That is, rising again in the Maghreb. And then there are the jihadist groups that are not formally or closely affiliated with Al-Qaeda, but which share the same ideology. But of course, the prevalence and spread of that ideology is apparently not a matter of concern for anyone.
"Hearts and minds," from The Economist, July 17:
THE “Islamic State of Iraq”, as al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies in that country like to call themselves, pumps out a stream of triumphant videos showing its fighters blowing up American Humvees. But these days the swagger has gone as the jihadists have been greatly weakened by the Americans and Sunni tribesmen. Their predicament was summed up in an interview by a man calling himself Abu Turab al-Jazairi. Described as one of al-Qaeda’s leaders in northern Iraq, the movement’s last bastion, he acknowledged losing several cities “because a large number of tribal leaders betrayed Islam”. And some of al-Qaeda’s fighters “got carried away with murdering and executions”.
Note how Abu Turab al-Jazairi describes the people who turned against Al-Qaeda: they "betrayed Islam." This approach will always find resonance among some Muslims. And in light of it, the State Department's plan to refer to the jihadists as "evildoers" and "criminals" rather than "jihadists" may seem to be a clever attempt to deny Al-Qaeda the Islamic legitimacy it needs to survive and grow. However, it presupposes that Muslims will be impressed by what the non-Muslim State Department calls or doesn't call the Muslims of Al-Qaeda, and it effectively bars State analysts from examining the ideology of our foes in any depth -- since we cannot even use the terms that they use for themselves, and have to accept a dogmatic declaration that they are using them inauthentically, without examining the jihad theology in depth to determine whether that is true in the first place, and if it is, to what extent.
One of America’s justifications for invading Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein was supporting al-Qaeda. That claim, like the one that he had weapons of mass destruction, has been discredited. In fact, it was the invasion of Iraq that revived al-Qaeda after its eviction from Afghanistan in 2001. By early 2006, America’s National Intelligence Assessment on terrorism concluded that the Iraq conflict was “breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement”. [...]
Yes, and if America fights jihadists anywhere, learned analysts will be able to go into Muslim countries and find out that that fight is breeding deep resentment among Muslims. I expect that the invasion of Normandy and advance into Europe in 1944 bred deep resentment of America among Germans.
Grit, determination, an eleventh-hour change of tactics and the Sunni tribal movement helped America to avoid the defeat in Iraq that seemed perilously close less than two years ago. Al-Qaeda is not so much fighting to beat America in Iraq but to survive. Increasingly, say Western officials, foreign fighters now prefer to take themselves to Pakistan.But counter-terrorism experts worry about the consequences of America’s success. Might Iraq now start exporting seasoned veterans, as Afghanistan did in the 1990s? Optimists say the danger is less acute than many fear, for three reasons. First, many of the foreign jihadists went to Iraq on a one-way ticket: to die as suicide-bombers. Second, governments are more aware of the danger of returning jihadists. And third, Zarqawi’s death seems to have removed the main impetus behind exporting Iraq’s violence.
Zarqawi’s decision to bomb three hotels in Amman in November 2005 backfired badly, causing a wave of revulsion, especially in his native Jordan. Among the bombed-out ruins of his hideout, American forces found a letter from a man calling himself Atiyah who said he spoke on behalf of the whole of al-Qaeda’s leadership. Written just weeks after the Amman bombs, it warned Zarqawi that his actions were alienating potential supporters. He risked repeating the jihadists’ ruinous bloodletting in Algeria during the 1990s when, Atiyah said, “their enemy did not defeat them, but rather they defeated themselves, were consumed and fell.”
The savagery of the Algerian jihad took the lives of more than 100,000 people through the 1990s. The worst of the fighting was waged by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), which denounced democracy and embraced jihad as the only means to power. The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), broke away in 1998. It had always been close to al-Qaeda, with strong links to fighters in Iraq.
In September 2006, thanks in part to matchmaking by Zarqawi, the GSPC rebranded itself as al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and introduced suicide tactics, attacking a series of foreign targets, including the United Nations office in Algiers. It also kidnapped Western tourists in Mauritania and Tunisia. The jihadists use the vast expanse of the Sahara to train recruits from across the region.
Other al-Qaeda offshoots have emerged, for instance, in Yemen and Lebanon. Whether these franchises will fare any better than Algeria’s earlier kind of jihadism, or than the troubled one in Iraq, remains to be seen. Mr Jazairi, for one, thought the bombings in his native Algeria were “sheer idiocy”. Better to fight in Iraq, he said. Still, it may be only a matter of time before AQIM, in particular, leaps across the Mediterranean into Europe.
The underlying assumption of this piece seems to be that one must never fight back against one's enemies, for fear of provoking a further reaction. Whatever one thinks about the wisdom or ultimate likelihood of success of the Iraqi democracy project, that is a cry of defeatism and surrender.
Two key terrorist sponsoring countries that need to have their wings clipped would be iran and the pak.
both can go into Afganistan easy enpough. the NATO forces need to follow them were ever they find them.
Two key terrorist sponsoring countries that need to have their wings clipped would be iran and the pak.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 20, 2008 9:34 AM
.... but Pakistan is Bush's ally in "war-on-terror", vfor shich, Pakistan received billions of dollars of arms, aid and pardoned debts. Oh.. and continues to recieve facours from Bush.
What is wrong with this picture?
Please, not "invasion of Normandy", but liberation of Normandy or disembarkation in Normandy and liberation of Western Europe.
US troops were not "invading" Western Europe, they were liberating these occupied countries.
Robert, I am a little worried about the tone you will take in Stealth Jihad, which may become an important book. Yes, you are allowed to take whatever tone you wish, and I don't mean to sound arrogant (who am I, who live in relative safety?) ... but I worry anyway.
This isn't the best example of what I worry about, but it's getting there: "But of course, the prevalence and spread of that ideology is apparently not a matter of concern for anyone." The better examples are when you all-but say "They call us names, and it's just unfair!"
There's a kind of hands-over-chest annoyance in some of what you write, or a sarcasm that shows a sense of ego-hurt. It's understandable, but not effective, because it makes you the subject -- not even so much your detractors -- rather than making the growing danger the subject.
"What is this guy Robert Spencer really about?" should not be the question that skeptical, well-meaning readers ask. A calm, scholarly tone is more effective.
Perhaps others have a sense of what I mean here; and how little I wish to give offense to a man who is doing great work.
Robert (Spencer): you have often referred to the war effort in Iraq derogatorily.
Question: what alternative (in addition to educating "westerners", as you have been so helpful in doing) would you suggest in counteracting against Islamic forces?
I mean, in addition to legal (e.g. immigration, FISA, etc) and educational aspects.
StillBreathing:
I use sarcasm here because as far as I can tell, a livelier style draws readers to a blog, and drawing readers is what it's all about when one is trying to raise awareness of a problem about which there is so much ignorance and disinformation.
In the book there is less of this, as there is less of it in all my books, but the same principle still holds. Those who focus on my "tone" are most welcome to do so, but often they do as as a diversion from the fact that they can't actually refute the facts I bring forward.
It is much easier to talk about my "tone" than to show what I say about jihad, or the stealth jihad, is false -- and make no mistake: if they didn't have my "tone" to talk about, they would find something else. The Islamic apologists and their allies and dupes will seize on whatever they can. If I sell books, they say I'm only in it for the money. If I don't sell books, I'm motivated by hatred. If my name is Spencer, I'm ignorant of Islam and Islamic culture. Once they know my background, I'm motivated by revenge for what happened to my family. Etc. This is, in other words, an unwinnable field of battle, and not worth bothering with: I write the way I think best, I present accurate information, and I believe that people of good will are able to see that it is accurate.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
confused:
Stop trying to bring democracy to Iraq. Islam is a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith. The democracy project is doomed to failure and was foredoomed to failure, and its poison pill is the provision in the Iraqi Constitution that no law can be made that contradicts Islam. This will deny equality of rights to non-Muslims and women.
What should we be doing? Combatting the spread of jihadism in Pakistan. Stopping the funding of Egypt as well as Pakistan, unless they can demonstrate that they're really fighting against the jihadists. Taking out Iran's nukes. Getting tough with Saudi Arabia (which will probably require opening up ANWR and drilling offshore). Combating the ideology with a clear and ringing affirmation of the freedom of conscience, equality of rights of all before the law, etc. Classify Islamic groups in the US as political unless they renounce Sharia in word and deed (which is, of course, almost certainly inconceivable).
And much more.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
StillBreathing:
One more thing:
If I ever actually said this, then mea culpa. In reality, when I point out their frequent use of name-calling -- "Islamophobe," "bigot," "hatemonger" etc. -- it is a pedagogical effort. I am trying to show people the hollowness of their arguments, and the manipulative way in which they try to discredit their opponents rather than dealing with their arguments.
This is a much-needed pedagogical effort, since their name-calling has had such an effect. A leading conservative TV host has said that he won't have me on because he doesn't want to be called a "racist." If I tell you this, it sounds as if it is about me, but it isn't. The point is that through charges of "racism" the jihadists and their allies are inhibiting discussion of the jihad threat, and that is something that should concern us all.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Al Qaeda's stock falls over here, but rises over there. What is this, the Dow-Jones, the Hang Seng, the Nikkei? Does it matter? What if there were no longer a group Al Qaeda. What if there were only all those other groups motivated by the same texts, prompted by the same tenets, exhibiting the same behavior toward Infidels?
And what if there were no Al Qaeda, and no groups actively engaged in terrorism, because they had realized that such an instrument of war was not effective or not effective enough to compensate for the alarm it spread, and the auto-didacticism it encouraged, among Infidels, who might just, in their concern about terrorism, learn a little too much, just a little too soon, about Islam?
This breathless attention to Al Qaeda, or to Bin Laden, is symptomatic of the silliness, the adolescent note, in the understanding, or failure to understand, what Islam, and Jihad, and the instruments of Jihad, are all about.
Thank you for your response and your work. And for Hugh, of course.
A last thought. One aspect that people find as they become more prominent in a corporation is that the self-referencial emotional content of their presentations is reduced. Their bosses want the facts and to judge the facts, and not to deal with what is experienced as extra words and difficult-to-handle emotion.
Mr. Spencer, thank you and Hugh and all the folks at JW, including the posters, for your work of informing the public of the threat we face in the west. Two points of "disagreement" for lack of a better word: Although the democracy project is useless unless we had instituted a government in the model of Attaturk, or the one in Japan following WWII, at least we are over there taking them out in large fashion, including the ones inspired to be there after the LIBERATION began. And to Hugh, I love your writing style, but your comments about raising the price of fuel to get us off Mideast oil are those of someone living near a subway or whom can afford to live close enough to work to walk. This, starving the people into submission, is in fact one of the goals of the jihadists, forcing us to spend our way into defeat. Open up, as Mr. Spencer stated, our OWN reserves, while at the same time developing the future renewables or energy sources is a much better way to go, especially for those of us who HAVE TO travel to get to work, some of that work just as or more inportant than getting the word out to the public of the dangers we face.
"your comments about raising the price of fuel to get us off Mideast oil are those of someone living near a subway or whom can afford to live close enough to work to walk..."
-- from a posting above
I don't live near a subway. I suffer financially -- but thrive morally -- when the price of gasoline goes up. Surely you don't think that everyone who recognizes the need to raise the price of gasoline, and keep it high -- it's twice as high in Europe -- does so only because he himself does not suffer. Are you that much of a Marxist to believe that everything comes down to that -- a question of whether or not one's economic interest is directly affected? Surely not.
Surely you know that tens of millions of people in this country at long last recogniize, and indeed their behavior shows it, that if there are to be changes in gas efficiency, changes in the technology of cars, changes in the reliance on cars, the surest way to accomplish this is to raise the price of gasoline. We could have done this in 1973, slowly and surely, and without disruption. Successive governments, and politicans of both parties, did not do what they should have done, and were apparently incapable of learning themselves, much less instructing others, in why gasoline had to be taxed, and taxed steadily, with the price never going down, so that investments in other kinds of cars, or in other modes of transportation, including mass transit, would never be undercut by a sudden OPEC drop in price.
The Marxist's belief that under the epiphenomena of existence there is only economics -- so that, for example, we need not concern ourselves either with who the oil producers are, or what they do with the money, and we need not concern ourselves with what the ultimate effect on the natural world is of cheap gasoline and the behavior it encourages -- is not for me. And I suspect it is not really for you, either, if you thought more about it.
As I said Hugh, develop HERE, and don't send the $$ there. What is "marxist" is to forcefully impose, at great expense to the masses, the ideas of a few, without consensus, for the supposed good of all. Develop new technologies, but not while bleeding dry the ones whom you wish to "help" by getting them off the teat of ME oil, with useless, stupid ideas like corn ethanol! Do the things that make sense. The "marxist" ideologies gave us welfare, gave us mass transit systems in bankruptcy, the kind of policies Obama and Clinton and all of their ilk want to IMPOSE, the ideas which greatly and sometimes irrevocably hurts the very folks they claim to be trying to "help". That, sir, is the REAL marxism.
And by the way, thriving morally is a wonderful thing, until it comes time to pay the bills or head to the grocery store. Morals MUST be combined with some semblance of sanity and RESPONSIBLE policy making.
And the Europeans keep the price of petrol high, not out of any sense of morality, but due to the Socialistic economies they have, and the need to support the welfare state - NOT a fine example, as they too are still on the teat of ME oil, and of the Russian gas supply, and as all the headlines here and at DW show, are quite the dhimmis indeed, moreso than the folks in the US or even Canada, will ever be.
On this site you are continually calling the people of the UK (of whom I am one) dhimmis. I want to assure you that I know many people here who are aware of the situation and are fighting in every way they can to bring awareness of the dangers of Islam to those of us who are still asleep. I personally have sent out books - in particular one to my own MP - and also printed articles from this site. I have turned articles from this site into leaflets ( I haven't had permission to do this but I hope it's acceptable to the contributors )and am giving and sending them out to people I think would respond, and to newspapers. I believe things are stirring here in the UK so please don't lump us all under the title of dhimmis.
PS I love the work that is going on on this site.
I believe Al-Qaeda is slowly turning into a plague. There is a generation of Muslim extremist who've been born and bred to fight this war. Until that generation dies, this wave is going to continue.
It's more like having dormant nano-phages just waiting for the signal to activate.
I have one question. Will we have to send troops to the Maghreb? I wonder how long our troops will be in the Maghreb if they do have to be sent there.
The ummah version of Whack-A-Mole.
Symphony Wales - The governing elites of the UK have gone out of their way to force Sharia down the throats of those they purport to serve. The management of al-BEEB, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chief Justice and even HRH The Prince of Wales are just recent examples of this willingness to surrender both responsibility and power in favour of Islam. These are the people who are excoriated as "dhimmis", not the British people. The analogy is frequently made between the times we live in and the late 1930's when Churchill was reviled by many as a "war-monger." You, like me, are doing what you feel called to do to fight this noxious trend. Do not slacken you efforts to defend your freedoms and your culture. We are natural allies, and together we shall prevail.
MP. First,thank you for your kind comments. We are indeed allies in this war. However the situation here in the UK is quite complicated. The EU put pressure on our government to accept immigrants in larger numbers than could easily be assimilated and when the indigenous population complained they were barraged with accusations of racism. I see people everyday struggling to come to terms with the changes here; making great efforts to accept people who make no attempt to fit in, because they have been made to believe they are doing the right thing. This indoctrination took place before the muslim bombs.
I think now some of our leaders in the government are waking up, but they have so humiliated the population into not complaining that they cannot easily get them to turn about. I think anyway that our leaders don't have a clue how to deal with the problem even when they are able to see it, as they are fearful of the violence they know they can unleash at a drop of a hat. I have a feeling that something terrible has to happen before it can all be resolved.
Symphony Wales - it's great to hear what you've been doing.
Have you ever read Malcolm Gladwell's book "Tipping Point"?
You and others here might find it inspiring: he has some useful hints about how to spread good ideas, and what kinds of people make the best idea-spreaders. Look for what he says about Paul Revere.
It's a race, and we're going down to the wire, but I think we just might get a critical mass of the population awake, in time: in time to save the UK, to save Europe, to save Israel, to save India...
No-one should forget just how widely Oriana Fallaci's books sold, in Europe; they sold like hot cakes in her native Italy, among the ordinary citizens. It is possible that the combination of her ideas, and Benedict XVI and Magdi Cristiano Allam, may 'tip' Italy, quite suddenly.
In the Netherlands Pym Fortuyn was followed by Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali...and then Geert Wilders stood up, Geert who has read Oriana, and taken her seriously, you could almost say she threw him a sword and he's caught it. Maybe the Netherlands will suddenly 'tip'.
Just keep at it. If the 'Ents' of Europe awaken all at once and find that they are strong (are you familiar with Tolkien?) the Mohammedans and their collaborators will get one godalmighty shock.
Thanks for your encouraging remarks dumbledoresarmy. I shall look up the book by Malcolm Gladwell you mentioned. I am aware of the others and have read Infidel. The trouble here in the UK is that very few books on this subject are being produced. I have to search the internet for reading material. I would like to see a bestseller rip-roaring away through the UK.
I live in an area where muslims are increasing. The latest tactic being used by them is to walk straight at us on the pavement (sidewalk?) and force us to move to one side. Some of their tactics can be almost subtle! But we have our own subtle responses! Dhimmis we are not.
I hope you are right about the Mohammedan shock.
Symphony Wales
you wrote -
"I live in an area where muslims are increasing. The latest tactic being used by them is to walk straight at us on the pavement (sidewalk?) and force us to move to one side."
This is *not* a new technique, nor is it 'subtle'. Muslims have been arrogantly shoving Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims into the gutter, or into the wall, ever since they were told to do it, in the 7th/ 8th century. I kid you not. Your local mob of Muslim bullies are just following their nasty playbook.
This is what it tells them:
'... it is forbidden to say salaam to Jews and Christians, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“Do not initiate the greeting of salaam to a Jew or Christian,
*and if you meet them in the street, push them to the narrowest part of the road*.” (Narrated by Muslim, 2167). {The Sahih Muslim is one of the authoritative Hadith collections}.
Got that? - "*If you [i.e. you the Muslim] meet them [the non-Muslim] in the street, PUSH THEM TO THE NARROWEST PART OF THE ROAD"* {my emphasis added}.
What lovely lovely people! What a beautiful 'religion'! *SPIT!*
If you've read either Andrew Bostom's or Bat Yeor's books, you will find that all the way through, from the 7th/ 8th century to the 20th century, everywhere, this particularly repulsive commandment of the so-called 'prophet' has been zealously obeyed.
Indeed, as I've read through the archives here, I've encountered contemporary accounts of non-Muslims who in French, Australian, and in United States city streets have encountered Muslims who have tried to push them into the gutter.
Anyway: now you know exactly where that particular unpleasant piece of Muslim behaviour comes from, chapter and verse. Pass the information to all your friends and neighbours.
I suggest that you and your entire local non-Muslim community have a think about creative ways to counter it.
This is 'footpath jihad', and it's serious. They're trying to 'train' you, to make you scared, to make you behave like a dhimmi (i.e. cringe and duck when the Muslim Ubermensch, arrogant as one of Hitler's Nazi stormtroopers in Occupied Poland, struts past with his lordly nose in the air}.
If it isn't slammed down, HARD, it will only get worse.
Your basic aim is to stop them doing it, full stop. They have to learn, fast, that Welshmen on Welsh soil simply will. not. submit.
The Welsh heroes of the Mabinogion would have hung these nasty, vicious, grubby little bullies out to dry.
dumbledoresarmy
Thank you for the information re pushing us in the gutter - by the way I am a welshwoman living in England - I am, and I know my friends will be, happy to have this knowledge. We will have to work out some tactics to counteract the push and the shove.
I have just started to read Bat Yeor's book 'Eurabia' and I also have Andrew Bostom's book 'The Legacy of Jihad' though I haven't read it yet. The books I have read so far have been excellent. Every one adding something to the sum of my knowledge. I have only been at this a few months so I haven't got your wide-ranging knowledge yet, but I'm working on it.
I love the term 'footpath jihad' and plan to use it when spreading 'the news'. Yes, what a pity the Welsh heroes are not alive today. But we do have some macho English men only too willing to spar with our Islamic residents, though I don't think they are fully aware of how ferocious and vicious they are.
My way of dealing with things is to send letters, essays, downloaded literature, anything appropriate really, to newspapers, politicians or anyone I think may have some influence. The myopic people here are bound to wake up one day to the dangers. Let's hope it is in time.