Sorry, folks. You weren't the targets. You were just in the way. (Reuters)
Jordan's King says that in the attack on Spain was really aimed at moderate Islam. Certainly it is true that radical Muslims want to take control of the Islamic world. Perhaps getting to kill uppity dhimmis is just icing on the cake.
As I have said many times, I can find moderate Muslims, but I have a hard time finding moderate Islam.
ROME (Reuters) - Muslim extremists threatening to attack Europe do not want to destroy the West but are aiming to wipe out moderate Islam in order to take power, Jordan's King Abdullah said in an interview published on Tuesday.
He told Italy's Corriere della Sera that the West should take seriously the threat of more terror attacks like the Madrid train bombings that killed 202 people because no one was safe from Muslim militants."No one is safe. Jordan is not and neither is Spain, which was so sorely hit. This is a threat to the security of Europe," the king said.
But he added: "Their objective is not the destruction of the West but the destruction of moderate Islam in order to take power. Europe is a secondary object. By weakening it [Europe], they want to influence the future role of the Muslim world in the international community."
Spanish investigators suspect the Madrid bombings are linked to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaida or Muslim militants backing his group.
Many Spaniards saw the attack as retaliation for Spain's support for the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
Asked if he thought countries would only be targeted if they had backed the war, the king said: "I think this is only part of a much broader picture, linked to a struggle within Islam, with extremists who are seeking to create conflict between East and West and [incite] inter-religious wars."
The phrase "moderate Muslim" should not be used unless it is clearly defined. I suggest that any Muslim who misleads non-Muslims about the central tenets of Islam -- whether or not he agrees with them -- is objectively furthering the Jihad, by rendering non-Muslims unwary, and keeping them in a state of naive trustingness that can only cause them harm. So that even if one does not, oneself, subscribe fully to orthodox Islam, if a "moderate Muslim" does not tell the truth about Islam, he furthers the Jihad. And in any case, his mere presence in the dar al-Harb swells the perceived political power of Muslims, increases security needs (which cost taxpayers mightily), and there is always the likelihood that a "moderate Muslim" who has not become an open enemy of traditional Islam -- in the manner, say, of Ibn Warraq -- will have children who, for whatever reason, may revert to Islam in its traditional, mainstream, highly dangerous-to-Infidels form. As we have no way of detecting those who are the true believers in Islam, from those who are not, we have a duty to prevent the growth of Muslim populations in the Infidel lands -- if, that is, we care about our own safety, and that of our own civilization. We are under no obligation to commit civilizational or other kinds of suicide.
There are many in Western Europe today who, realizing that they have been misled by their own elites into permitting the large-scale entry of Muslims who are bearers of an ideology that requires them to be implacably hostile to the un-Believers, to regard the lands of dar al-Harb has Muslim by right, and to work, through the seemingly unopposed instruments of Da'wa and demography, to turn dar al-Harb into dar al-Islam.
No Muslim, least of all those phony charmers among the Hashemites -- whether it is the rather stolid, thick-necked current king, that graduate of Deerfield (which makes him, of course, a plausible fellow), or his late father (the "oily little king," as Alan Clark described him, usually described by his large Western fan club as the "plucky little king" -- evoking those Soglow cartoons in old New Yorkers), nor -- most insidious because most soothing of all (but do look online at the absurd speeches and claims he makes for Islam when he is addressing Jordanian audiences) -- Hasan bin Talal, he of the Philippe-de-Montebello voice (indeed, one can imagine that, should the latter get laryngitis, the Prince could happily do those Met audiotapes in his stead). Prince Hasan bin Talal was recently pushed by James Woolsey and Bernard Lewis -- who has been a guest of the smiling and flattering Prince in Jordan -- as a suitable candidate to be monarch of Iraq. An implausible notion, and it required a sanitized histiory of modern Iraq that left out much of its blood-drenched history, such as the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Assyrian Christians by Muslims in 1933, a few months after the British left, the Pogrom, or Farhud, of June 1-2, 1941, in which great fun was had tying up hundreds of Jews in Baghdad and killing them, many by throwing them under the wheels of passing buses and motorcars, the mass killings of Jews all over Iraq in 1948, the bloody coup of 1958, when Nuri al-Said's body, still in the women's clothes he had put on in his attempt to escape, but with masculine organs cut off and placed rather indecorously elsewhere on his corpse, was dragged through the Baghdad streets, and so on and so bloody forth), including the coup against the 1958 plotter, Qassem, the resistible rise of Saddam, and of course, what is inevitably to come -- the pocketing of as much American aid as possible, to be followed by a return, sooner or later, to Islam, and all that that ideology implies for the work of those trusting, hopeful, hardworking and brave Americans -- so ignorant of Islam -- trying to make Iraq a quasi-decent place, and at the moment expending men, materiel, money, and moral capital in Iraq, when we should, in fact, be doing whatever it takes to make the Muslim countries produce their own Ataturks, by revealing the full political, economic, intellectual, and moral failure that Islam inevitably brings to the lands it conquers.
I agree with every word you say with regard to succeeding generations. I feel the same about the Iranians. They clamoured for an islamic republic, now that they see what it entails they want democracy. I sincerely hope they succeed, but I fear that one or two generations down the line there will be a call for an islamic republic again.
Hugh- As one of those "ignorant Americans," I thank you again for making consise, thorough, and understandable explanations in your posts. As ignorant as I once was, and to certain extent, still am, I understannd enough to see the pattern of mendacious and deceptive behavior that has characterized Islam's expansion.
Fundamentalism comes and goes, but Jihad remains the same, and upon the inspired zeal of some charismatic tribesman, or disgruntled intellectual with clout, or even a insipid little monarch, such as the once that sits today in Jordan, or his wily counterparts of the house of Saud, a militarized Jihad could return at any given moment. As they say, Jihad is forever, but the memory of the West is short.
I'm doing my duty to impart the knowledge thatt you have graciously shared with all other "ignorant" Americans within earshot and within reach of my e-mail. I hope our ignorance fades long before our culture disappears into the implied Caliphate, for once the radical Muslims take over Islam, whether in America, in the West, or any part of the world, our civilization is doomed.
Have a look at Denmark and Holland. In 30-35 years our situation will be : most of the inhabitants will be New Danes= muslims. And there is nothing
to do about it. In a way we - the Old Danes - are allready dhimmis, because most of the New Danes (muslims) don`t work, don`t educate them selfs, don`t want to integrate, don`t want to learn Danish, don`t want to live among us ( lives in ghettoes). The Old Danes have 1- 2 children, the New Danes have 5-6.
All families with children receive every 3th month 3.000,- Danish kroner per child.
We are - as Danes and christen - digging our own graves. vivi
"Muslim extremists threatening to attack Europe do not want to destroy the West but are aiming to wipe out moderate Islam in order to take power, Jordan's King Abdullah." This is nonsense on two levels: the very nature of Islam means all Muslims must be extremists in order to be good Muslims. There is no such thing a moderate Islam. The aim of Muslims is to destroy the West -- the Koran requires it if the West will not submit to Islam. Abdullah himself is promoting a falsehood about Islam and is therefore functioning as a good Muslim, for his words would lull unsuspecting non-Muslims about the true goal of Islam and Muslims.
Robert, "moderate" Muslims are not very good Muslims because the ideology they follow is immoderate.
Helen, you also hit the center of the bullseye.
A moderate, peaceful muslim is one who may strive for a "peaceful" takeover of the world. The religion does not permit any other aim than world dominion. The Qur'an can't be openly questioned by anyone over 14 years old, because it proclaims itself to be the "Truth." So all adults are stuck with agreeing (at least outwardly) or fleeing (risking execution). Therefore, the only moderation permitted is to strive for a bloodless revolution.
Or maybe a "less blood" revolution....
The best way for "Islam to denounce terrorism" is for Islam to police itself. Currently it is not. Instead, the rest of the world is currently having to "police" Islam. There will be no hope of peace until we see the highest level world Islamic leaders come against radical Islam. Yet I do not think this will ever happen due to the global root deceptive nature of Islam which does not repair the human conscience. If Islam were capable, we would have seen it by now. Globally, and that is the scale by which we should measure, globally Islam does not criticize itself, and that is a dangerous trait. Thank you for consideration.