“Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism specialist with the Swedish National Defense College, said there are ‘very strong suspicions’ that the coordinated Mumbai attacks have a link to al-Qaida....” -- from this news article
Yes, yes. We have all heard the solemn discussions about whether or not the "Deccan Mujahideen" is a new group, or an old one, or a made-up group, and whether or not there is a "link" to Al Qaeda. And this kind of focusing on the trivial, the nearly insignificant, goes on and on and on, when the real point is this: these are Muslims. They may be from within India. Or not. They may be from Pakistan. Or not. They may have been encouraged or funded by Arab Muslims. Or not. They may have links to Al Qaeda. Or not.
What matters is that they are Muslims attacking, attempting to kill, non-Muslims, in order to obtain their aims. And their aims are to weaken -- in this particular case -- India. And they wish to weaken India in order to make the government of India appease Muslims and meet their demands, whether in Kashmir or in India proper. And once those demands, whatever they may be, are met, other demands from Muslims will be made, and will have to be met, for there is no end to this. The Jihad does not have an end point. There is not a finite goal, but rather an endless series of goals, with each success feeding triumphalism.
The only time this has not happened, in the past 1350 years, is when Muslims have been stopped, either by superior military power -- as outside of Poitiers, or when the Ottomans were repulsed twice at the Gates of Vienna, or by the clear understanding that the Infidels were overwhelmingly more powerful, militarily and economically. That, through the 19th century and the first half of the 20th, was clear to all concerned.
And though Muslims on their own, because of inshallah-fatalism, could never create advanced economies, they have become rich from oil (and gas), a manna that only an accident of geology could provide. Now they enjoy trillions of dollars which, while allowing many of them lives of incredible luxury and decadence beyond anything the Western world has experienced, also helps to fund the Jihad by paying for mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, propaganda, and campaigns of Daw'a. What's more, at the same time, and quite independently, the Western world, having forgotten its own historical experience of Islam, and its elites, political and media, having lost the ability to heed its real scholars and their cassandra warnings, instead listened to the espositos, the armstrongs, the assorted MESA-Nostra defenders-of-the-faith-and-fatah-of-Islam, and allowed into the Western midst millions of Muslims. They did this without realizing that they brought with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, an alien and a hostile creed, one that flatly contradicts the principles -- all the principles -- of advanced Western societies.
These trillions in oil revenues, and these millions of Muslims who in an act of civilizational near-criminal negligence, have been permitted to settle deep behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, explain the threat of Jihad on a global scale today.
And there is no need to waste valuable time on the radio or television pondering ponderously whether the attackers are domestic or foreign, whether they are connected to Al-Qaeda or not. That may of some interest in helping to round this particular group up. But if too much time is spent on such matters, it distracts from the pedagogic task at hand: to explain to listeners and viewers that the key element here is Islam. It is Muslims pursuing, as they have a duty to pursue, Jihad. In this particular case they have chosen to do so using terrorism, but all around us other instruments, more effective because far less attention-getting, are being used toward the same goal, the same end: the removal of all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- everywhere.
That's why, when any "terrorism expert" -- some are good, some are not so good, some are idiotic -- proceeds to enjoy his time on the air discussing endlessly what this group should be called, what other groups it is linked to, what its "cause" is -- it's a case of missing-the-pointness that, at this point in the history of the world, is downright dangerous.
Sure they are Muslims! Just like KKK lynchings were carried out by Christians. Just like the OK City bombing was done by a Christian. Just like the 1968 Chicago bombings by the JDL were Jews.
So what if they are Muslims.
They are criminals regardless of their religion.
Submit the arrested ones o a shariah court and see what happens to him. You'd have a swift behading of these terrorists for sure.
When I am not reading JW online, I spend time perusing other blogs/newsites to see how other "conservatives" put the latest spin on the GWOT news of the day.
It was nice to come across an editorial at the National Review Online as follows:
"The aim of the “grand jihad,” however, is not just to support terrorism overseas. It is to promote Islamist ideology and the incremental adoption of the Muslim legal regime, sharia, in the United States and the West. That agenda would be pursued not only, or even principally, by jihadist violence, but by the political activism of Muslim organizations presenting themselves as human-rights groups."
Editorial Nov. 26, 2008 "Not So Holy"
This is about the most advanced analysis of global jihad that has ever been allowed to print at NRO's Editorial board. I see this as a sign of progress from those on the right who are part of the punditry who so often found " pondering ponderously whether the attackers are domestic or foreign, whether they are connected to Al-Qaeda or not."
In fact, Editor Lowry (the same Lowry who capitulated to CAIR and said " Robert Spencer and some others on the right feel very strongly that it is important to discredit Mohammed and Islam as such in order to win the war on terror. That's certainly their prerogative, but it is not the tack NR has taken ... .") was on Hannity & Colmes the other night asking exactly these type of linkage to Al Queda questions.
Also found at NRO was this by Andrew McCarthy in the Corner blog re: Mumbai:
"When he guest-hosted Hannity & Colmes last night, Rich had a very edifying couple of segments with Mark Steyn and Richard Miniter. Mark made the excellent point about the reluctance to come to grips with the fact that these attacks on iconic targets, which we're now seeing in Mumbai/Bombay but of course have seen elsewhere, are fueled by an ideology. That's exactly right. The obsession over whether al Qaeda or its endless jumble of affiliates pulled off the operation is a misguided attempt to mimimize the challenge. The bin Laden network is not unimportant, but it is tapping into something that is much bigger than itself.
It's become fashionable for pundits to confine the threat of radical Islam to a relative fringe of disgruntled takfiris and rationalize that if we could only eliminate them all would be well. But that fringe represents only a strain of the virus."
***
Just like Hugh points out above. This statement in on online magazine that once said Robert Spencer was not welcome to examine Islam and the prophet Mohammed in discussion on the war on terror is evidence that some important conservative thinkers and writers are coming around to understand the importance on focusing on global jihad, Islam, and the role of Mohammed, instead of wasting time figuring out which rock Al Queda will be found under next.
Progress. Slow. But progress nonetheless.
BTW- flashing brilliantly in bold letters in the right hand side of the main page at NRO was an ad for "Stealth Jihad" by Robert Spencer.
Islamfactor,
Here's the difference. Those "Christians" you spoke of were clearly not following the teachings of the one they hold as the most high, Christ, when performing those barbaric actions.
Those Muslims spilling innocent blood right now in Mumbai are following the directions of the ones they hold highest, Mohammad and Allah.
Jihadi = Death.
The only good jihadi is one who is singing after being waterboarded, or one who has just been killed.
Where is the mother ship ? Has it been sunk ?
Only twenty five odd jihadis carried out this attack ?
Three US marines would have wiped them out.
(now will man-child Barry agree to deploy them ?)
islamfactor.org: I'll put it plain like. You really aren't as stupid as your above post seems to indicate, are you? McVeigh didn't act in the name of Christianity when performing his heinous deed. This would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was led by a Catholic, Adolf Hitler (which some people are idiotic enough to maintain).
As for the JDL and its tactics, they have been repudiated in clear, unambiguous terms by the vast majority of Jews. Muslims worldwide, however, provide a deafening silence when Islamic atrocities are committed. Moreover, acts of religious terrorism, minus the Islamic portion of mankind, makes up an extremely insignificant percentage of religious-inspired terrorism across the earth. Islamic-inspired terrorism, by contrast, is a cancer affecting the entire world. There have been over twelve thousand Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11. By comparison, during the same time period there have been a handful of faith-based terrorist attacks from all other religions combined.
Something else. Would you please try and comprehend at least this: When Christians in past centuries killed in the name of their faith they were violating the tenets of their religion. When Muslims kill in the name of their religion they are often fulfilling a major directive of their faith-----jihad. As for your suggestion of using a Sharia court, it's crystal clear to me that you fail to comprehend that Sharia is a major part of the problem to begin with. Sharia makes Draco's code of laws look like an enlightened legal system. Also, some of Sharia is not only monstrous, ethically speaking, but stupid too. Requiring a woman to substantiate a charge of rape by producing at least four male witnesses is a case in point. So please, no damn Sharia. All of mankind wold be better off if Sharia didn't exist. For that matter, all of mankind would be better off if Islam didn't exist. If every Muslim in the world woke up tomorrow a believing Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist, the world would instantly be a far better place to inhabit.
Just do this in the future: Assume Islam is the one major religion which is fundamentally flawed in ways no other world faith is and everything else starts to fall into place. Oh yes, look to the founder of Islam for the root of the problem. His brutal, self-serving psychopathic behavior explains a great deal about the nature of Islam through the centuries down to the present day.
islamfactor.org: I'll put it plain like. You really aren't as stupid as your above post seems to indicate, are you? McVeigh didn't act in the name of Christianity when performing his heinous deed. This would be akin to saying that Nazi Germany was led by a Catholic, Adolf Hitler (which some people are idiotic enough to maintain).
As for the JDL and its tactics, they have been repudiated in clear, unambiguous terms by the vast majority of Jews. Muslims worldwide, however, provide a deafening silence when Islamic atrocities are committed. Moreover, acts of religious terrorism, minus the Islamic portion of mankind, makes up an extremely insignificant percentage of religious-inspired terrorism across the earth. Islamic-inspired terrorism, by contrast, is a cancer affecting the entire world. There have been over twelve thousand Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide since 9/11. By comparison, during the same time period there have been a handful of faith-based terrorist attacks from all other religions combined.
Something else. Would you please try and comprehend at least this: When Christians in past centuries killed in the name of their faith they were violating the tenets of their religion. When Muslims kill in the name of their religion they are often fulfilling a major directive of their faith-----jihad. As for your suggestion of using a Sharia court, it's crystal clear to me that you fail to comprehend that Sharia is a major part of the problem to begin with. Sharia makes Draco's code of laws look like an enlightened legal system. Also, some of Sharia is not only monstrous, ethically speaking, but stupid too. Requiring a woman to substantiate a charge of rape by producing at least four male witnesses is a case in point. So please, no damn Sharia. All of mankind wold be better off if Sharia didn't exist. For that matter, all of mankind would be better off if Islam didn't exist. If every Muslim in the world woke up tomorrow a believing Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist, the world would instantly be a far better place to inhabit.
Just do this in the future: Assume Islam is the one major religion which is fundamentally flawed in ways no other world faith is and everything else starts to fall into place. Oh yes, look to the founder of Islam for the root of the problem. His brutal, self-serving psychopathic behavior explains a great deal about the nature of Islam through the centuries down to the present day.
From article: They did this without realizing that they brought with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, an alien and a hostile creed, one that flatly contradicts the principles -- all the principles -- of advanced Western societies.
This is called the 'environmental cure'. (immigration)
It does not work as a cure because you have to take yourself with you when you go....
A hostile creed is never left behind...
Where ever there is a Mohammadan his hostile creed is with him...it never leaves...
'They are criminals regardless of their religion'. I think not; they will soon take their place alongside the 'magnificent 19' and fly away as little green birds to allah's paradise in the eyes of mohammed's(PBUH)true believers.
Wellngton: Something else. Would you please try and comprehend at least this: When Christians in past centuries killed in the name of their faith they were violating the tenets of their religion. When Muslims kill in the name of their religion they are often fulfilling a major directive of their faith-----jihad.
Exactly...Pay attention Islamfactor.org...
The only thing I would change is 'often fulfilling', to 'always fulfilling'.
I'm with Wellington and swami.
The word THUG comes from a Hindu sect that murdered hundreds of people in the early 19th century and offered human sacrifices to the goddess Kali. The British army eventually exterminated them and they simply no longer exist.
This is a perfect example of what will become of Islam once the 5 billion non-Muslims in the world realizes that it is nothing more than a dangerous, bloodthirsty sect like the thuggees. A couple of hundred years after the demise of this pseudo-religion, the word 'muslim' may survive, like 'thug', as a term used to describe someone who is derangedly aggressive and violent.
Hugh:
Excellent