Al-Zawahri: Failure to join the jihad is a "malignant illness"

Impediments to Jihad

Let's not forget to mention these impediments to jihad that appear to be "impeding" quite well presently: USMC, USAF, US Army, USN, USCG, National Guard and reserve units. Oh, and Hellfire equipped RPAVs. Message for Dr. Zawahiri: peek-a-boo, we see yooooooo!

The call to jihad is completely legitimate. It could be argued that the radicals are the true Muslims. A moderate Muslim who does not engage in jihad is really turning his back on Allah.

Islam is an all-or-nothing religion.

If you read the quote in context, Zawahiri is saying the will to live is a "malignant illness." Which, if one thinks about it for a moment, is insane.

Fox has it.

"These idolatrous regimes achieve victory over us because each one of us wants to save his own skin and avoid harm for himself," al-Zawahiri said on the tape.

"As long as this malignant illness continues to survive within us, there is no hope for victory and there can only be more defeats, tragedies, disasters and betrayals."

Zawahiri must be desperate to make such a huge goof. Luckily for him, AP was Johnny on the Spot editing it out.

The malignant illness is to keep saying platitudes about Islam instead of unmasking it as the evil abomination that causes destruction that it is.

Zawahri is a malignant illness. He's the bacteria that can set in after removal of a tumor.

I have to agree with rafael699. Islam is a violent extremist religion. All those who do not respond to Zawahiri's call are not true Muslims. Of course, a lot of Muslims salve their consciences by just contributing MONEY and support.

The problem is trying to get this across to liberal dhimmis in gubmint and the press and those they influence.

The good part is, that like the "Divine Wind" of the Japanese in WWII, when you see a lot of Suicide action they are grasping at straws.

The fact that Zawahiri had to send his second in command to be a suicide bomber in that Jordanian attack also shows how desperate he is becoming. Personally I think he is close to the situation Sadam found himself in just prior to being captured. The HOUNDS BREATHING DOWN HIS NECK EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY!!!! Hopefully it won't be long before he gives up and runs or is captured/ratted out!!!

Zawahri sounds like a desperate man if needs to put on another plea, he is asking for more suicide bomber killers... intertesting is it not, that he choses not to kill himself with a bomb belt? do the mobots islamofacists realize how sad their little man in a cave is? hoping an unmaned plane plants a bomb oh his butt or head, same difference!

Zawahiri is clearly desperate. He needs more men. Surely, the good doctor knows that not everyone is suited for jihad (i.e. women, some men). As long as the soft jihadists contribute money to Islamic "charities" and support the mujahideen with propaganda in order to confuse the infidels, they are not shrinking from their duties. Someone like Tariq Ramadan is a great asset to the ummah, he's softening up Europe for them. What is the logic behind having someone like him enlist when there is an abundance of illiterate Muslim male rabble rousers across dar-al-Islam? Calling them cowards certainly won't make them enlist. Perhaps they realize that the jihadist excursion in Afghanistan is all but lost and maybe that is why they are flocking to Iraq and not to the hills of whatever-stan.

Zawahiri sounds desperate because he is. Not only has the US lead war on terror put tremendous pressure on AQ but the jihadis also suffered phenomenal loses in the recent Pakistani earthquake. Reports from Indian intelligence are that training camps and infrastructure were destroyed while 1000s of jihadi died. The jihadi who died were not just the cannon fodder but leadership as well.This is one reason Zawhairi appealed for donations from Muslims for Pakistani earthquake victims.The jihadis need the cash to get back on their feet.

I agree with igor, Al-Qaeda is getting despreate in Iraq, (not that you'll ever know from watching the MSM) Zarqawi has been begging for money like a college kid to his parents. And the attacks on Iraqi civilians has backfired on them.

To quote an artist:

Aw, shit!
Nowhere to run; here come judgement day
Let's make these jealous bitches pay, uh-huh

It is important to distinguish reality from what Zawahiri says, and what he says from his own perception of reality. All that counts is A, not B or C. It may be that he, and Al Qaeda, are not doing as well as they would wish, and are desperate or at least he somewhere near Waziristan feels desperate. But that is no grounds for pooh-poohing the slow islamization of Europe through Da'wa and demographic conquest, nor the next few decades in which, if nothing changes, tens of trillions of dollars will be transferred to the Arab and other Muslim oil states.

No gloating or glee is warranted, and no one should be prepared to let down his guard, or cease trying to educate others about the long-term possibilities for Islam's victories, here and there, and especially in Western Europe, without any need for recourse to acts of terror.

Zawahiri is indeed a true Muslim for the Koran exhorts Muslims to eliminate or subdue the rest of us and Islam requires that each Muslim would sacrifice himself for Allah. As such, those that appear to be moderate will have to make a choice and could, at any minute, become the real thing. Self-sacrfice doesn't have to be by means of bombs and bullets -- anything that is asked of them to further the goals of Islam. Thus, it is also not surprising that women and men are asked to sacrfice their happiness in arranged marriages or to engage in other activities chosen by families or the community.

Hugh,

Exactly.

One aspect that you people probably never think about is how difficult it is to live in a cave.

There are few resources, no places to go and very little scenery to lift the heart. You have only yourself + maybe a couple of companions, the bare essentials, your mind and the Koran Sharrif.

You keep busy by keeping the cave clean…..that means sweeping out the scorpions and the bugs and bats. The prayer mat also must be kept clean.

Oh and sanitation has its problems like having to take a machine gun as well as a loo roll.

You only have a few hours to do your work as it gets dark by about 4.30pm with no street lights to speak of….and no electricity to light up in the cave.

Deep in the cave is where the temperature is constant, probably around 10deg C but very dark. So dark that your eyes will not adjust to the light, so dark that you cannot see a finger in front of your face,"

So presumably they use oil lamps and Zwahari and Bin Laden I hear do not trust any electrical equipment like phones incase of hidden bombs.

Food and cooking is difficult too ….as you don’t want to attract attention

But it has it’s plus points too …it gives you time to practice on your wordings … to work on something creative, like what to say when making a jihad videotape…you can only have so long before the video/audio casette player’s battery will peter out….so folks while we cannot agree with their message…think about how they live & give them a break.

Islam is a malignant tumor that threatens to metastasize to many areas of the world. How about some RADIATION therapy (ka boom)...HA HA HA.

Hugh is right on here. The ebb and flow of protracted conflict must be kept in context.

Short and medium term cooperation with moderate Muslim countries is essential in the fight against terrorism. This includes security assistance and even economic aid to poor Muslim countries that cooperate with us...(why should they be treated differently than Latin and African countries that are also habitually mismanaged but are allies of America and the West?).

Over the long term - and the process is already underway here and in other forums and must be perpetuated and accelerated, we must deconstruct Islam intellectually, exposing the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude, other facets of Islamic intolerance and barbarisms (such as stonings, amputations and the murder of apostates), and the profound moral failings of the Prophet Muhammad as revealed in Islam's own historical scripture (the Ahadith documents his pedophelia, his usurpation of his adopted son's wife, his conspiratorial murder of his VERBAL detractors, his mutilation of "renegades," his genocidal murder of all the adult males of the Banu Qurayzah tribe, etc, etc, etc).

about some RADIATION therapy (ka boom)...HA HA HA.
Posted by: templar [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2005 06:58 PM

oh my, templar l had the biggest laugh at this post!!! You made my day today!! May l use it for a two line joke this
Christmass on the folks? oh btw how much radiation does it take to wipe them out? LOLOL

Hugh,

If we don't spend the next few decades figuring out an alternative to oil (and thus cutting off the major funding to these people) then we deserve to fall to the Islamic sword.

Also, it would help if Europeans started going back to church but I think it would be easier to drill for oil on Mars than to make that happen.

"This includes security assistance and even economic aid to poor Muslim countries that cooperate with us...(why should they be treated differently than Latin and African countries that are also habitually mismanaged but are allies of America and the West?)."
-- from a poster above

Why should they -- Muslim and non-Muslim countries -- be treated differently? Because the problem is not merely one of habitual "mismanagement." That is a problem, but it is not the main problem about giving aid to Muslim countries that didn't manage to share in the OPEC bonanza. Every dollar they are given by the Infidels, even if they were to manage rather than mismanage it, makes it that much easier for their mis-rulers to continue to enjoy the fruits of misrule. Every dollar they are given by Infidels continues to disguise the jizyah-nature of this transfer of wealth, which is on top of, in addition to, that other, greatest transfer of wealth in human history -- that from the oil-consuming to the oil-possessing (since most of them can't even "produce" the oil themselves, much less discover it, the adjective "oil-producing" doesn't quite do the job). But since those oil-rich Arab and Muslim states will use a great deal of their discretionary income to further the Jihad, it is important to find ways both to diminish their actual revenues, and ways to force their expenditures up. What better way than for the world of Infidels to deny all aid to poor Muslim states, to draw the world's -- and those poorer Muslim states's attention -- to the fabulous sums flowing into Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar, Iran, and soon Iraq, not to mention Algeria, Libya, and a few others. In other words, why should not, every time malevolent Egypt, or the Arab Muslim shock troops of the Lesser Jihad -- the "Palestinians," or meretricious Pakistan, be given aid by Western Infidel taxpayers, to people who hate us, are taught to hate us, and possibly some may not but only to the extent that they reject or ignore or choose not to know about Islam and what it requires of them.

It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime. The only time a Muslim state has tried to constrain or limit Islam is when it became clear to a local quasi-enlightened despot (Ataturk, Bourguiba) that too-much Islam was keeping the country back, and the only way to lift itself up, if only economically, would be to limit Islam. That day of reckoning will be put off if Infidels insist that the real problem is "poverty" or that we need to buy off, with aid, this or that Muslim state incorrectly -- always incorrectly -- described as "friendly" or still worse, an "ally," or worst of all, a "staunch ally."

One should look forward to turning down all requests from Muslim states for aid. Let the Egyptians, the Pakistans, the "Palestinians" have to go hat in hand or hand extended in eleemosynary position #1, to those infuriatingly rich Arabs. And by the way, why is Egypt given nearly $2 billion a year to assuage its "poverty" and then permitted to spend $7.5 billion a year on arms purchases? Anyone care to comment on that? For that matter, why is poor Pakistan spending so much on arms, not to mention the sums that went into its nuclear bomb project? And as for the darlings of the world's moral idiots, the recently-invented "Palestinian people," surely we wish to make their lives a little bit busier earning their daily bread, instead of spending so much time plotting and scheming and killing and screaming and howling with delight at signs of mayhem and murder -- and one way to do it is not to give them a penny, which considering that so much of those already-given billions merely go from Western middle-class taxpayers to fund the likes of Arafat, or his grieving, fabulously rich widow, or the assorted corrupt officials -- including Abbas way up front -- who are making out like gangbusters, when they are nothing but gangsters.

Not to able to tell the difference between a Latin American country, and a Muslim country, as recipients of aid -- I won't attempt to begin to analyze what that could mean. Imperviousness to all that has been presented here at JW over so many months, a refusal to take in what has been demonstrated, in continuing to suggest that the Americans cling to a policy (aid to poor Muslims if they are "allies of America and the West"-- they aren't, they can't be), a policy that makes no sense because instead of propping up Islam, giving it a new lease on life (which is what the oil money has done), we should be showing it up, allowing it to be shown up, on every occasion, and thereby be encouraging demoralization, discord, and division within Islam while the Infidel world is bought a little time to come to its senses -- the continued display borders on a deliberate act of provocation. That is one possible interpretation. The other is that of obstinate obtuseness, for which there is no cure.

Hugh always has great insights by keeping the eye on the problem. He is right when he writes:

"It is important to distinguish reality from what Zawahiri says, and what he says from his own perception of reality. All that counts is A, not B or C."

No glee until Zawahiri's head is used in a game of Afghan polo by Afghan apostate players. We are in for a long war. Both hell must freeze over, and Allah must become merciful.

No gloating or glee is warranted, and no one should be prepared to let down their guard, or cease trying to educate others about the long-term possibilities for Islam's victories, here and there, and especially in Western Europe, without any need for recourse to acts of terror.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2005 04:43 PM

come we can have a few moments of glee, thinking of the good doctor Zawahri holed up in a cave brings on some Christmass Cheer!
as far a giving aid to muslim countries.. the vast majority has to come from oil rich muslim countries such as the saudis. they are for arab brotherhood, let them share their bounty. and they can pay equal amounts of a barrel of oil for our barrel of grain.
since these muslim countries point out at how much energy we consume in the west, we can point out we feed the world! that is the US, Canada,etc.

EPG,

or those good Muslims can convert to Christianity as keeps happening all over the world. It really pisses off the Muslim Brotherhood when this happens even though they keep killin' the converts!!!

Hugh,

RE. the Islamofascists, I agree that even a complete win in Iraq (Iraqis running their own country, minimal Islamofascist presence recruiting or attacking) is no time to be celebrating as that is just one battle in a very real World War. It IS a good time to stick it to the Dhimmicrats who have started to claim that we CANNOT win in Iraq though!!

Naseem,

I would love to give them a break. Please send coordinates and I will forward them to some of the boys in the USAF and USN. They will be happy to LIGHT UP THEIR LIVES AND HEAT THEIR CAVES FOR THEM AS AN EXPRESSION OF GOOD WILL FOR CHRISTMAS OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL OCCASION.

Big G In TX,

Check out the Abiotic oil theory. Our salvation in that respect may be sooner than we think. Even if this is true we need to start drilling in the US and offshore over the objections of our ignorant Dhimmicrats and Ecomorons.

Hugh,

(your last post)

Amen.

I read on another blog a claim that the terrorist training camps in Pakistan were devastated by the earthquakes. Also that thousands of the Brothers were killed including ranking members. One can hope. Whether this is true or not I keep wondering whether the Religious among us should be pushing the idea that G-D is unhappy wth them for believing a false prophet called Muhammed and that is why he is visiting earthquakes, tsunamis, bird flu... upon them. Couldn't hurt could it??

HUGH: "It is idiotic to continue to prop up any Muslim regime."

This is everything that is wrong with Hugh Fitzgerald's mindset and his (mis)understanding of the challenges facing the free world. He's so ideologically driven that he is uninterested in the nuance of statecraft; that an imperfect Muslim regime cooperating with the US on security matters like Jordan or Yemen is preferable to a terrorist facilitating regime like Iran.

Hugh wants to withdraw from Iraq and (presumably) Afghanistan, let the chips fall where they may and if circumstances allow for it, to let fanatical Islamists and terrorist groups come to power. As indicated from his statement, he's uninterested in helping moderate regimes like Algeria, which is locked in a life-and-death struggle with fanatical Salafists. He seems impervious to the practical repercussions of a policy of purposefully distancing ourselves from moderate Muslim regimes. For him, the important thing seems to be the principle that we not help ANY Muslim regime, whatever its inclinations or circumstances.

He once wrote to me that it makes no difference if terrorists are plotting violence against us in Western countries, where they are constrained by the eyes and ears of the authorities and an elert citizenry...as opposed to countries where they are empowered by supportive governments and are able to operate unhindered, operating large training centers, facilitating the movement of people and funds, etc. This is very revealing and shows the extent of his inability to separate his ideological proclivities from realities on the ground.

I say that in an age of mass terror, we must be able to distinguish Muslim terrorists from fundamentalists, fundamentalists from moderates, moderates from reformers, etc. This war is going to be a long one. Muslims are not going away. We need to support moderates like Jordan, Yemen, Algeria and yes, Pakistan, which has captured and killed more Al Qaeda than any country in the world.

We need to employ our many assets in the Muslim world just as cunningly as the Islamists are employing their Western Leftist assets to further the own agenda here in the West. The CIA is bereft of human assets in the Islamic world; the help of security services from Muslim countries is indespensible in fighting the war against terrorism.

Hugh wants us to wash our hands of the Muslim world. I say this is a recipe for ceding Dar ul Islam to extremism. I think we need to stay engaged, to work for progress and most importantly, to cooperate against terrorism.

I find it interesting that Hugh and Bin Ladin share the same goal...terminating Western influence in the Muslim world.

"Ne osparivaj...." -- words to live by.

Cornelius,

you wrote:"we must be able to distinguish Muslim terrorists from fundamentalists, fundamentalists from moderates, moderates from reformers, etc."

You assert that "we must" and thereby imply that we can. The unfortunate reality is that your distinctions are mostly wishful thinking, similiar to the way a "political wing" was differentiated from a "military wing" in the IRA, or among the "palestinian people".

Something that has been sticking in my mind for a while is a discussion I had, over a year ago, with a "progressive" friend. He had asserted that moderate muslims exist. I had replied that there are a scattering of individuals who identify as muslims and are sort of moderate (I think Haidon would fit that description, for example), but that moderate clerics who preach true tolerance of non-muslims to their own constituents are almost impossible to find (I only found Palazzi, and there were/are some questions about him: come to think of it, when was the last time he made the news?) Anyway, my "progressive" friend's response was to send me a puff piece about the well known moderate Sheikh al-qaradawi! I was stupefied with this inversion of reality, by a reasonably bright, nominally educated individual, who was behaving with sincerity. He really thought al-Qaradawi was, or is, "moderate", due to his uncritical acceptance of propaganda. Following my stupefaction, the discussion shifted to an argument about the meaning of words, such as "moderate". Eventually, after angering each other, we agreed to disagree, in order to remain friends.

So I wonder: How do you define the categories which you postulate? How reliable do you consider your muslim differentiation skills to be? And how reliable do you think the people in the US State Dept would be at making your distinctions?

Though, as Bette Davis might have said, "What a d---."

I say that in an age of mass terror, we must be able to distinguish Muslim terrorists from fundamentalists, fundamentalists from moderates, moderates from reformers, etc.

Can Muslims do the same? And if they can, what will they do about it and what solutions do they offer? Surely, it's the least the world can expect from those who self-righteously claim to follow "the perfect way". These, to me, are the bigger issues.

DEL: "So I wonder: How do you define the categories which you postulate? How reliable do you consider your muslim differentiation skills to be? And how reliable do you think the people in the US State Dept would be at making your distinctions?"

Very good questions Del. I think common sense tells us that Hamid Karzai is preferable to the Taliban; that King Abdullah is preferable to his fellow countryman Zarqawi; that Mubarak is preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood...but that there are also players in Egypt that would be preferable to Mubarak. A fundamentalist like Turkey's Erdogan should be treated wearily, but even he can be useful in the fight against terrorism.

It's a delicate game, but that's what statecraft is all about. We've gleaned alot of good intelligence from our assets in the Islamic world. To terminate security cooperation with every Muslim country would be cutting off our nose to spite our face...out of an absurdly rigid ideological mindset.

HUGH: "Though, as Bette Davis might have said, "What a d---."

Looks like the veneer of class and culture has fallen away.

Off to fight the battle of life. See you good people tonight.

By introducing Western values in muslim states, although not perfect will keep them fighting among themselves. while they are busy killing each other,
we can keep our own countries more safe. and by having the rest of the world see how barbaric these imman islamofacists can be among themselves it serves as an educational tool. people judge more by what they see than if you tried to explain it to them.
and while the muslims are killing each other, they will deplete more of their own resources. while the seed of democracy is being planted by the US forces, and western countries it will destroy islam. l have said this many times before democracy will destroy islam, the two cannot exist calmly. in democracy you have equal rights for both women and men, and that is very major split in islam teachings.

So Cornelius,

would you take on the task of being the project lead for creating a whitepaper on putting together a working group that will formulate a general proposal about setting up bureaus that will be tasked with forming task forces that will look into how to correctly distinguish between varying levels of participation in Islamic Jihad against the Western World for inclusion in the...

While you are working on that can the US Army, Allies, and IDF just blow the hell out of anyone taking up arms with, or contributing money to, the IslamoFascists???

Cornelius,

you wrote: " Very good questions Del. I think common sense tells us that Hamid Karzai is preferable to the Taliban; that King Abdullah is preferable to his fellow countryman Zarqawi; that Mubarak is preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood...but that there are also players in Egypt that would be preferable to Mubarak. A fundamentalist like Turkey's Erdogan should be treated wearily, but even he can be useful in the fight against terrorism."

Hamid Karzai is preferable to the taliban, but he nevertheless stood and applauded the ex-pm of Malaysia, Mahathir, in Mahathir's islamist rant at the OIC. Afghanistan seems to be sliding into an islamic hellhole, as well. Abdullah is preferable to zarqawi, but how long will Abdullah live, anyway? And then what? Mehdi Bazargan or Shahpour Bakhtiar were preferable to khomeini...OOPS...The fight isn't against "terrorism", as you, and W, seem to believe. The fight is against the ideology and its believers, who use terrorism as a tactic.

you wrote: "It's a delicate game, but that's what statecraft is all about. We've gleaned alot of good intelligence from our assets in the Islamic world. To terminate security cooperation with every Muslim country would be cutting off our nose to spite our face...out of an absurdly rigid ideological mindset."

The US State Dept. rarely demonstrates skill at statecraft. I'm not for a complete end to interaction right now, but I agree with Hugh that propping up muslim regimes never pays off, down the road. Our aid is overwhelmingly perceived as jizya, or perhaps as owed-and-only-partially-paid-up. It does not result in good will toward us. My impression is that you project your own motivations (e.g. thankfulness upon receipt of a gift) onto others, who have significantly different worldviews and motivations.

DEL: "The fight isn't against "terrorism", as you, and W, seem to believe. The fight is against the ideology and its believers, who use terrorism as a tactic."

I couldn't agree more. But for you to suggest that we shouldn't bother distinguishing between Muslims willing to cooperate with us against terrorists and Muslims who facilitate terrorism would be a he worst kind of self-inflicted mypoia.

Afganistan is far from perfect and I too have been concerned about trends towards extremism there. But what did you think, that after liberation from the Taliban the Afghans would instantaneously discard 14 centuries of tradition?

Today, the Bhuddist antiquities at Bimayin are being rebuilt. Women are working outside the home and are amply represented in parliament. Girls are going to school and receiving an education. Music is no longer banned.

Most importantly for the USA, Al Qaeda no longer has run of the country to plot and plan their murder and mayhem directed at us.

Now are you telling me that it makes no difference whether or not Karzai or the Taliban are in power?

"....would be the worst kind of self-inflicted myopia."

Sorry...was eating dinner after a hard day.

The desperation shows that The War On Terror is having an effect. Much is also being done by the CIA and the FBI, though the MSM never reports the successes.

The "real threat" to our existence is the 2008 Elections. If the Democrats win, there goes The War and back to Clinton/Gore strategy > which was nothing and try to ignore "them" and maybe they will go away.

Does anyone know a link that would contain the full text of this message, and perhaps other recent AQ messages? I've just finished Mr. Spencer's fine Guide and have had my eyes opened (although I always thought something was amiss even back when I took Islamic Civilization as a lib arts elective in college).

So far my searches have come up empty and I'm quite curious (armed with my newfound knowledge) about any other Koranic references made besides the ones noted by the mass media.

Thanks.

Cornelius,

you wrote: "A fundamentalist like Turkey's Erdogan should be treated wearily, but even he can be useful in the fight against terrorism."

and you wrote (quoting my comment, first): " 'The fight isn't against "terrorism", as you, and W, seem to believe. The fight is against the ideology and its believers, who use terrorism as a tactic.'

I couldn't agree more."

So which is it? Are we in a fight (war)against "terrorism", or are we involved in a war as the recipients of muslim jihad? Any one who sincerely believes we are in a "war against terrorism" is a fool, from my perspective.

As for your final question concerning Karzai, I already answered that in my previous comment. The key concept, which you seem to be missing, I will repeat: "propping up muslim regimes never pays off, down the road." At best we get some empty, evanescent, or short-term gain. See: Egypt, after 10s of billions of aid. If, by some unfortunate circumstance, Karzai were to die or disappear, or whatever, what would Afghanistan become? We seem to consistently prop up various muslim regimes because we fear that without this-or-that personality, it will be even worse. Perhaps it will, but seems to me, it is usually likely to get worse anyway. The various personalities we end up propping up are just a veneer on their societies, rotten at, and to, the core. Admittedly, though, some are more rotten than others. Use of significant resources to prop them up is generally a waste.

It may not be a waste if we have very particular purposes beyond keeping some personality in power. For example, in Afghanistan, we are directly confronting jihadis and killing them a few at a time. That is useful, but is barely significant. However, while we are doing this, we (the USA and the "west") seem to be failing in the more strategic part of the war, against the dawa and dhimmification efforts of the muslims, worldwide. I would prefer headlines about new fuel cells and alternate energy technologies, rather than something like "3 Taliban killed today near Kandahar", or similiar. My preferred headlines would signify that the muslim funding for their jihad, their dawa, and their islamification efforts would necessarily be more difficult.

Smoothe,

The Middle East Media Research Institute often provides excerpts from translations of al-qaeda videos. They do not seem to have the exact quotes featured in this AP article from the Toronto star, though.

http://www.memri.org/sd.html

DEL: "However, while we are doing this, we (the USA and the "west") seem to be failing in the more strategic part of the war, against the dawa and dhimmification efforts of the muslims, worldwide."

We have absolutely no disagreement here...and if you'll read my original post on this thread, you'll see so. I've never written a word about validating Islam as a religion-ideology. I've mearly discussed the importance of distinguishing those Muslims willing to help us fight terrorism and those who are facilitators of terror...and of using the former against the latter.

As for Turkey's Erdogan, would you refuse information from his government that might uncover a terrorist cell operating in America or Europe? Turkey has been victimized by Al Qaeda terrorism several times during his administration. Unlike Iran, his government is not an active facilitator of terrorism.

My point is, not all fundamentalists are terrorists. That doesn't make Erdogan a friend, it doesn't mean his beliefs should be validated...it just means what I originally wrote, that while treating him with a circumspect "weariness," he can be "useful" in fighting terrorism.

But this is only as long as we're not blinded by ideological rigidity.

As for Karzai, you seem to want to have it both ways. Should we prop up his government or not? Should we abandon Afghanistan to the Taliban or not? Should we allow Al Qaeda to set back up their training camps under Taliban protection or not?

Thanks for the link, del. It's exactly what I was looking for.