Swiss Seize Five Suspected Extremists

What is Jihad?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/990

Excerpt:

What does the Arabic word jihad mean?

One answer came last week, when Saddam Hussein had his Islamic leaders appeal to Muslims worldwide to join his jihad to defeat the "wicked Americans" should they attack Iraq; then he himself threatened the United States with jihad.

As this suggests, jihad is "holy war." Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad did have two variant meanings through the centuries, one more radical, one less so. The first holds that Muslims who interpret their faith differently are infidels and therefore legitimate targets of jihad. (This is why Algerians, Egyptians and Afghans have found themselves, like Americans and Israelis, so often the victims of jihadist aggression.) The second meaning, associated with mystics, rejects the legal definition of jihad as armed conflict and tells Muslims to withdraw from the worldly concerns to achieve spiritual depth.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That's how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad's death in 632. It's how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

Today, jihad is the world's foremost source of terrorism, inspiring a worldwide campaign of violence by self-proclaimed jihadist groups:

The International Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders: Osama bin Laden's organization;
Laskar Jihad: responsible for the murder of more than 10,000 Christians in Indonesia;
Harakat ul-Jihad-i-Islami: a leading cause of violence in Kashmir;
Palestinian Islamic Jihad: the most vicious anti-Israel terrorist group of them all;
Egyptian Islamic Jihad: killed Anwar El-Sadat in 1981, many others since, and
Yemeni Islamic Jihad: killed three American missionaries on Monday

What are the intentions of Islam for America and the world?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/77

The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America

Excerpt:

In the aftermath of the violence on September 11, American politicians from George W. Bush on down have tripped over themselves to affirm that the vast majority of Muslims living in the United States are just ordinary people. Here is how the President put it during a visit to a mosque on September 17: "America counts millions of Muslims among our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads." Two days later, he added that "there are millions of good Americans who practice the Muslim faith who love their country as much as I love the country, who salute the flag as strongly as I salute the flag."

These soothing words, echoed and amplified by many columnists and editorial writers, were obviously appropriate at a moment of high national tension and amid reports of mounting bias against Muslims living in the United States. And it is certainly true that the number of militant Islamic operatives with plans to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States is statistically tiny. But the situation is more complex than the President would have it.

The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people—many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin—who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam. Although not responsible for the atrocities in September, they harbor designs for this country that warrant urgent and serious attention.

In June 1991, Siraj Wahaj, a black convert to Islam and the recipient of some of the American Muslim community's highest honors, had the privilege of becoming the first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives. On that occasion he recited from the Qur'an and appealed to the Almighty to guide American leaders "and grant them righteousness and wisdom."

A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." In 1995, Wahaj served as a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman in the trial that found that blind sheikh guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. More alarming still, the U.S. attorney for New York listed Wahaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the sheikh's case.

The disparity between Wahaj's good citizenship in the House and his militant forecast of a Muslim takeover—not to mention his association with violent felons—is only one example of a larger pattern common to the American Muslim scene. Another example, about which I have written recently elsewhere, involves the American Muslims for Jeru­salem, an organization whose official advocacy of "a Jerusalem that symbolizes religious tolerance and dialogue" contrasts markedly with the wild conspiracy-mongering and crude anti-Jewish rhetoric in which its spokesmen indulge at closed events.1 At a minimum, then, anyone who would understand the real views of American Muslims must delve deeper than the surface of their public statements.

Doing so, one discovers that the ambition to take over the United States is hardly a new one. The first missionaries for militant Islam, or Islamism, who arrived here from abroad in the 1920's, unblushingly declared, "Our plan is, we are going to conquer America." The audacity of such statements hardly went unnoticed at the time, including by Christians who cherished their own missionizing hopes. As a 1922 newspaper commentary put it:

To the millions of American Christians who have so long looked eagerly forward to the time the cross shall be supreme in every land and the people of the whole world shall have become the followers of Christ, the plan to win this continent to the path of the "infidel Turk" will seem a thing unbelievable. But there is no doubt about its being pressed with all the fanatical zeal for which the Mohammedans are noted.

Here, in my opinion, is an article about the primary threat(more than Islamo-facism, more than flu epidemics, etc.) to our civilization:

Getting women to have more kids will take a social revolution by Margaret Wente

http://www.theglobea...

My friend Jacquie didn't get around to motherhood till late in life. She's nuts about her daughter, a cherubic little mophead, and she is a ringing testimonial to the joys of parenting.

But one child is enough to scratch the maternal itch. Jacquie's life is more than full. She's got a business to run and night-school courses to take. She's already old enough (reproductively speaking) to be a grandmother. Besides, kids require a stupendous amount of time and work and money. "A lot of parents I know say it's a mistake to have two," she says. "They say, 'Don't get me wrong, we really love the second one, but we didn't realize having two kids would be such a huge burden'."

Welcome to the ticking time bomb of the 21st century.

The women of the Western world have gone on baby strike. Canadian women are having an average of only 1.5 children, not nearly enough to replace ourselves. That's a problem. It's so big it can't be fixed by immigration. How will the economy keep growing as the work force shrinks? Who will pay the bills when the boomers get old? What happens when a whole society gets hardening of the arteries?

Jacquie's daughter will grow up to face a massive tax burden: us. There simply won't be enough productive workers to support the geezers in the style to which we have become accustomed. In Europe, governments are trying to cut back pension entitlements because they can't afford them any more. In the U.S., George Bush wants to privatize Social Security. In Quebec, where the birth rate is so low that the French Fact is slowly dwindling to a footnote, the government has made fertility a matter of official policy. This week, the Family Minister rolled out improvements to parental leave, which, she promised, "will definitely encourage families to give birth and maybe have more children."

Speaking as a woman, I say: Fat chance, honey.

As society heads for the demographic cliff, the big thinkers (overwhelmingly male) are fretting. "The birth rate and family formation are important, even supreme, concerns for policy-makers," says David Frum (who, with two kids of his own, has done his bit) in the National Post. "We are consuming more human capital than we are producing," says David Brooks (who has also produced his quota of replacement capital) in The New York Times. They're pitching bigger tax breaks, better baby bonuses, public pension credits for stay-at-home moms, even tougher divorce laws, so women would feel more secure that their husbands will stick around. (Note to Mr. Frum: Nice try, but most divorces are initiated by women.)

None of it will work. Getting women to have more kids would take a social revolution so profound as to be — please forgive me — inconceivable. Let me count the reasons why. Children are a lot of time and trouble. They tie you down for decades. You'll be supporting them until you get old, and they probably won't return the favour. Women (and men) have a lot of other things they want to do. Raising a child these days in the peer-approved middle-class style is stunningly expensive. Most women no longer seek their primary identities through marriage and motherhood. In a postmodern world, people value self-gratification over self-sacrifice and freedom over responsibility.

Consider another reason — the life cycle of your modern aspiring young woman. It's completely out of sync with having babies. At 22, the age of peak fertility, she's just finishing university. She's not remotely interested in being a mother. She still feels like a kid herself. She wants to go to graduate school, or get a job and make some money, or save the environment. If she tells her parents she's going to get married right away and have babies, they'll be horrified, and so will all her friends. They'll regard her as a social deviant and tell her she's ruining her life.

Everybody knows what comes next. She finds out that babies and career ambition don't mix very well. At 30, she's got to work her butt off to get ahead. Besides, being single is still kind of fun. There's still lots of time. Or so she thinks. She's wrong, but maybe she won't find that out until too late. Maybe she'll get married in time to have a baby or two, or maybe she'll decide she'd rather have a nice car and holidays in France. Today, by mistake or by design, 20 per cent of women over 40 are childless.

David Brooks and other foreheads say the only way out is for women to start behaving less like men. In other words, society should encourage women to have families first and careers later, so they're breeding in their 20s and going back to school at 35 so they can start careers at 40.

This idea also seems like a non-starter. The problem is that if you change women, you've got to change men, too. I tried it out on some twentysomething women I know and they collapsed in laughter. "You've gotta be kidding," said one. "Men our age have absolutely zero interest in getting married."

And why should they? The biggest and perhaps only incentive for young men to get married is to get access to regular sex. But now they can have all the sex they want with as many women as they please, so why bother? Note to David Brooks: Perhaps you could suggest repealing the sexual revolution. Because I can't think of anything else that might work.

In case you're wondering, I'm part of the problem the foreheads fret about. I was doing other things when I was supposed to be replacing my share of human capital. It's not that I don't like kids. I adore them, especially Jacquie's daughter, who I hope will like me lots when I get old. Because I'm counting on her.

Good news from the Swiss! Global Jihad continues unabated, let's hope we can cope with increasing costs of monitoring the enemy and security.

The truth is if one wants a healther world
with out war and longer life the birth rate
has to drop. Western women weither they know
it or not are doing the right thing.
However if your are being invaded by a cult
that puts breeding above all else. Then you
have a problem for our small world. The earth
can only hold so many. This death cult will
take us all down unless stopped. They are to
sick to stop on there own.
If we sit down and do nothing all is lost
massive war disease and starvation will occur.
They must for the sake of mankind be removed
from our societies at all costs. The sooner the
better. Give them death or one way tickets to
Mecca either way we solve the problem now or time
will. And if time solves it. Then civilzation
as we now know it will be gome forever.

So I guess it's time the Swizz offer something to compensate the aggrieved Moslem community, you know, to make up for the insult of arresting some of its members, perhaps making Islam (as in the phrase, Islam or NotLam, that the is question) the state religion or putting BPUD (or whatever that stupid phrase is) everywhere. Perhaps they can bulk purchase more coffee filters for hats.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/03/05/d50305011312.htm

Banglabhai - the new Osama Bin Laden. By spreading rumors that he is in communist West Bengal, he will probably directly go to Pakistan's NWFP.

Beware - the Jihad continues.

Last night on a debate show from a PBS channel
reviewed the changes being forced on the career-tyrants that got away with murder,oppression,corruption while the Arab world sat back and gave conscent by their silence.

Three Westerners and one person from the Canadian Arab Federation,dispite the opinions
by a Military General(retired) and Political Science Professor along with a American Polical historian,the Arab guest denied the claims that George Bush started the middle east thirst for political reform and in turn has seen changes in Saudi Arabia,Libya,Syria,Palestine,Afghanistan,Iraq and now the worried Iran Government that risk a revolt from the citizens with media coverage
exposing violence by the military to supress
free speech.
The Arab guest said that all of this reform was 60 years in the makong and Bush had nothing to do with it,Afghanistan and Iraq would have had elections and democracy anyway because the Arab people were already fighting for it before Bush was elected in 2000.

This denial is so common among Arabs and Muslims,the terrorism and murders are from outsiders causing trouble,the efforts to become democratic take time and can't be measured in timeframes use by the West,and foreign help to stop the slaughter is labelled "Occupation"
even when Arabs choose to do nothing to stop it.

As a Canadian I have no faith on my Governments will to protect us from terrorism and forced Shariah-law by proxy,in my wallet I have a card with 202-456-6213 on it and in the event I'm kidnapped or being attack or even killed,that is the number I'll call before any Lawyer or Canadian Leader.

THAT'S the Whitehouse number for
George Bush,the man that will actually do something to get me home or send help to neutralize the threat against me.

Ala-sux~ that looks like a US SSI. Please don't do that! Keep your number secret.