Axe-attacked Canadian soldier opens his eyes

Posted by: Lulu
the mullahs, immans and their talking heads...

See what I mean.

My prayers are with you Lieutenant Greene.
Photo of the homemade axe that was used:
http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/060305_afghan_axe_cdn_300.jpg
Photo of this brave Canadian, Trevor Greene:
http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/bc_greene20060306.html

I must inject a negative note by saying that this attack once more shows how cowardly Muslim "holy warriors" are. They specialize in yellow bellied sneak attacks. Our entire military must learn the words of Muhammad - "War is deceit"

KORAN:
008.012
YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

"The 41-year-old Greene was ambushed while meeting with elders in the village of Gumbad near Kandahar on Saturday.

When the attacker was shot dead by Canadian soldiers, an exchange of gunfire and a grenade attack followed.

No other Canadians were hurt in the incident, but Canadian officers later said the entire village had clearly been aware of the ambush in advance."
-- from the article to which a link is given in the posting immediately above

Nota Bene:

"Canadian officers later said the entire village had clearly been aware of the ambush in advance."

this is a fast learning curve for these courageous Cdn soldiers for which l pray for their safety and safe return.

Splashed on the front page of the Telegraph, followed up inside, and made the subject of an opinion piece by "military historian" Max Hastings - how an SAS soldier left the British army because he thinks the war is "illegal" and Americans are too violent and care too much about "force protection". Thus three uses wrung out of one story.

Here's Hasting's piece.

There's a nugget of truth at the bottom of this - British troops prefer to patrol in berets (because it looks less threatening), and on foot. But there's an element of self-satisfaction in it:

In Northern Ireland, the British Army learned over 30 years how hard it is to fight insurgents without alienating the civil population.

It pushes all the wrong buttons. What is this article likely to do but cause British readers to pat themselves on the back and blame America for violence in Iraq? Whereas, in fact, the violence on the streets in Iraq is caused not by "unapproachable" or heavy-handed US troops but by sectarian divides that go back centuries, and which, Saddam being out of the picture, can now raged unchecked. You will learn nothing about the Sunni-Shia divide from Hasting's article. If he knows about it, he passes over it in silence.

This is the leading conservative paper in the UK ...

Thanks Hugh. I include below another indication that the villagers knew about this attack in advance. Also, this village elder Eisah appears to be up to no good (for one thing, is probably lying)...

From the “Related Stories” links at the CTV article

1.
___
Eisah [a village elder] denied that anyone in the village knew the attack was coming. Canadian soldiers on the scene say children were quietly rounded up and moved away moments before the ambush...

...Within hours of the attack, Eisah contacted Afghans who work for international media organizations by satellite phone to dispute claims that Karim had a Taliban connection.
___

2.
___

Capt. Kevin Schamuhn says his faith in the unwritten rule of the shura, that a guest must be welcomed and protected, has been corrupted.
"Everything I've been taught about Islam, everything I've been taught about the Pashtun code of honour, has just completely been defiled in a horrifying way," Schamuhn told CTV's Lisa LaFlamme in Afghanistan.
___

I wonder what he had been taught about Islam, and I wonder about the source. Those who taught them about Islam were partly culpable in this attack.

The Canadian military should have been educated by reading the most violent and threatening parts of the Islamic texts. Forget the apologists and the BS artists who talk about the "Islamic code" and "Pashtun code". The Canadians there are starting to get a bit tuned in to what they are dealing with. The only consistent moral out of those Islamic and tribal Pashtun codes is protect your own and thwart and deceive everyone else.

If something is done that is disrespectful to Islam, strike their heads.

Ishaq:489 "We're heroes, protecting our war banner. We are a noble force, as fierce as wolves. We preserve our honor and protect our property by smashing heads."

Use the element of terror (Mohammad: "I have been made victorious with terror")

"If you come upon them (infidels), deal so forcibly as to terrify those who would follow, that they may be warned. Make a severe example of them by terrorizing Allah’s enemies."
-- Ishaq:326 (Koran 8:57 says the same thing with more subdued tone).

Kamikaze-style attacks

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4655:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Of the men he lives the best life who holds the reins of his horse (ever ready to march) in the way of Allah, flies on its back whenever he hears a fearful shriek, or a call for help, flies to it seeking death at places where it can be expected. (Next to him) is a man who lives with his sheep at a hill-top or in a valley, says his prayers regularly, gives Zakat and worships his Lord until death comes to him. There is no better person among men except these two.

Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4678:
It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of God, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i.e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).

War is deceit

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267 (“war is deceit”--also 268, 269; “when Caesar is ruined” v4, b53, n349 and n350):
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said..."War is deceit'.

Ambush them, use every strategem of war (Koran, 9:5)

It is not fair to Canadian soldiers, nor to any other Infidel soldiers, American, British, Italian, French, German, not to instruct them truthfully in the dangers they will have to pass. Instead of teaching them the most sanitized version of Islam (or of village ways --sanctity of the guest, and all that), they should be made as necessarily wary as possible.

It should be hammered home to them that their own expections of how people will behave if one is attempting to help them, to construct things, to make them safer, to offer them all kinds of aid, are based on a view that is not part of Islam. In Islam, the fact of being an Infidel is what finally condemns you, no matter how kind you may be, no matter how well-intentioned or trusting. Margaret Hassan gave her life to the Iraqis. Berg came hoping to help them in their reconstruction. Fox was a more sinister "peace activist" (of the unpleasant anti-American and anti-Israeli kind), but still a great believer that no harm could come to him.

The rulers of the Western world owe it to their soldiers to teach them the truth. Muslims are taught to divide the world between Believers and Infidels, and there must be uncompromising hostility between the two. Not all Believers take the full message to heart. But many do. Enough do. That has to be taught to our soldiers, all over the Western world -- their lives are otherwise at greater risk.

And they must be taught to, how Muhammad's saying "war is deception" is admired, and emulated, in all kinds of ways, from the religiously-sanctioned doctrines of taqiyyah and kitman (where a Believer is allowed, even encouraged, to hide the full nature of his beliefs in order to protect and further the cause of Islam, and of Believers), to this attack, supposedly on a guest who believed in all that nonsense about protecting guests.

Do not force soldiers to learn the truth by endangering, or even sacrificing themselves or their fellows. And do not force civilians to do the same, or to find out, here and there, at a web site, on a nonexistent shoestring, what the governments of Infidel lands have a duty to do: a Duty to Instruct.

Canadian soldiers immediately gunned down the attacker. Military officials believe the attacker, in his 20s, was a Taliban insurgent, although a village elder disputes that claim.

The Canadian's were agile enough to immediately gun down the attacker.
There is no valid reason this taqiyya spewing village elder is still breathing.

Mr. Fitzgerald -- You consistently give far too little credit to our soldiers and the Military -- Do you think for a moment that every incident doesn't inform and educate them? I think you project an image of an unthinking insensate entity which is incapable of forming opinions or learning from its experience, one which is soley reliant on predigested and immutable orthodoxy. I think this is far from the truth, and to a certain extent insults the caliber of our soldiers and Military. I would also disagree that our soldiers are being taught "the most sanitized version of Islam". Do you have proof of this? Can you cite examples? Your overheated, sometimes hysterical prose (which I usually thoroughly enjoy) about OIF ignores the possibility that invaluable and necessary lessons are being extracted every day for our future effectiveness and eventual victory against this foe.

How certain are you that our soldiers aren't being exposed to a far more savvy assessments of Muslim/Arab culture and Islam than is obvious to your casual eye?

I would suggest that one way to guarantee our military's complete failure in Iraq would be for soldiers to openly discuss Islam in terms which would be to your liking. The tactic of speaking loudly and carrying a big stick tends to diminish the effectiveness of the big stick, after all!

PS -- I'm thrilled this soldier survived this treacherous attack. I wonder why the city wasn't flattened if command had evidence the whole town knew about the treachery? This may be the nub of your complaint, Mr. Fitzgerald. Your beef may not so much be with what our military teaches or believes about Islam, but with the constraints placed on them by civilian authorites... It is far more plausible that THEY are culprits in promulgating myths and misunderstandings about Muslims, Arabs, and Islam than our Military ever would... I think the brass is onto Islam, and so are the soldiers.

Failure to wreak devastation on this or any Arab town is caused by civilian restraints. The military solution to such treachery would prevent such actions in the future. Falluja, Chapter 1 -- a story about civilian and legal interferences. Falluja, Chapter 2 -- a purely military affair -- To paraphrase Fat Clamenza from the Godfather Pt1: "You ain't gonna hear from Falluja no more..."

"Do you have proof of this? Can you cite examples?"
--- from a posting above

Yes. No.

"Yes. No."
--- from a posting above

Gee. Thanks.

"You consistently give far too little credit to our soldiers and the Military -- Do you think for a moment that every incident doesn't inform and educate them? I think you project an image of an unthinking insensate entity which is incapable of forming opinions or learning from its experience, one which is soley reliant on predigested and immutable orthodoxy. I think this is far from the truth, and to a certain extent insults the caliber of our soldiers and Military. I would also disagree that our soldiers are being taught "the most sanitized version of Islam".
-- from a posting above

You accuse me of the wrong charge. I never suggested that American soldiers (or Canadians in Afghanistan) are not eductated by experience. Of course they are. They do not deny the evidence of their sensese. But that is a dangerous way to learn. Ingratitude, susceptibility to conspiracy theories and rumors, loyalty only to one's immediate self, or family, or possibly tribe, but never to the nation-state, the amazing ability (as Westerners see it) to veer from the most plausible expressions of eternal friendship and loyalty to something quite different -- these things may ve encountered and learned from, but it is better to have been taught about them thoroughly in advance, and to expalin how such features are connected to, promoted by, the belief-system of Islam.

What do you think soldiers training at Fort Jackson or Fort Benning are taught about Islam? Don't you think that fears of CAIR suits, fears of offending the handful of Muslim students, takes precedence over teaching troops things they need to know for their own safety, and possibly their own survival?

Is not the perfect place to begin to teach Americans -- formally, in classes, not catch-as--catch-can because they finally come across a website that is not full of mere emoters, but seeks to educate -- in the army? After all, such classes -- billed as "the psychology of the Jihad" rather than as "Islam" have the excuse of potentially saving lives, and will thereby receive much more support, and be less vulnerable to attack by those who will refuse to countenance a course on Islam. Let the courses be taught by veterans of Iraq, those who can relate their own experiences to the doctrine of Jihad, and to other features of the same underlying "belief-system" (as it can demurely be called) that explain, for example, the inability to feel real gratitude, affection, anything at all for Infidels (there are exceptions, the kind that prove the rule).

You've seen the reading list -- Esposito et al. -- of General Vines (google "Posted by Hugh" and "General Vines'). You've seen Karen Hughes refer to Esposito's books as well. You've seen her ideas on what should be beamed into the Arab Muslim lands -- you know, heart-warming stories about how Muslims are making it in America (no doubt encouragintg even more Muslim immigrants) and her vacuous remarks on how much we all share. Our stations should, in fact, be giving much more attention to Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Azam Kamguian, Irfan Khawaja, and Wafa Sultan, who are all -- as far as official Washington goes -- persona non grata or at least not to be recognized, consulted, their views publicized. This is crazy, as crazy as not having Marlene Dietrich appear on Armed Forces Radio beamed into Germany.

There are many ways to prepare soldiers -- perhaps it is now being done, but it wasn't in 2002, or 2003, or 2004 -- for their experience in Iraq that go beyond physical training. They need to know a good deal about Islam. In fact, they should learn a lot more about the Al-Anfal campaign, and about the mistreatment not merely at the hands of Saddam Hussein, but about the complete indifference even of the Arabs who did not take part, within Iraq, and certainly the indifference of the Arabs in the Arab League. That Islam contains within it an Arab supremacist ideology, that this ideology can be seen not only in the massacre of Kurds, but in the denial of cultural and linguistic rights to the Berbers, in the massacres of black, nominal Muslims in Darfur, should be something taught -- because most people, most of the time, do not study history, or even read newspapers. And even when they do, even when they write about these matters, they seldom relate one thing to another.

In fact, this explanatory model of Arab supremacism that relates Kurdistan to Darfur, and both to the Berbers, is something you will have seen only here at Jihad Watch, though eventually it will be copied and parroted by everyone under the sun. Because, in a sense, it should be obvious -- but won't be until everyone sees Islam for what it is.

Shouldn't those American soldiers handing out soccer balls and candy be warned that even then, perhaps especially then, they could be attacked? Shouldn't they have had explained to them, early on, that the Sunnis would never accept the loss of power, would insist on believing that they are a majority, even though Sunni Arabs constitute less than 20% of the country, and that this hallucinatory notion was easily believed, as would be every sort of false charge and rumor and conspiracy theory, because the nature of Islam discourages free and sketpical inquiry, and encourages the habit of mental submission?

Shouldn't American soldiers (and Canadian soldiers) learn to be tremendously wary, and wouldn't it help if before they went to war they learned about Muhammad's Hadith that "war is deception" and learned about his treaty with the Meccans of 628 A.D.? Wouldn't it help to offer examples of various Muslim clerics in the West offering their condolences after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and showing up for all kinds of interfaith gatherings, and then being caught on tape saying quite different things to what they thought was a Muslims-only audience?

And one more thing. When did the American army, when did the soldiers, learn about the full extent of Shi'a resentment of the Sunnis, and Sunni hostility and contempt for the Shi'a? By some reports, it sounds like this was seldom, if ever, raised until the last few months? Was there any discussion of the 1300-year history of Sunni-Shi'a hostility, what it was originally based on, and how it has played out, or been reinforced by, the recent ill-treatment of Shi'a in Iraq? It is important that American soldiers understand that this Sunni-Shi'a conflict was bound to bubble up once the lid was off, and the lid was Saddam Hussein.

In other words, civil war is not something either avoidable or to be avoided. It is going to happen, and the question is what the Americans should do. Should they take part? No (except to protect the Kurds while the Sunni and Shi'a Arabs slug it out). Should they leave equipment behind? No (except some for the Kurds, with whom various arrangmeents can be made). Should the civil war be taken as an excuse for those obstinately wedded to messianic policies to finally drop them, and pick up and leave? Yes.

But all of this would have been clearer earlier, by more people, had they done a lot more in the classroom, not only the soldiers, and not only the great hope of the American army -- those younger officers who have been in Iraq, who have understood Islam (no thanks to the high muck-a-mucks) and have educated themselves, and are educating their fellows. They deserve every accolade. They are the hope of the military.
Those who see, clearly. And if they further see, as Bush with his idiotic "war on terror" does not, that the instruments of Jihad are much more than bombs and guns in the Middle East, and that the islamization of Europe is, with Iran's nuclear project, the main subject of the age (and not, for god's sake, whether to the Shi'a winners go all the spoils, or whether something will be left for the Sunnis, who if they are left with nothing have done everything to deserve that nothing).

Good for them.

Dear All,

I have been heartened a few times when I was at the Lake and watched some c-span. I don't usually have access to cable, but I have watched c-span on a couple of occassions and had the chance to 'read between the lines' during extended interviews with soldiers. What they've said gives me encouragement. They've seen how people over in Iraq accept 7th century thinking as 'The Model.' In fact, one of the boots-on-the-ground soldiers said (to paraphrase ) "... they think differently over there. Alot of the people think that since Mohammed wiped his ass with three stones that's good enough for them too."

I was happy to hear that. It means that people understand the mindset. People like this soldier will repeat the 'stones' anecdote every time they discuss the situation in Iraq or Middle East. This is a good thing.

I think Hugh is correct when he beats on the pedagogic drum. People will never respond to sheer intellect and logic - no matter how True it is.

The human mind has been developed over time to serve the needs of the body. This is human nature and this is what all sublime spiritually recognizes and tries to overcome.

To reach the head, we must go through the body.

We must give the people compelling images so that they will connect emotionally to the arguments against Submission. They will never 'understand' unless they 'feel' the problem.

Pedagogy and visceral response to entertainments will crystalize the threat. Appeals to logic will never be enough. The great news is that we have so much ammunition we might actually have to 'tone it down' to get the attention of the public. When I have my conversations with people, I have to keep myself in check... people can't believe what's in the canonical texts... they think I'm exaggerating.

To sell anything or to get your point across you need to have the audience 'visualize' your intended outcome. One of the first classes I took in my Master's degree program was Communications... that was a key learning...

1. Know the audience - 2. present the goal in a way that gets them to VISUALIZE and you're more than halfway home.

Awwwwwww. They gunned the little bugger down? How horrible. Honest, I'm weeping up here in the Great White north. Poor little terrorist.

I remember one of our Coptic posters said they refer to muslims as "backstabbers" for good reason.