The world continues to search for ties to Al-Qaeda, and to ignore the much more important ideological ties among the mujahedin. From the New Duranty Times, aka the New York Times:
LONDON, April 10 — A forthcoming government report concludes that the July 7 bombings in London were a low-budget operation carried out by four men who had no connection to Al Qaeda and who obtained all the information they needed from the Internet, The Observer reported Sunday.According to The Observer, which said it obtained a leaked copy of the report, the attacks were "a simple and inexpensive plot" organized and executed by four British suicide bombers intent on martyrdom.
That is, Islamic martyrdom, based on Qur'an 9:111, which promises Paradise to those who "slay and are slain" for Allah.
Okay, What's the difference? al Qeada, no al Qeada. People died July 7th 2005. And it was all caused by Islam, "the religion of peace."
This is a fine example of the liberal mindset. It not their fault. It's the fault of the West for not understanding them and the pain that they feel.
Nuts to That!!!
They were sick-minded individuals that wanted an easy way out and saw Islam as that way out. Going on second-hand information about an after-life with 76 virgins from another sick person that was a pedeophile, phalse prophet, child molestin', murdering truce breaker.
Allah Peanutbutter Sandwiches!!!
Also today, 29 people were arrested today for the bombings in Madrid. Only 9 were charged with having ties to a terrorist organization.
Our laws are outdated, the investigators biases are outdated. They cannot see the common thread that ties all these terrorists together. It's not Al Qaeda membership, it's not ethnicity, it's not nationality. It's the Qur'an, st*pid.
The refusal to discuss Jihad, and the varied instruments that are employed to further Jihad, has led to the use of the phrase "war on terror" which diverts attention from all the other instruments -- oil revenues, Da'wa unchecked world-wide, demographic conquest within the Lands of the Infidels - and thereby continues to mislead unwary Infidels, whose attention becomes fixed on this "war on terror."
This error is compounded, from lack of intelligent interest, by focussing attention not on the hundreds of terrorist groups whose names are known, but on one particular one -- Al-Qaeda. This is foolish. This, from the standpoint of those promoting the world-wide Jihad through their own local expressions of it, with here Hamas, there Hezbollah, over there Laskar Jihad, and even further on Jemaah Islamiya (fill up the website with another few hundred names).
One example of the resulting confusion in the silly discussion, by those in the Bush Adminstration, and those attacking the Bush Administration, about whether or not Saddam Hussein's regime had close, not-so-close, nonexistent ties with Al Qaeda. The Bush Administration, having started this whole "war on terror" and "Al Qaeda" business, cannot, apparently, tell the truth and answer its critics: Why does it matter? Was not Saddam Hussein an aggressive Arab and Muslim leader, who had spent the last decade re-establishing himself as a good Muslim, putting Qur'anic verses on the Iraqi flag, building the largest mosque in the world, using his own blood for a specially-calligraphed Qur'an, and so on and so predictably forth. Did he not contribute to Arab terrorists, by giving $25,000 to the families of each suicide bomber involved in the Lesser Jihad against Israel? Does anyone doubt that the weaponry he might have acquired could have been used against the Infidels, either by his regime, or by one that followed it, or by elements in Iraq that might be able to divert such weaponry at some point? The fear of Saddam Hussein's acquisition of such weaopnry can be justified without any reference to Al Qaeda. His country is Muslim; Muslims are taught to expand the territory where Islam will dominate and to permit local Infidels to live, but only if they submit to certain onerous and, for many over the centuries, utterly intolerable conditions.
When you hear someone talk about the "war on terror" you know that someone is limited, is simply not very intelligent, has not thought things through. I just received a note from someone, a visitor to this site, who attended a debate last night at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, on the topic of "Should the Americans withdraw from Iraq." My appalled informant noted the use of that phrase "war on terror" and all that it implies, by both William Kristol (who also said "we are winning" and "we can win" without explaining what that "winning" would do to promote Infidel interests, as opposed to letting sectarian and ethnic tensions take their natural course), and by John Deutch (who for a year was head of the CIA, and the display he offered yesterday was on the level of another former CIA head, James Woolsey (himself an enthusiast for the Light Unto the Muslim Nations Project) in his failure to understand Islam, or to get beyond Iraq to the world-wide problem which is most acute in Western Europe. Kristol is merely one more Bright Young Conservative. But Deutch is a University Professor at MIT and a former head of the CIA. He has all the time in the world to read widely in the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, all the time in the world to read Bat Ye'or and a hundred others -- and obviously, judging by the dozen telling snippets from his "debate" interventions, he has not. Not a hint that the best reason for leaving Iraq is to exploit the sectarian and ethnic fissures, to force both Iran and Saudi Arabia to expend men, materiel, and money in backing their side in a proxy war in Iraq, to hope that Shi'a unrest and Sunni counter-pressure develop in Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Lebanon, the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia -- no, that was not even conceivable to either of these "debaters" who hardly scratched the surface at that grand thing, the Kennedy School of Government.
The Yiddish dismissive reduplicative has entered the language. Dennis Potter titled one of his television plays for the old BBC "Oedipus Shmoedipus," a phrase alluding to the Jewish mother who, upon being told that someone suffers from an "oedipus complex," says "Oedipus Shmoedipus, so long as he loves his mother."
I played with that on a post yesterday. Do I repeat myself? Very well then, I will repeat myself:
Al-Qaeda, Al-Shmaeda -- so long as he hates the Infidels.
And they call these jihadists British. What an insult.
Now replaced with the phrase "the long war". The long war against whom?
It is the war that dare not speak its name. Now we no longer have a war on a technique; we have a war of indeterminate length (true enough) against an unnamed enemy. It would be funny if it weren't so serious.
And the Man of Straw is still crawling to the would-be genocidal regime in Iran. He must go. It is too late ... which reminds me ...
Good piece from Steyn in the City Journal:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_iran.html
We need legislation banning jihad in America, maybe we can get Tom Tancredo to introduce it!
My forthcoming book:
Saracens at the Gates.
Publication details will be announced early summer.
We are at war with the Saracens. Any questions?
Timothy F. McDonough, Ph.D.
Political Economist
It's organic.
Would somebody pass this breaking news along to John Kerry, Esq. and Dr. Howard Dean and those other guys?
Whew!
As long as it wasn't mass-murder related to al-Qaeda, all is forgiven.
Just a random, non-affiliated bunch of terrorists.
Whew!
Back to sleep, England.
Sweet dreams.
Al-Qaeda, Al-Shmaeda -- so long as he hates the Infidels.
Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2006 01:39 PM
Hugh thats all that matters, its all in the koran! wonder if those bright baulbs working for the Duranty Times aka NYT asked the families of those killed in July if they cared if those muslims were Al-Qaeda or not.. and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand why NYT circulations is down.
You can only despise self obsessed arrogant infidel haters who gamble their souls, murdering innocents to win the affection of 20 something heavenly blow-up dolls. What utter imbeciles these people are.
Well as long as it was a "low budget" terrorist attack that's fine. As I go to work on the underground every day I will breath easier knowing that when I or my family are murdered in the name of allah/mohammed that it was a "low budget" terrorist attack.
Forget the links to al-qaeda and start looking at the links to islam and the koran, which states quite categorically that even "low budget" attacks are acceptable as long as you are attacking the infidel.