| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Paul Marshall offers a useful summation of the evidence that Al-Qaeda targeted Christians, not Muslims, in Riyadh — and of the dangers of glossing over that evidence.
"The media," says Marshall, "seem to equate Arab with Muslim and, along with some in the administration, think that al Qaeda's war is against Americans and Westerners per se, rather than against all 'infidels,' a group al Qaeda defines idiosyncratically and expansively as anyone who is not a strictly observant Muslim. Both mistakes are compounded by reliance on the Saudis' distorted account of the attack.
"The November 8 bombing took place in a Lebanese Christian neighborhood of Riyadh, and of the seven publicly identified Lebanese victims, six were Christian. Lebanon's newspapers are replete with photographs of Maronite Catholic and Greek Orthodox victims. Daleel al Mojahid, an al Qaeda-linked webpage, praised the killing of 'non-Muslims.' The Middle East Media Research Institute quotes Abu Salma al Hijazi, reputed to be an al Qaeda commander, as saying that Saudi characterizations of the victims as Muslims were 'merely media deceit.'"
After all, the Prophet Muhammad says, "War is deceit" (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, book 52, nos. 267-9).
"If so, the media fell for it. Reuters described the bombing as against 'fellow Muslims,' the Los Angeles Times as 'against Muslims,' the Washington Times called the victims 'innocent Muslims,' the San Francisco Chronicle 'Muslim civilians who happened to be in the wrong place,' and the New York Times 'expatriates from other Muslim countries.'" . . .
"The effect of this mischaracterization is to link Arab to Muslim, ignoring the large numbers of Christian Arabs from Egypt, Lebanon, and elsewhere who work in Saudi Arabia (and Israel) and have long been targeted by Islamic extremists, including by the Saudi government.
"(At the time of the bombing, two Egyptian Christians, Sabry Gayed and Guirguis Eskander, were in a Riyadh prison for holding a worship service, even though Prince Sultan had ordered them released.)"
Nor is this the first time this has happened. "Similarly, media coverage of the October 4 suicide attack on Maxim, a restaurant in Haifa, noted that one co-owner was Jewish, but described the other simply as 'Arab.' Commentators wondered why Palestinian terrorists were killing 'Arabs.' But the second co-owner was actually a Lebanese Catholic, as were many of those killed. The term 'Arab,' while playing into America's obsession with ethnicity, hides the religious dimension that is central to the worldview of al Qaeda, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad."
Precisely.
"However, every day in every way, al Qaeda reiterates that its target is 'infidels,' wherever they live, including Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and the vast majority of the world's Muslims, who reject the extremists' vision of a restored caliphate under a reactionary version of Islamic law." . . .
"The fact that the Saudi authorities did not reveal that this was largely a Lebanese Christian area, that they rapidly demolished the remains and stayed silent while the media misreported the identity of the victims, suggests a deliberate attempt to mask what is going on in the kingdom. (Meanwhile, a debate is taking place in the Saudi press over whether a woman named Saban Abu Lisam, who was herself injured in the blast but nevertheless drove seven other injured victims to the hospital, should be praised for her courage or punished for violating the ban on women driving.)
"In the Riyadh bombing, al Qaeda did what it has always done, and, as usual, it explained why its targets were chosen. Nevertheless, much of the U.S. administration seems to share the media's bafflement. U.S. deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage, in Saudi Arabia at the time of the blast, opined that the bombers had attacked 'the government and people of Saudi Arabia.' The Los Angeles Times describes 'senior administration officials,' puzzled at this latest choice of targets, as 'grasping, saying this doesn't fit the box we expected.'
"If this is true, the administration, like the media, needs a new box. It would be a good place to dump Saudi prevarications, and also to store the al Qaeda videos, tapes, books, and fatwas that for the last ten years have been laying out the organization's goals in explicit detail. To repeat: Al Qaeda and its allies aim to kill or subdue all 'infidels,' Muslim or non-Muslim, who stand in the way of their goal of restoring a worldwide caliphate governed, Taliban-style, by the strictest, narrowest interpretation of Islamic law.
"Until this fact is finally assimilated, we will continue to have a military that fights superbly against an enemy whose strategic aims we refuse to understand." (Thanks to Habib Malik.)
Posted by Robert at November 25, 2003 10:15 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Until September 11, it seemed to most Americans and indeed most of the world terrorism was something that happened to someone ELSE. It is slowly sinking into general consciousness -despite the massive denial around the world- that THIS COULD BE US NEXT. At any time. Yet for some reason it just doesn't make sense to non-muslims that they could be killed because of who they are and not for something they did wrong.
But there is actually IS a reason for this that no one has had the balls to bring up. So I will. Killing non-muslims is the islamic way of purifying what muslims perceive to be their world (the 'house of allah') and to placate their so-called god, 'allah'--in actuality an amalgamation of over 360 idols. Their ancestors purified to gain favor with their idols (notably the arabian moon-god, al-ilah; astarte was also in there somewhere) by incinerating human beings (usually non-tribal members, as Nabucchadnazer did with Israelites, placing them in ovens Nazi-style). Note that mosques even LOOK like crematoriums, too. The ancient form of human sacrifice in the arab world -administered by an authoritarian figure sometimes called a 'high priest'- continues to the present day. You guessed it. Terrorism is a continuation of ancient middle eastern practices of human sacrifice. The koran's murderous text and muslim accusations of wrongdoing commited by the western democracies are a camouflage. The 'infidels' constitute a virtually eternal supply of fresh blood to spill for purification purposes. And ,incidentally, since human sacrifice cannot co-exist with human rights (the commandment 'thou shall not kill' stops islam cold, as do human rights given to potential sacrificial victims who might save their own lives if given a chance to do so), all democracy is targeted by islam for destruction. It is unholy and impure. Just ask bin Looney Tunes.
Posted by: el tigre at December 16, 2003 10:31 PMYour writing and the interview this morning with C-Span are a bit of fresh air until you get into the equating Islamic beliefs with idol worship. Our own Christianity can be criticized for using "pagan" celebrations in the church holidays you know. Some of the things you say as critism of Islam are a bit on the histerical side and can hurt your main and most important message that the terriorist activity and the teachings in the Mosques all over the world and especially just outside of Wash DC in Virginia are a very dangerous threat to all of us infidels and to a safe and humanitarian world. Our people are too quick to say "Oh, you must bring everyone together and you can't criticize anyone's religion or belief's." I must confess that my gut reaction everytime I see a Mosque I want to drop a bomb on it, but I know this is not a rational or helpful thought. It is just that I have watched the interviews with the leaders of the Islamic people to such an extent that I know enough to realize that your message is true and important. Too important to let some of your ideas in to trivialize it.
Posted by: Joyce Waugh at January 3, 2004 8:53 AMSorry, I believe you have the wrong impression. I do not equate Islam with pagan idol worship.
RS
I hope that it does not take another 9-11 caliber attack on the U. S. to make all of us aware of the danger and real evil facing all of us who are considered to be infidels. Islam in and of itself is evil. There is no sect, radical or otherwise, that is more evil than another. It's teachings from day one of it's origin have been convert, conquer, or kill. If you can be converted to their way, wonderful (for them, not you). If conversion is unsuccessful, then slavery is their next option. Anyone want to submit? No, of course not. No one in their right mind would willingly submit to becoming anyone's slave. And for the final solution: you die. There have been many in high positions in the U. S. to espouse this idea. Most have been ignored and the others told to shut-up and go away. Such a reaction to the truth does not, however, make it go away or become less than the whole truth. It only reveals the willing ignorance of the person who is more comfortable burying his head in the sand. "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". Islam is a cult. perhaps the most evil cult ever launched against mankind. Our nation abolished slavery many decades ago, yet today we are called upon to embrace slavery once again in the form of a "benign and loving religion" known as Islam. It never ceases to amaze me that none of the current crop of feminists has ever caught on to the harsh reality awaiting them upon conversion to wonder world of Islam. Gee, I want to be your slave, where do I sign up? Wake up! Grow up! If your idea of Islam is one of love and peace, then perhaps a reality check is in order. Do your own research. Call your local cleric and see if you can get a clear and unmistakable condemnation of the murder of nearly 3000 souls on 9-11-01. Be aware, a true condemnation will include a call for the trial, conviction, and execution of ALL the parties involved. It really doesn't hurt to see and embrace the truth. It'll make you free.
Posted by: Darrel Denham at January 30, 2004 12:40 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)