"The jihad continues: Islamic terrorists again show they mean what they say," an unsigned editorial in the Charlotte Observer, repeats standard popular pieties in the face of the latest jihad terror plots, thereby showing the thickness of the fog of political correctness and ignorance that prevails in the mainstream media today:
The terrorist attacks in England and Scotland failed to accomplish their murderous goal, but they provided more evidence that Islamic terrorists mean what they say: They think it is their religious duty to kill us. They see their attacks on civilians as a renewal of the Crusades. It is their jihad -- a struggle in the name of God.
They most certainly do not see their attacks on civilians as a renewal of the Crusades. They hate the Crusades and routinely call the American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan Crusaders. The fact that this editorial writer refers to the Crusades in one sentence and to jihad in the next shows either that he or she thought they were essentially equivalent -- although one effectively lasted 200 years and the other has gone on for 1400 years and counting, and one conquered temporarily a few bits of the Holy Land while the other conquered about a third of the world at one time or another and has held much of it -- or that he or she thought it best not to be "Islamophobic" by mentioning jihad alone, and so dragged the Crusades into it.
In this war, it is important to be clear about the identity of the enemy. It is not the Muslim faith, nor is it terrorism -- a tactic, not a foe. The enemy is a group of would-be killers associated with al-Qaida, an alliance of militant Sunni groups.
OK, so it's just Al-Qaeda. That evidently leaves out Hizballah and other Shi'ite jihadists, as well as jihad groups around the world that have no apparent ties to Al-Qaeda. It leaves out also the "sudden jihad syndrome" types and freelance jihadists who are motivated by their own reading of the Qur'an. Of course the enemy is not "the Muslim faith," but the enemy is motivated by elements of the Muslim faith -- and, as former jihadist Hassan Butt pointed out recently, if we don't address that fact, we will never be getting to the root of the problem.
Al-Qaida is an international organization of loosely affiliated cells that carry out attacks against Western nations in an attempt to advance Islamic fundamentalism. Its objectives include the elimination of foreign influence in Muslim nations, the destruction of Israel and the creation of a new caliphate -- a globally powerful Islamic state governed by religious law....
Yes, and they appeal to peaceful Muslims by showing the Islamic roots of such aspirations. But we can't talk about that, now, can we?
These are not the sorts of terrorists who pop up from time to time in this country -- here an anti-abortion zealot who bombs clinics, there a foe of the central government who blows up a federal building.
Yes, for one thing, there are several hundred thousand more of them than there are of those guys.
They are trained, loosely organized religious zealots with no goal except to serve God by killing us. They do not negotiate. They do not compromise. The only way to stop them is by cutting off their funding, disrupting their communications, rooting out their secret cells and using whatever force is required to thwart their lethal plans.Our war is not with Islam. In fact, these terrorists have murdered more Muslims than Christians. Most Muslims do not share their ideology and are appalled by this crazed corruption of the faith as peacefully practiced by millions around the world.
If they are indeed appalled by this, why don't we see them condemning Osama and his ilk with the same vehemence they have displayed in recent years in condemning Salman Rushdie, the Pope, and some cartoonists in Denmark?
Here is the contents of the post I made at the Charlotte Observer:
Then why do most Muslims sit back and say nothing? It's the face of evil. Read the Koran and the traditions of the founder of this cult like religion. Mohammed was a brutal murderer and rapist. His power base was built by attacking caravans and killing the travelers.
You have 3 options with Islam:
1. Convert or as the muslims arrogantly say revert
2. Live as second class people paying special taxes and wearing a piece of clothing to designate yourself (like the Nazis had the Jews do?)
3. Die
Your choice. My choice 4 none of the above. It's the religion, stupid.
There was a poll here in the us about al-qeada. 12% were say them favorable. 24% had no opion. 24% had no opion?? I realize 3-5% of people often don't have an opion...but 24%? Tells me they didn't want to answer the question. And that poll was taken in the US. Another poll showed 1 in 4 in the US thought sucide bombing was ok. If these numbers exist in the US what are they in Iran,Pakistan,Egypt...and etc? It's not as small a number as they would have us believe. It is large % of muslims. When nearly half think this way, and the other half makes excuses for them, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out the problem.
Good rebuttal as always, Robert. However I take issue with this part:
"If they are indeed appalled by this, why don't we see them condemning Osama and his ilk with the same vehemence they have displayed in recent years in condemning Salman Rushdie, the Pope, and some cartoonists in Denmark?"
The ones protesting in the first place were the militant Islamists, not the moderate Muslims. The moderates stayed at home with their families and chose not to get involved in the whole fracas. Who could blame them?
Now I don't know about you, but I as a moderate would feel pretty lonely and intimidated by the presence of radical Islam on my streets. The Islamists are organised, violent and have proven their ability to rapidly assemble and take out their rage against whatever has offended them. Sure, I could try and organise some counter-movement... but who will join? Who will speak out? Who will express their opinions publicly? And who will try and infiltrate? When Islamists are everywhere, watching and listening, invisible but all too ready to hunt down and kill those who oppose them, who is brave enough to sacrifice his life and those of his family just to make a point?
From the average Muslim's point of view, it's better to stay at home, stay out of the debate, and survive. I can't fault them too much for not risking everything.
We get rid of the radical clerics, the jihadi-producing madrassas, the Islamist radio and TV stations, and ban and crack down in a sustained manner on the radical groups and get them on the run, then we'll embolden the moderates to stand up.
People, letting you know you can easily contact by e-mail the Editorial Page Editor at the "Charlotte Observer" link above and let him know, nicely and politely of course, your feelings about that Editorial. I did. My main point is "Islam is the enemy. Please read in the Koran before you publish another Editorial about how Islam isn't."
OmegaMan,
I gave you 5 stars, dude!
Thanks for telling like it is, and in my kinda language too.
"In this war, it is important to be clear about the identity of the enemy. It is not the Muslim faith, nor is it terrorism -- a tactic, not a foe. The enemy is a group of would-be killers associated with al-Qaida, an alliance of militant Sunni groups."
-- from the editorial in the Charlotte Observer
If "the enemy" is a "group of would-be killers associated with al-Qaida [sic]" which is an "alliance of militant Sunni groups" then are the Muslims who decapitate Buddhist monks in southern Thailand, or Christian schoolgirls in Indonesia, a "group" of "militant Sunnis"? Or are they just Muslims, doing what Muslims do to Infidels when they think those Infidels deserve it for thwarting Muslim ambitions, and Muslim natural (natural according to Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira) rights -- the right to dominate, the right right never ever to have to accept Infidel rule or Infidel laws but always and everywhere to dominate Infidels, whether in lands already controlled by Islam, the Dar al-Islam or, ultimatley, in the lands still controlled by Infidels, the Domain of War, the Dar al-harb?
And what would the writer of this editorial make of the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest? What would he make of all the doctrine that lies behind it, set down very clearly not only by Sunni scholars (of all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence) but by the Shi'a as well? What would he make -- and does he know? -- of the texts collected in "The Legacy of Jihad"? What, for that matter, would he make of the sober setting out of the Life of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, in Spencer's biography? What would he make of the evidence presented by Bat Ye'or in "The Dhimmi" and "Islam and Dhimmitude" and, her masterpiece, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam"? What would he make of the contents of the anthology "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance"? What would he make of Joseph Schacht, Antoine Fattal, K. S. Lal, Henri Lammens, Samuel Zwemer, St. Clair Tisdall, C. Snouck Hurgronje, Georges Vajda, Charles-Emmanuel Bousquet, Edmond Fagnan, and a hundred others who gave their entire lives to the study of Islam, and who studied, and wrote, before the Age of Apologists and Censors, the Age of the Islamintern International, the Age of Arab Money calling the shots, because in many cases paying the bills, for "Centers" of "Islamic" Studies, and individual well-cushioned academic chairs in such studies? What, in short, has the editorial writer done, since his task and responsibility is to instruct the public, to fully educate himself, before presuming to pronounce on the subject of Islam, and the Jihad? And what makes him think that the most effective weapon of Jihad is that which Al-Qaeda uses, and why does he not consider the entire panoply of weaponry -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest -- which are far more effective, and because they are less obvious, or considered off-limits to constraint by Infidels, and therefore far more insidious and effective and, therefore, dangerous?
"From the average Muslim's point of view, it's better to stay at home, stay out of the debate, and survive. I can't fault them too much for not risking everything."
Holy Wart,
As understandable as the average Muslim's fear of the extremists is, the fact remains that they are the ones who will have to take action. For starters, how many of them give to Hamas, Hezbollah or other Islamic "charities"?
All of our attempts to "ban and crack down on the radical clerics, the jihadi-producing madrassas, the Islamist radio and TV stations have only made heroes of them. Muslims have to pick a side. If securing freedom for themselves and their children is not worth risking their own lives, fortunes and sacred honor, then there is nothing we can do.
They can stay out of the debate but they won't be able to stay out of the fight. The US and Israel have used pinpoint targeting to kill certain terrorist leaders but a bomb that falls on Tehran, Riyadh, Damascus or Cairo won't be "smart" enough to tell the difference between the average Muslim and the terrorist. Both will be hit.
Lastly, American Muslims have no excuse. They are in a free country where their rights are protected.
Next time someone tells you that no one will speak up tell them: all that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.
Good luck with that.
And that "peaceful/radical" muslim thing.
And what would the writer of this editorial make of the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest? What would he make of all the doctrine that lies behind it..."
--posted by Hugh
You ready? I'm swallowing a dhimmi pill. Here we go:
"It's true that historically Islam can be accused of spreading its faith through the sword, but the same thing can certainly be said of the Christian Crusades. And as for Islamophobes who cherry pick the violent verses of the Koran, they could find the same or even more violent verses in the Old Testament."
There!
Does it smell rank enough?
At some point in this war, the "moderate" Muslim who stays home, out of the debate is going to have to choose: Islam or freedom. So what will be the trigger to finally choose? When Muslims are in the majority everywhere and there really is nothing to choose?
Back to the article: CRUSADE, CRUSADE, CRUSADE. I am sick of hearing jihad all the time and the "holy" city of _____. We never hear Jewish or Christian holy sites described as "holy" by the media. I don't care if CRUSADE is used in the wrong context. I just want to hear it spoken in the Judeo-Christian West.
What the Charlotte mouthpiece fails to understand is:
If there were no Koran there could be no Jihad.
If the Koran is the inspiration and justification used by global "holy" terrorists, how can Islam not be the root cause of their terrorism?
And simply saying that the "majority of Muslims" do not agree with this fundamentalistic mania solves nothing. And defuses no part of the violent Jihad.
If Muslims do not reform out the deadly dogmas from their "religion" (Suras 9:5; 9:29-30, et al), there will be no end to the massacre-ing Jihad.
To do that, the violent dogmatists (who will object to any peace-making reform with terrorism) will have to be killed off.
Only by such a cleansing of the lunatics, and then the root Koranic lunacy, will Islam have any chance of surviving.
Because its current bloodthirsty course will only lead to the destruction of the moderates as more and more infidels get sick and tired of their co-religionists' worse and worse attacks.
And more infidels get sick of their "holy" book that sanctifies such cruel, homicidal madness.
The moderates will go down with the maniacs, so they'd better choose:
Fight the monsters or be devoured by their psychopathic horrors.
Holy Wart
Are you saying that YOUR religion is not worth fighting for from those who pervert it?
But infidels can fight it?
This is why islam is the problem. Half support death and destruction to futher it's cause. The other half support islam.
PMK took words out of the US Constition for his arguements. And if muslims can't understand them...then as PMK also stated....bombs and bullets don't judge.
Well maybe it's time to stop being intimidated when we are called crusaders.
What's to lose?
Just say yes. The Crusades were noble and necessary and the whole world ended up better off for them.
Yes, we're crusaders. And yes, we're going to kick your butts!
For lunatics like those who claim to want to avoid, abhor, and excoriate the "crusades" (forget the fact that THEY were the originators of "crusade" back in the 600s-900s AD, starting 300 years before the Christians ever even THOUGHT about a counterattack), they sure seem to do everything in their power to TRIGGER another one.
Now that's using ones head!...LOL