by somebody more knowledgeable than myself.

Thanks in advance.

You have to understand that borders and boundaries are a completely western ideal. Up until the last century, all of these countries did not really exist on the modern map as far as boundaries and national terms were concerned.

Most of these people have no national identity, but more of a tribal allegiance to whichever secular sect that they belong to. I.E. Sunni/Shia/Kurdish/Pashto.

If you were to think about our country in terms of religious demographics, it might make more sense. Try Catholicism and Southern Baptism, and then think about where those people would gravitate towards, and you might get a clearer picture.........I'm thinking about Boston/N.E. and the South, and that might be a poor example, but thats just my $.02 and you kinda get the idea.

Now that's not to say that these people cant work together against a common enemy. For an example of this look back at the Dems and Republicans following 911........all support, look now.........separation.

I think that sometimes as westerners, that we make some mistakes by bringing our understanding of things into the equation, because we simply don't comprehend and process information the same way as native indig do. What I mean by that is that what is common sense stuff to us is not to them and vice versa.

Team Sergeant

12-06-2006, 11:40

Christian missionaries should take note on how the lovely “religion” of islam is gently spreading across the globe. islam; nothing to lose your head over. TS

Somalia Town Threatens to Behead People Who Don't Pray 5 Times DailyWednesday, December 06, 2006
Foxnews.com

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.

Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.

Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."

rest of the story.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html

x SF med

12-06-2006, 11:54

Believe in all merciful Allah, or die. Lovely religion, isn't it - "Cake, or Death?"

incommin

12-06-2006, 14:15

Lets see, the 12th century doesn't exist anymore. So should we see to it that people who want to live in the 12th century don't exist anymore?

Jim

Jack Moroney (RIP)

12-06-2006, 15:09

Lets see, the 12th century doesn't exist anymore. So should we see to it that people who want to live in the 12th century don't exist anymore?

Jim

Neither do the 1960's, until you visit Vermont:D

incommin

12-06-2006, 15:20

The 1960's still exist in Vermont?????

I need to let my wife know. I missed it the first time; I think I spent too much time in the library, fishing, or maybe Southeast Asia.

Jim

hoot72

12-08-2006, 07:26

The lastest controversy in Malaysia is the fact if you are born a muslim (i.e your parents are muslim) or you marry a muslim woman and therefore have to give up your religion and convert into islam, you are apparently NOT allowed to convert back OUT of it.

There was a case last year with the death of a Malaysian Indian who was the first malaysian to climb Everest and was incidently a member of the special forces who was paralysed during a military exercise and was wheelchair bound.

In the space of the 3 yrs he was in the wheelchair, he amazingly "converted" to Islam (the army claims he converted while in hospital, but his wife knew/knows nothing about this) and there was a major battle in the high court and syiarah court (muslim high court) as to who had the right to his remains when he passed away during a freak accident at home from a fall.

The issue still remains unresolved as to who has a the final say in Malaysia on anything pretaining to individual rights; the malaysian legal system or the religious courts. Its a mess.

He was eventually given a muslim burial without the consent of his wife and family (his body was taken from the morgue by MUIS, the local muslim mufti group of clerics) and its a sore point with non muslims in malaysia now.

The muslims are dead keen on forcing people to stay in the religion and to make it as difficult as possible to convert back out...

brownapple

12-08-2006, 07:34

You have to understand that borders and boundaries are a completely western ideal.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the above. China, Japan, Siam, Amman (Vietnam), Tibet and Burma all existed with borders and boundaries long before the influence of Western nations impacted on them.

A more accurate statement might be that tribal nations (including the Americas before Europeans landed, the Middle-East, other parts of SW Asia, much of the island areas of the Pacific, and Africa in general) do not have borders and boundaries as a core concept.

Martin

12-12-2006, 03:43

A more accurate statement might be that tribal nations (including the Americas before Europeans landed, the Middle-East, other parts of SW Asia, much of the island areas of the Pacific, and Africa in general) do not have borders and boundaries as a core concept.
There are the demands of tribal societies, power relationships, etc. But there are also the effects of media (including the amount of western material that is translated) and social perpetuation of norms and understanding of the societal framework, even if at an implicit level, and their relation to the world. Depending on how you look at the world, you will perceive different problems to the goals you want to attain, and solutions have to fit within your culture. Then there are legitimacy issues, among other things. When taken as a sum total, forcing a new organization on top of this society with insurgents running around, and the consequences of coalition handling and image, is this not first a matter of perception and understanding transformation, before nation building?

Do you think that we have to reconsider the general processes of nation and government building until it is phased in a way that is adapted to the local/regional situation?

M

pegasus

12-22-2006, 00:40

I have been reading the history of Wahhabism of late. During a search for current articles I came across this one about the ISG report: link (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121906A). I put the link in this thread because I think the overall content ties in with some of the Initial Posts (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10758&postcount=13)

"Only a couple of lines in the report were worthy of comment. One appears on page 29 of the printed version: "Funding for the Sunni insurgency (sic) comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia." This was the first time anybody connected to the U.S. government acknowledged something known throughout the Muslim world. That is, Sunni terrorism in Iraq is not an insurgency, but an invasion; the "foreign fighters" are mainly Saudi, as revealed when their deaths are covered in Saudi media, replete with photographs of the "martyrs."

But this obscure comment was overlooked by most of the MSM, which is also befuddled by the recent sudden departure of Ambassador Turki al-Faisal from his post in the Royal Saudi Embassy in Washington. The MSM and a large part of the American government scratch their heads, barely capable of imagining that the revelation of the Saudi financing of Sunni terrorists in Iraq and the resignation of the kingdom's man in the U.S. would have anything in common. "

sg1987

01-01-2007, 12:26

We may not be at war with it (Islam) but it sure looks as if It is at war with everyone else!:(

Somali troops capture Islamic stronghold
By NASTEEX DAHIR FARAH, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Somali government troops backed by Ethiopian tanks and fighter jets captured the last major stronghold of a militant Islamic movement Monday, while hundreds of Islamic fighters — many of them Arabs and South Asians — fled the town.To cheering and waving crowds, well-armed troops drove into Kismayo after clearing roads laced with land mines that had been left by an estimated 3,000 hard-line Islamic fighters fleeing a 13-day military onslaught by government troops backed by Ethiopian tanks and MiG fighter jets.
"We have entered and captured the city," Maj. Gen. Ahmed Musa told The Associated Press while riding aboard a truck into Kismayo, where the Islamic fighters had vowed to make a last stand but melted away under artillery fire.
Hundreds of gunmen, who apparently deserted from the Islamic movement, began looting warehouses where the Council of Islamic Courts had stored supplies, including weapons and ammunition.
Gangs skirmished in the streets, and the southern coastal city was descending into chaos, said Sheik Musa Salad, a local businessman.
"Everything is out of control, everyone has a gun, and gangs are looting everything now that the Islamists have left," he said.
Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi offered amnesty to hundreds of Islamic fighters if they gave themselves up, but he made no such offer to leaders of the group. He also ordered a countrywide disarmament starting Tuesday, an immense task in Somalia, which is awash with weapons after a 15-year civil war.
"The warlord era in Somalia is now over," Gedi said at a news conference in the recently captured capital, Mogadishu, giving a three-day deadline to hand over all weapons.
Among those sought were three al-Qaida suspects wanted in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies who were being sheltered by the Islamic group. The government hoped to catch them before they slipped out of the country.
Gedi also appealed for humanitarian aid and he repeated calls for an African Union peacekeeping force.
Maj. Felix Kulayigye, a spokesman for Uganda's army, said 1,000 troops could be ready to deploy in a few days. "We have one battalion prepared to go to Somalia immediately after they are cleared by the ministry of foreign affairs," he said.
A group of seven regional countries, known as IGAD, proposed a peacekeeping force for Somalia two years ago, and the United Nations endorsed the peacekeeping plans last month, but fighting prevented a deployment.
At the Somali government headquarters in Baidoa, government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told the AP that Uganda and Nigeria have agreed to send a total of 8,000 troops soon. Dinari said the government had also asked the United States to provide air and sea surveillance to prevent suspected extremists from escaping.
The Islamic forces have a base near the Kenyan border on a small peninsula called Ras Kamboni, where there is a pier and traditional oceangoing boats known as dhows. Ethiopian MiG fighter jets flew low, looking for boats carrying escaping Islamic fighters.
Meanwhile, senior Western diplomats were pushing for the deployment of an African-led peacekeeping force in Somalia as soon as possible to help stabilize the country, said a U.S. government official on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak to the media.
Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, in his New Year's message, called for an urgent IGAD summit to discus the Somali crisis.
The Islamic forces began to disintegrate after a night of artillery attacks at the front line and following a mutiny within its ranks, witnesses said.
Islamic leaders had vowed to make a stand against Ethiopia, which has one of the largest armies in Africa, or to begin an Iraq-style guerrilla war.
"Even if we are defeated we will start an insurgency," said Sheik Ahmed Mohamed Islan, the head of the Islamic movement in the Kismayo region. "We will kill every Somali that supports the government and Ethiopians."
Somalia's interim government and its Ethiopian allies have long accused Islamic militias of harboring al-Qaida — an accusation the movement denies — and the U.S. government has said the 1998 bombers have become leaders in the Islamic movement in Africa.
"If we capture them alive, we will hand them over to the United States," Gedi told the AP.
The military advance marked a stunning turnaround for Somalia's government, which just weeks ago could barely control one town — its base of Baidoa. The Council of Islamic Courts, which wants to transform Somalia into a strict Islamic state, had held the capital and much of southern Somalia.
___
Associated Press writers Mohamed Olad Hassan, Elizabeth A. Kennedy and Les Neuhaus in Mogadishu contributed to this report.

Sionnach

01-17-2007, 19:10

Well, they surely are at war with us. The Brits performed an undercover investigation and found some startling radicalism within thier own house. I wonder how many of these mosques we have in the US. Edit: The Brits seem to have a wider view of extremism than we do.

sweetness-light.com/archive/youtube-has-uks-undercover-mosque

Add the http:// and www.

I am a proud kaafir. :)

Team Sergeant

02-22-2007, 06:33

Such a beautiful tolerant religion......

Another step, jump backwards for egypt and islam.

Will those of you defending islam please explain this to me?

[Note to self, NEVER travel to egypt]

TS

Egyptian Court Sentences Blogger Charged With Insulting Islam to 4 Years in Prison
Thursday, February 22, 2007

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — An Egyptian blogger was convicted of insulting Islam and President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced to four years in prison on Thursday in Egypt's first prosecution of a blogger.

Abdel Kareem Nabil, a 22-year-old former student at Egypt's Al-Azhar University, an Islamic institution, had pleaded innocent to all charges, and human rights groups had called for his release.

Nabil, who used the blogger name Kareem Amer, had sharply criticized Al-Azhar on his Web log, calling it "the university of terrorism" and accusing it of suppressing free thought. He also often criticized Mubarak's regime on the blog.

cont;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253666,00.html

x SF med

02-22-2007, 07:41

Everybody expects the Islamic Inquisition!!! These guys are just losing it more and more each passing minute, and we can't bomb them back to the 15th century, they haven't gotten there yet.

smp52

02-22-2007, 11:01

Nabil, who used the blogger name Kareem Amer, had sharply criticized Al-Azhar on his Web log, calling it "the university of terrorism" and accusing it of suppressing free thought. He also often criticized Mubarak's regime on the blog.
cont;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253666,00.html

Not that he's helping himself by calling out the religion when fervor is high, but the nail in the coffin for him would have to be calling out the religion and Hosni Mubarak's socialist state apparatus. In a place where free speech isn't respected, shitting on both major power brokers leaves one with few options.

From the article:

He was a vocal critic of conservative Muslims and in other posts described Mubarak's regime as a "symbol of dictatorship."

I wonder if he sang praises of Mubarak, calling him the great benevolent leader, while coming down hard on Islamists what his punishment would be.

The_Future

02-24-2007, 16:38

Well, they surely are at war with us. The Brits performed an undercover investigation and found some startling radicalism within thier own house. I wonder how many of these mosques we have in the US.

In America we have The Nation of Islam. Are they anti-Christian or anti-white or anti-America? All of the above and none of the above. It is each believer’s interpretation of what they believe to be the truth. So are we at war with Islam or are we at war with groups of individuals who hide behind a religion for which they use as a filler to promote their own goal. Christians did it during the crusades. "Ye shall not use my name to further his own gospel for it shall be stripped of ye.....how can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only."--Jesus

I could be wrong but Jesus nor did Muhammad ever wield a sword, AK-47, or 240 Bravo against another. With that being said, it is a bastardized version of Islam that we are fighting along with those sick SOB's who would rape and kill your mothers, wives, and daughters because they believe the are the hand of God.

Peregrino

02-24-2007, 20:29

I could be wrong but Jesus nor did Muhammad ever wield a sword, AK-47, or 240 Bravo against another. With that being said, it is a bastardized version of Islam that we are fighting along with those sick SOB's who would rape and kill your mothers, wives, and daughters because they believe the are the hand of God.

You might want to study a little history. Whether Muhammad "raised a sword" personally or not - his followers certainly did, and he amassed fortune and power while exhorting them to "convert, enslave, or kill" non-believers.

The words and deeds of the Nation of Islam give me cause to equate them with every other radical/terrorist group. Individuals count for little when the group and its leadership espouse racism, radicalism, and violence.

Peregrino

CoLawman

02-24-2007, 21:27

[QUOTE=The_Future]In America we have The Nation of Islam. Are they anti-Christian or anti-white or anti-America? All of the above and none of the above. It is each believer’s interpretation of what they believe to be the truth. So are we at war with Islam or are we at war with groups of individuals who hide behind a religion for which they use as a filler to promote their own goal.

Future,

Not sure what your point is here. Are you excusing the religion or the followers?

The Nation of Islam has, for all intense and purposes, been marginalized by the rest of the Muslim community. Obviously this has been brought about by Louis Farrakhan's extreme teachings. His teachings, until recently, were anti-white, anti-American and anti-semetic !

Since he is the mouth for the Nation of Islam, then would it not seem logical that his followers must subscribe to his subversive vituperation?

lksteve

02-24-2007, 21:37

I could be wrong but Jesus nor did Muhammad ever wield a sword, AK-47, or 240 Bravo against another. not at Badr in 624...? not at Uhud in 625...? not at Hudaybiyah in 628...? he led 10,000 armed men into Mecca in 630...never raised a sword...? you, mr. Future, are out of your element....

The_Future

02-25-2007, 09:45

not at Badr in 624...? not at Uhud in 625...? not at Hudaybiyah in 628...? he led 10,000 armed men into Mecca in 630...never raised a sword...? you, mr. Future, are out of your element....

I stand corrected lksteve, Muhammad was a bad example...My primary thought is still that we are not fighting true Islam but variations of it. In the Islamic world their is contidiction to the true origin of the faith. I know people who are devout Muslims and they do not subscribe to the thinking of jihad or violence in any form or fashion. The Nation of Islam is not traditional Islam. It started with Elijah Muhammad's ideology. Point being it is of an occult following. I have heard Farrakhan speak and have read his doctrine. In El-hajj Malik El-shabazz's (Malcolm X) words he came to a point that he denounced the nation of islam.

Question= If you attend a Christian church for many years and later you find out that the Pastor engages in adultry, or homosexuality, or some type of other than honorable act ; does that make you the same as he because you are apart of the congregation?

I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST AS MY LORD AND SAVIOR. AND I BELIEVE THAT GOD CREATED SOME PEOPLE TO FIGHT THE IN-JUSTICE AND THE EVIL IN THIS WORLD THAT IF LEFT UNCHECKED WILL SURELY DEVOUR US ALL.

The Reaper

02-25-2007, 10:14

Question= If you attend a Christian church for many years and later you find out that the Pastor engages in adultry, or homosexuality, or some type of other than honorable act ; does that make you the same as he because you are apart of the congregation?

It does if you praise him for doing it, celebrate the acts, or encourage others to do so, or collect money to knowingly pay for his sin, as many Muslims do.

I would acknowledge that many Muslims are peaceful people, some may even be tolerant (though the Quran does not advocate that throughout), but very few are actually speaking out against the violence being committed in their God and Prophet's name.

Many Muslims are actually supporters and enablers of the violence. If just 50% of the Muslims in Iraq reported suspected terrorists and terrorist acts, how long do you think it would take to eliminate the threat and establish peace?

As far as the Inquisition and the Crusades go as examples of Christian violence (specifically, Catholic), who today is advocating loudly and publicly, as Martin Luther did with Christianity, for a reformation of the Islamic faith?

IMHO, we have a violent medieval religion in primitive countries which have stagnated, and are refusing to evolve, modernize, or oppose the murder and violence being committed in their names.

TR

Jack Moroney (RIP)

02-25-2007, 15:01

we are not fighting true Islam but variations of it. .

We, where do you get we and whose version of true Islam do you want to believe today? The non-Islamic world is just a part of this equation. Fundamentalist adherents of Islam are fighting the sheeple of Islam for control of all of Islam and are demonstrating that they have the ability to take on and defeat the infidels in order to recruit more to their fundamentalist cause in order to create the next Caliphate. It is that simple. There is no we, there are true believers and infidels. When the non-fundamentalists stand up and fight the fundamentalists then the equation will change but until then the do nothing silent majority of so called peace loving muslims, who are considered as non-believers by their own cohorts, are enabling the fundamentalists to co-opt their own religion by inaction, cowardice, and complicit joy at the success enjoyed by their one true god exercised by blood thirsty jerks who gain acceptance into paradise for the slaughter of infidels.

The Reaper

03-07-2007, 20:38

Another Muslim who sees his religion topping his nationality and selling us out.

What is up with these people?

TR

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257619,00.html

Former Navy Sailor Arrested for Allegedly Passing Classified Secrets to Terror Financier
Wednesday, March 07, 2007

WASHINGTON —

A former Navy sailor was arrested on terrorism charges Wednesday for alleging mishandling classified information that ended up in the hands of a suspected terrorism financier.

Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, was arrested in a case that began in Connecticut and has stretched across the country and into Europe and the Middle East.

Abujihaad, who is also known as Paul R. Hall, is charged in the same case as Babar Ahmad, a British computer specialist accused of running Web sites to raise money for terrorism. He is schedule be extradited to the U.S. to face trial.

Abujihaad was arrested in Phoenix on charges of supporting terrorism with an intent to kill U.S. citizens and transmitting classified information to unauthorized people.

During the Ahmad investigation, investigators discovered computer files containing classified information about the positions of U.S. Navy ships and discussing their susceptibility to attack.

Abujihaad, a former enlisted man, exchanged e-mails with Ahmad while on active duty on the USS Benfold, a guided-missile destroyer, in 2000 and 2001, according to an affidavit released Wednesday. He allegedly purchased videos promoting violent jihad.

The documents retrieved from Ahmad show drawings of Navy battle groups and discuss upcoming missions. They also say the battle group could be attacked using small weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades. The ships were never attacked.

Abujihaad had a secret security clearance that would have allowed him access to that material, according to the affidavit.

The investigation was run out of Connecticut because Ahmad allegedly used an Internet service provider there to host one of his fundraising Web sites.

Ahmad was arrested in 2004 but the case against Abujihaad apparently received a boost in December following the arrest of Derrick Shareef, 22, of Genoa, Ill., near Chicago, who was accused of planning to use hand grenades to attack holiday shoppers at a mall.

According to the affidavit, Shareef and Abujihaad lived together in 2004 when Ahmad was arrested. After reading news reports of the case, Abujihaad became upset and said "I think this is about me," Shareef told investigators.

Authorities then taped a phone conversation between Abujihaad and a confidential informant in which Abujihaad appeared nervous. Though Abujihaad didn't say outright that he was involved in the leak of classified information, the affidavit provided enough evidence for an arrest warrant.