Jihad ideology update from the SITE Institute, with thanks to Anthony:
The Shari’a Committee of al-Qaeda in Iraq recently published a 49-page booklet titled: “Why We Fight - and Against Whom?” which was electronically distributed across several al-Qaeda affiliated forums. Allegedly written by Abu Hamza al-Baghdadi, a member of the Shari’a Committee, the booklet is primarily divided into two “examinations,” each containing several “quests” outlining the group’s position concerning their jihad and branding Shi’ite Muslims as an enemy “worse than Jews and Christians, because they chose for themselves a path other than that of Islam, and have opened the widest doors of infidelity.”The booklet discusses in great detail the motivation for the mujahideen, explaining that they are fighting what they see as “contemporary persecution” by those who do not follow Islam, or are followers of an Islamic faith they do not hold true. Their stated goal in this battle is to propagate their brand of Islam, and at the same time, expunge the “corruptive elements” within society, including “idols, prostitution and fornication,” and smash the “false proselytizers… and the governments protecting them.” Further, Muslim governments who support Western prospects are accorded greater enmity, and jihad against these “Imams of infidelity” takes “priority over fighting Jews and crusaders.”
Concluding the publication, the Shari’a Committee of al-Qaeda in Iraq assails democratic government, believing it a deification which impugns Allah’s rule and “since democracy is a system that claims to be the highest authority, it must be considered a religion.” Whoever adopts this “religion,” including members of parliament or the people who voted for their election, is branded an infidel and “must be treated accordingly.”
Subscribe to SITE's superb Intel Service and you can get much more.
"Further, Muslim governments who support Western prospects are accorded greater enmity, and jihad against these “Imams of infidelity” takes “priority over fighting Jews and crusaders.”
Interesting. Going to Iraq to help the Iraqi people get rid of Saddam and give democracy a chance in the ME seems to have been right on the money. Iraq became more of a priority, according to AQ itself, than attacking the US again...
Moose
Whatever you say, this kinda thing coming from al-qaeda gives credence to those diabolical rumours that Osama was/is in the pocket of the jooos and great satan...
I mean, could the crusaders ask for more help from al-qaeda? Alqaeda, could you please open the doors to sectarian suicide?
The kind that embellishes Pakistan's "enlightened moderation" (more like "enlightened mortification") where shia and sunni 'militants' regularly spray each others' mosques with AK-47 fire. The govt responds by calling these criminal elements 'terrorists' and calling for more enlightened moderation.
How disturbing to realize that the American government, which during World War II had books, and rallies and campus meetings galore, all devoted to the theme of "Why We Fight," cannot possibly do so today.
We have nothing in common with our enemies. But there is one thing we should be able to do that they do. What is that? It is to offer clarity and not confusion, and to state, in booklet form or otherwise, "Why We Fight--And Against Whom."
And we dare not. For some do not understand. And many who are supposed to protect and instruct us, in this country as well as elsewhere, will not let us. It might offend. It might distrurb. Muslims in this country and in the West wouldn't like it. And there are "good" Muslims. And we need their help.
Not at the expense of continuing to suffer such confusion, including that which results in bad policy, we don't.
It is very disturbing that we cannot clarify why we fight. However, it is hard to believe that the people at the top do not know what the actual problem is. Could it be the case that our leadership is also playing a game of deception against the islamists? Fight taqqiya with taqqiya!
We have seen this building in Iraq in the past few months. As you read the headlines you see the shift from continually blowing up and shooting at Americans to blowing up and shooting at Iraqis. This itself is also a perfect strategy for the Sunnis because it (1)puts constant fear in the heart of the civilian population in Iraq(2)Sets the stage for a nasty civil war(3)undermines the purpose of having US soldiers there to "keep peace".
When alot of people watch the news they are affected more when they see woman and children blown up than when it is a soldier.(unless it is Jewish woman and children...then people think it ok)
Hugh:
I am of the post-war baby boom generation so I don't know, first hand, what things were like during WW II, but we're operating in times that more resemble the run-up to America's involvement in WW II, when the rallies were held by opponents to fighting the Nazis and Fascists. How many countries had Hitler invaded by the time the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour?
Let me count them.
Czechoslovakia (with a little help from Chamberlain, Daladier, the Western press screaming about "the legitimate rights of the Sudeteners" and Henlein, the Sudeten leader, carefully staging demonstrations that would be put down by the Czech police, so that the Western press would report on Czech "oppression" of the poor Sudeterns). Poland (which caused France and Great Britain, at long last, to declare war)in 1939. Belgium and the Netherlands and France in 1940. Denmark and Norway in 1940. Rumania (supposedly to protect the oil fields of Ploesti from those terrible Allied forces) in 1940, and a pro-Nazi regime then joins the Axis pact in November, a few days after Hungary, under a similar right-wing regime, joined the same Japan-Germany-Italy pact. Yugoslavia and Greece invaded by Germany inearly 1941 The Soviet Union invaded by the Nazis on June 22, 1941 -- five-and-a-half months before Pearl Harbor).
I deliberately left Austria off the list because though post-war Austria pretended it too had been a "victim" of Nazi Germany, it was in fact a willing and hideous accomplice (those crowds delirious with joy at the time of the "Anschluss," shrieking with pleasure as those young strong brimming-with-health German troops goosestepped into friendly, welcoming Vienna, and there was greater representation of Austrians, per capita, among the personnel of the death camps even than of Germans. So Austria was not "invaded" -- it joined up, with great enthusiasm and Heil-Hitlering.
I left out Great Britain, but not because it was not under attack. Of course it was, from 1939 on. It was not for want of trying that the Nazis failed to invade Britain; it was that they couldn't, thanks to Vera Lynn, and Leslie Howard, and Duff Cooper, and the magazine "Biggles" and the air-raid wardens, and the R.A.F. pilots (including an American relative of mine, who flew early and often, with spectacular results), and a certain Winston Churchill.
No, they had all been invaded, more or less, or were about to be. And yet it was only when the Japanese actually attacked, that America entered the war with everything -- its hands, its feet, its heart, and especially, its brain.
For the Fifth Columnnists on the Home Front, those who were still holding pro-Hitler rallies in Madison Square Guarden in 1939 or later, such as the Bund of Fritz Kuhn, William Pelley's Silver Shirts, "the Little Flower" of Michigan Father Coughlin, and all the rest, from society ladies who put one in mind, physically, of Margaret Dumont who was the cinematic foil for Groucho, and morally put one in mind of -- well, you know. The assorted America-Firsters, who were mostly antisemites with a few of the "White-Race" only brigades, and the odd White Russian fascist (Boris Brasol) -- well, for all this do pick up in a used book store that great and largely unremembered book which deserves to be brought back and remembered by everyone (it went through 20-30-40 editions in 1942 alone) -- "Under Cover," by John Roy Carlson. His real name was Garabedian; he was an Armenian-American, a tremendous patriot, whose family had managed to survive the Muslim murders in Turkey. His brother was for years a Republican congressman from (I think) Long Island.
I don't mind being asked questions that might be difficult to find out the answers to in the ordinary way. But possibly a list of those countries that were attacked by Germany before America finally entered the war -- a question that is acute, and makes a relevant point -- might be better asked of the Reference Desk at a large city library, or even a small town library. Puh-leeze. What with the heat, and the books to read, and the lyf so shorte, and the crafte so long to lerne. Know what I mean?
Thank you.
Hugh:
The point was not to put you through a review of history, but to point out that the vast majority, or at least the vast majority of politicians, still haven't woken up to the fact that we are facing the most murderous of ideologies, and much of the credit goes to the very active and vocal fifth columnists of our time.
I don't know what the two fascist Mitford sisters looked like, but wasn't the very socially elite and wasp-waisted Wallace Simpson -- along with her abdicator husband -- a Nazi sympathizer?
The sinister and unlovely Wallis Simpson and her casper-milquetoast husband were both willing to socialize with Hitler. And they were known to sympathize with the Germans. During the war Churchill sent them off to Bermuda to get them out of the way. They were an embarrassment to everyone. The new king, Edward's brother George, hated the scheming Mrs. Simpson (one husband, one non-husband, and perhaps others behind her --which in those days might have seemed naughty)and never permitted her to use any royal address (she desperately wanted one, as you can imagine).
During 1936, the year of the 'three kings" (Edward abdicated in December)-- and stop me, please, if you've heard this one before -- some wit asked "Why would anyone who had been Admiral of the Fleet give it all up to be First Mate on an American tramp?"
Hugh: During 1936, the year of the 'three kings" (Edward abdicated in December)-- and stop me, please, if you've heard this one before -- some wit asked "Why would anyone who had been Admiral of the Fleet give it all up to be First Mate on an American tramp?"
The line goes third mate. I don't know who said it first, but it's just bitchy enought to have been Noël Coward.
Of course -- I completely ruined the punch line. A typo -- honest. Forgive me, just this once.
I like Noel Coward, and wouldn't call him "bitchy" -and I don't think it was he. I think it was some anonymous commentator, never given the credit he deserved. It summed the hideous menage up neatly, and nautically.
And it suggests other possibliities, involving play on the "ship of state" theme, and Narrenschiff and sailing three sheets to the wind, and the Plimsoll line.
Well, shiver me timbers, Jim, it's getting late for old pirates like meself. I'd best go below-decks now and count the doubloons over just one more time before I go to bed. It's been a good haul, Jim. And tomorrow we set sail again -- this time we're going to double the Cape!