Taqiyya sunrise.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 17, 2007 8:52 AM

"Such a deception further confuses U.S. national security perception of the enemy "

....apparently, this is easy to do.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 17, 2007 8:56 AM

Jim Guirard, James Guirard, who pushes this "Not Jihad but Hiraba line" -- and there are Saudi generals walking self-assuredly through the corridors of Pentagon even now, doing the same kind of thing -- was mentioned a few weeks ago at this site in a piece devoted mainly to Fawaz Gerges:

"And in Washington, a man closely connected to the Saudis, James Guirard -- some say the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi lobby, all-powerful as ever, channel their views right through him -- keeps pushing the view that the word "jihad" should never be used by Infidels, but only the word "hirabah" that the Saudi government favors, a word which lets Islam as a belief-system off the hook, and implies simply an ideological disorder that can in time be cured."
[July 6, 2007]

One would like to have full disclosure of the sources of James Guirard's funding -- direct, indirect, you name it.

And one would also like to see the reasons those who have the duty not only to protect, but to instruct us, have done to instruct themselves, have done to find out all about the significance of Jihad as a central duty -- whether conducted through military or other means, whether participated in collectively or, when circumstances warrant, individually -- for Muslims.

It is understandable why the corrupt Al-Saud, in dealing with those who, disgusted with their corruption and decadence at home, attack them at home, manage to convince some that they are gulty of "hirabah" (you can't accuse a Muslim of being "guilty of Jihad" because "Jihad" is not only not to be criticised but is a duty).

But it is not understandable why the leaders of the Western world do not recognize the need to stop evading reality, and above all do not recognize the need to instruct their own peoples in the nature, scope, duration of the threat from what is clearly -- Jihad, and not Hiraba.

Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2007 8:59 AM

The piece above by Walid Phares is clarifying and bracing, and the comments by Robert that point out its significance important. Stick with the unfoolable. There are too many of the other kind all over the place.

Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2007 9:02 AM

Interesting stuff. If Bin Laden and his ilk are undertaking Hiraba then is it not incumbent on Muslims to stop them by any means, including killing them? You'd think someone in power would point that out by now. But since this is baloney it's not surprising that Muslims aren't tripping over one another to remove the heads of the Bin Ladens of the world. Those Wahabbis are slick-coming up with this stuff and having infidels buy it. No wonder our "leaders" all parrot the same line that "Islam has been hijacked by a tiny band of extremists"-they really love that Hiraba theory since it gets them off the hook with the PC crowd that would howl if they declared all of Islam to be the enemy of the West.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at July 17, 2007 9:07 AM

"...Walid Phares reveals that the entire 'hirabah' initiative comes from the Saudis, whose reasons for pushing it are not exactly benign:"

bush al-saud (baker and others) doing their master's bidding.

~~~~~

"But it is not understandable why the leaders of the Western world do not recognize the need to stop evading reality, and above all do not recognize the need to instruct their own peoples in the nature, scope, duration of the threat from what is clearly -- Jihad, and not Hiraba."

Perfectly understandable when one realizes for whom they work.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at July 17, 2007 9:17 AM

Repost of a JW article last year on the same subject:

Fitzgerald: Jihad, not hirabah

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explains why the recommendation that American policymakers refer to the global jihad as "hirabah" (unlawful warfare) is wrongheaded:

"Two analysts at the National Defense University have recently recommended that the West use the word “hirabah” instead of “jihad” to describe the actions of Osama bin Laden and Co.
It is not hard to figure out where the word comes from. It comes from Muslim regimes and their apologists, eager to protect certain regimes that are attacked by local "truer" Muslims for their corruption and misrule. The obvious example is Saudi Arabia, where a family, the Al-Saud, has for decades been stealing, not merely skimming off the top, large amounts of the nation's oil wealth. Those who dislike this, naturally, cannot raise a revolt against the ruler for mere appropriation of wealth; in Islam, the despot is owed submission. He (or his family, or his family-and-friends plan) can be opposed, in the moral and mental universe that Islam posits, only if he is not a Muslim, if he is an "Infidel."

The assorted terrorists or would-be terrorists captured or killed in Saudi Arabia need to be described. They, those enemies of the Al-Saud, and even greater Protectors of the Faith, think of themselves as engaged in Jihad against the false Muslims, the pretend Muslims, the so-corrupt-and-terrible-they-must-be-called-Infidels Muslims. Their word is "Jihad." This, of course, cannot be permitted; it is a danger to the Al-Saud, a danger to all the corrupt ruling families, a danger to Mubarak in Egypt (with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ikhwan al-islamiyya, a permanent worry). So the Saudi rulers, and other threatened rulers, now employ the word "hibarah."
And of course, they are quick to suggest, these ever-helpful people, and Muslim apologists of the slyest variety with contacts in the American civilian and military, that the same word should be used by the Americans. And some Americans, not thinking through the matter, apparently agree. They think the avoidance of the word "Jihad" and adoption of the word "hibarah" is just the thing.

But it isn't. For the Americans have needs and interests that are quite different from those friendly would-be advisers who are Muslim, whether in the diplomatic corps, or American citizens now possibly employed by the American military. For they want to avoid at all costs the word "Jihad," knowing perfectly well that that word is central to Islam. If they can persuade the American government to think of the worldwide Jihad (that is, the Greater Jihad that is merely the sum of all the Lesser Jihads) not as part of Islam, not a duty of Muslims, but instead as "sinful warfare," the kind that is not permitted, that is not legitimate. The Saudi rulers spend great time and effort trying to de-program, as they see it, captured Saudi terrorists. No doubt they will do the same with Saudi citizens sent back from Guantanamo. They do not object -- why should they? -- to attacks on bona fide Infidels, the Americans, Israelis, Europeans of every kind. But they want to make sure that these people, before being released back into society, have had drummed into their skulls the idea that violence against those hardworking, good Muslims, the Guardians of the Two Noble Sanctuaries, the promoters of Islam all over the world, the Al-Saud, and their hangers-on at court, are opposed only by those who have been led astray, led to commit the crime of "sinful warfare" or "hibarah."

But it is not "sinful warfare" to make war on the real Infidels -- that is, us. The word "hibarah" will not do. Use of the word, as Streusand and Tunnell recommend, would get in the way of American comprehension. It would merely deepen the misunderstanding of what the origin and scope of the menace of Jihad is, a misunderstanding that largely explains the topsy-turvy farce of tarbaby Iraq, where the stated goals of the Administration (Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs and Kurds all getting along in a nation-state made prosperous by lots of help from America, best of allies to these presumably "moderate" Muslims as they march forward to create that Light Unto the Muslim Nations) will do nothing to weaken the camp of Islam, but instead will be an attempt to prevent the very outcome that ultimately will come to pass (but after how many more American resources squandered in Tarbaby Iraq?) and that is likely to establish as the fault line between Sunni and Shi'a in the Middle East a line running slightly off-center through Iraq.

The word "hibarah" applies to situations within Muslim-ruled lands, a word used to denounce the fomenters of revolt against the (often cruel and corrupt) rulers. Useful to them. And since the word is applied to Muslim countries, it refers to "warfare" in the classic sense -- qital, or combat, that is violence of all kinds. The word "hibarah" does not include the main instruments of Jihad today -- the use of the "money weapon" (to pay for the spread of Islam through mosque-and-madrasa building and upkeep, propaganda, armies of apologists, including non-Muslim apologists), Da'wa campaigns, and demographic conquest.

But if the American government, and its military, cannot see that this "war" is far more than mere tanks and guns and bombs, and that in particular, the most dangerous theatre of this war is now Western Europe, where through those largely non-violent means -- Da'wa, demographic conquest, and the money weapon -- the forces of Islam become ever stronger when they should be held up to close and critical scrutiny, their moves constrained, their gains reversed, by Infidel peoples and polities intent on defending their own laws, customs, understandings, and civilizational legacy.

The word "Jihad" however, is not limited to the instrument of violence. Muslims write all the time about the varied instruments of "Jihad" to spread Islam: "pen, speech" (propaganda, or Da'wa), "wealth" (the money weapon, from boycotts and bribes, to the building of mosques, to the buying of armaments that Muslims cannot produce, to the buying up of Western hirelings to promote the goals of Muslims, both in Dar al-Islam and in Dar al-Harb). And, most recently, over the past 30 years, all the discussion about the weapon of demographic conquest, which was openly mentioned by Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974 ("we will conquer you through the bellies of our women" or words to that effect).

The word "Jihad" is the correct word, the word that does not hide, but helps reveal, all the instruments being used to spread Islam until it everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule. The word "hibarah" hides this from view. It diminishes, rather than increases, the likelihood of understanding among a still largely ignorant, and confused, Infidel public. Not as ignorant, however, and not as confused, as many of those in the government who are wedded to earlier constructs that they have difficulty in shedding, and who, by their very positions, come into contact with the most plausible, clever, smiling representatives of the Muslim world who frame things as artfully as they can, offer their own spin, in order to obtain what they want from people whom, to most of those Arabs and Muslims, seem limitlessly gullible.

The example of this I like best is not that of Carter (and Brzezinski, and Gary Sick) failing completely to comprehend Khomeini (a "fellow man of faith" for Carter, who felt they therefore must have so much in common). Nor Carter a few years earlier, when he took the side completely of Saint Sadat against homely, sentimental Begin, who insisted "they [Sadat and Carter] really like me" as he gave away the store, day by day by day, during those hideous sessions at Camp David. No, nor is it those successive Treasury Secretaries who through the 1970s and 1980s kept rushing off to Saudi Arabia to obtain the "cooperation" of our "staunch Saudi allies.” Nor the various Presidents who started the tradition of paying the Jizyah of foreign aid to any Arab or Muslim country that forgot to be born rich with oil -- Egypt, Jordan, the PLO as "representative" of the "Palestinian people" in its, and their, various embodiments, Pakistan (that started long ago, with the love affair between American generals and those ramrod-straight Terry-Thomas mustachioed Pakistani generals, so straight-talking, so pukka-sahib, so...so "just like us"). No, nor is it Eisenhower, puppet of John Foster Dulles in foreign policy, the Dulles who believed in CENTO (the curtain came down on that farce in 1958, when Nuri al-Said's mutilated body was dragged through the streets of Baghdad -- "strongman" Nuri al-Said, "pro-Western" Nuri al-Said). No, it is not Carter, not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not any of them who stand out as absolutely the worst in their failure to begin to have a glimmer of what Islam is all about. No, the answer is that they all must share the prize.

Nothing extenuate? No, let's extenuate. Let's make their case. After all, in the midst of the Cold War, who knew about the belief-system of Islam except that it should be called a "religion" and that it was somehow, for some reason we were never offered in detail, a particularly strong "bulwark against Communism" -- even if Nasser and others in the Arab and Muslim world apparently found the Soviet Union far more to their liking than they did any of the liberal democracies of the West.

Those CIA agents, who thought they were doing god's work in Afghanistan during the Soviet period, who proudly remember their deeds of derring-do in helping the local mujahedin, appear not even now to begin to consider the possibility that possibly they were not doing something in the long-term interests of the United States or the rest of the Western world, by supplying money, weapons including thousands of Stinger missiles, and looking on benignly as the Saudis also provided aid, and then just as benignly, looking on as the Taliban were raised up in Pakistani madrasas, and then, again with Pakistani and Saudi support, and then diplomatic recognition, establishing their rule all over Afghanistan. Meanwhile, who was paying attention in Washington, or elsewhere in the West, to the sinister I.S.I.[i.e., Pakistani intelligence services]-supported Dr. A. Q. Khan? Who noticed what he was doing in Western nuclear laboratories in Holland? The Soviet Union was within a decade of collapse, whatever happened in Afghanistan. Gdansk workers in Solidarity, decades of programming from Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, those in Hungary who remained true to Imre Nagy and Pal Demeter, those in Czechoslovakia who remembered Dubcek, those in East Germany who could look over the border and see what goods and services capitalist Germans could produce – all that was leading to its collapse. And of course there was the Russian nomenklatura itself, now having its doubts, and more doubts. Those doubts hardly required the Americans to hand support the mujahedin in Afghanistan to exist.

The Soviet forces might have installed a regime that would necessarily have been antipathetic to Islam, and might have constrained it, or tried to, as Ataturk had done in the 1920s in Turkey. It might have been a start. But surely the aid extended to the Mujahedin, military and financial, was not the unalloyed triumph that the CIA officials involved in it complacently still allow themselves to believe. They, like their civilian bosses then and today, did not know enough about this longer-lasting (1350 years), and much more powerful force. Communism failed on its own terms; Islam can never fail in that way -- it can only be seen to have failed politically, economically, socially, intellectually, in this sublunary world, not in the dream-world of the Muslim paradise promised to those who march in lockstep on the path of Allah, by that selfsame Allah."

[Posted by Hugh at June 26, 2006 4:56 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2007 9:25 AM

Excellent revelation by Phares. Islam is and always will be Islam, an intolerant, all-encompassing ideology, intent on global domination.

This attempt to distance and destroy the obvious correlation between jihadist actions and Islam fools many but with each passing jihadist act, loses it's luster amongst the masses.

Unfortunately, the penetration of the Saudi store-bought agents into the American and global power infrastructure, from the Ham-Hander-in-Chief himself on down to the likes of the Armstrongs and the Espositos, is quite troubling.

"good war", "bad war"...what is the actual discernable difference?...Not a damn thing. Infidels killed by Hiraba are no less dead then ones by Jihad. Islam and all it's ridiculous, loop-hole riddled protocols of deception and war. The sentient and sane should not be fooled into ignoring the 800-pound gorilla known as Islam, currently sitting in the middle of the room.

Islam: the religion of war
Qur'an: the book of war
Muhammad: the prophet of war

I read that somewhere...

This tactic can and must fail, but it will not go quietly, for the Islamic adversary is deeply entrenched in many walks. At this point, knowing that Saudi Arabia is undoubtably the ultimate Islamic enemy of the West, we should really work towards electing leadership with little to preferably ZERO ties to the house of al-Saud. We are well past due for some serious internal house-cleaning, maybe even a full-blown enema.

Not another US life wasted in Iraq policing those savages. Not another dime to those ass-backwards Islamic countries. I am done working in the effort to feed those bastards who would gleefully sever off my head in an atrocious yet all too familiar act of "hiraba".

Choose your candidates ever so wisely in 2008.

Posted by: awake at July 17, 2007 9:43 AM

"Lobbyist Jim Guirard called me a few years ago and took an hour or two to try to convince me that I should start speaking about "hirabah" rather than "jihad," and I tried to explain to him that this would have the effect of obscuring the traditional nature of the appeal that the jihadists so effectively make within Muslim communities, and thereby obscuring our proper response and the response that peaceful Muslims should make. I was also suspicious because people like John Esposito were the scholars endorsing his initiative."

Look, if luminaries of the Muslim world, from Arafat, to bin Laden to Qawadiri all talk about jihad and martyrdom as duties, who are we to adopt "hirabah"?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 17, 2007 9:43 AM

"Those who hold this view have accused me of "endorsing" Osama bin Laden's "version" of Islam, but they of course completely ignore the many ways in which jihadists can and do appeal to the Qur'an and Sunnah as they have been traditionally interpreted in mainstream Islam in order to justify their actions".

The attempt to have people call Jihad against unbelievers "hirabah" will be as effective as trying to get people to change the description of "the three stooges" to the "the three slap-stickers". It's not real. There must be alarm that unbelievers understand Jihad and know there is no "hirabah" when it comes to unbelievers.

Posted by: Frank at July 17, 2007 10:06 AM

SMOKESCREEN!

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at July 17, 2007 10:06 AM

Here is an interpretation of "hirabah Vs. Jihad" written by Dr. Robert D. Crane a former advisor to President Nixon and a President Reagan appointee to Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates,note in his Cred/Bio that he embraced Islam in 81'. It is worth a read.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_301_350/hirabah_versus_jihad.htm

Posted by: Mackie at July 17, 2007 10:25 AM

"Jihad is a term of great and positive import in Islam. It is commonly defined as striving or struggle, and can mean an internal or external struggle for faith."

So where is an "external" struggle for faith to be directed? Against the infidel, perhaps? Jihad by any name is still jihad.

"At this point, knowing that Saudi Arabia is undoubtably the ultimate Islamic enemy of the West, we should really work towards electing leadership with little to preferably ZERO ties to the house of al-Saud."
by awake

Will this achieve anything? Hasn't the US taken to itself the responsibility to protect the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf? Whether or not our leaders recognize that the Saudis have no good intention toward us, will they let that get in the way of world commerce? In order to protect our own economic interests we would be forced to protect the one source of revenue the jihadists have. Even if we cut off all ties with the Saudis, Kuwaitis and every other oil potentate in the Middle East, will that stop them from continuing their jihad? China will be more than happy to buy the oil and Russia will be happy to use the oil exporters as leverage against the US and the West.

Posted by: PMK at July 17, 2007 10:34 AM

A poster above mentions Robert D. Crane, a Muslim convert and a most bizarre specimen, and even gives a link to Crane's "hiraba not Jihad" argument that is meant to buttress the assorted guirards and espositos pushing the same line. But Crane has already been dealt with thoroughly, and recently, in an article by Robert Spencer:

Nixon Aide Has Me To Kick Around

"Here I go again, answering a critic. And every time I do this, some of you mugs write in below, saying, "Who is this cheesehead, anyway? Why are you wasting our valuable time making us read you arguing with him?" Well, I'll have you know that the critic in question this time is none other than Bob Crane himself, star of the beloved 1960s sitcom Hogan's Heroes, and -- what's that? It's not that Bob Crane? He's...dead? Foul play? Scandal? Oh...dear.

In reality, the author of "The Mission of Imams in America: Marginalizing Extremists by Revealing the Real Truth About Muhammad" in The American Muslim is Robert D. Crane, former Nixon aide, former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.A.E., former Principal Economic and Budget Adviser to the Finance Minister of Bahrain, and present-day Islamic activist. Well, all that sounds important enough, doesn't it? I mean, a Nixon aide. Who knows? Maybe it was old Bob Crane who whispered into his ear, "Now tell them, 'I am not a crook!'" -- or maybe it was Bob behind the deathless classic "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore!" We could be on the threshhold of history here!

Okay. Seriously, now, I am having a bit of fun with Bob, but in reality, I am answering this for the same reason why I answer everyone, even raving, spitting, blinkered, self-deluded types and their cleverer, slyly disingenuous friends. The point in all such cases has nothing to do either with me or with the identity or importance of the critic. The counterjihad, the resistance to Islamic supremacism, is much larger than any personality. I post these things as a pedagogical exercise. There is every possibility that you may find yourself confronted by the same arguments I deal with in this or that reply to this or that individual, be he a frothing-at-the-mouth repo man or a friend and advisor to Presidents and Emirs. Perhaps you will find my responses helpful. Forget about the people involved and concentrate on the issues, will ya?

All right. Now that that is out of the way, let me say that in reality Bob Crane has done me a great service, for which I offer him a hearty "Ho-gaaaannnn!!" (Okay, okay, I know it's not that one, already.) Lots of people have dismissed my book The Truth About Muhammad, but almost no one has even attempted to deal substantively with what it says -- and one of the few who did was the severely truth-challenged Karen Armstrong. But here ol' Bob dives right in -- to be sure, with somewhat Nixonian candor, and in the same spirit that led his old boss to devise his Enemies List -- but nonetheless, dive in he does.

My talk today, a first draft of which is available on the tables at the entrance and will be available edited post-conference on line at http://www.theamericanmuslim.org, addresses the professional hatemongering best illustrated by the New York Times bestselling polemicist, Robert Spencer, in his popular book, The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion.
This book is significant partly because it bases all its perversions of the Qur’an on statements by Muslims. This is designed to show that Muslims themselves properly interpret Islam as inherently terroristic and as a threat to America and to all traditional American values....

Bob veers close to the truth here -- my book is indeed made up of "statements by Muslims." How this amounts to "professional hatemongering" is unclear. I have never figured out how it can be hatemongering just to quote someone, but Bob seems to have it all figured out. Maybe it's something he picked up over in Bahrain:

The favorite tool of political movements is to adopt an enemy to demonize. The favorite enemy today is Islam, because it is potentially the most powerful force in the world capable of resisting any new international law that would legitimize global oppression by secular fundamentalism. Islam is demonized by interpreting the Qur’an and ahadith as the source of Muslim extremism and therefore as the ultimate cause of terrorism throughout the world.
Wait a minute, Bob. If I quote Muslims using the Qur'an and ahadith to justify violence, how does it qualifying as hatemongering and demonizing? I'm just reporting on what's in the Islamic texts and how Muslims use them. If I were inventing quotations, or inventing interpretations of them, you might have a case. But you already acknowledged that I based everything on "statements by Muslims." So...shouldn't you be directing your energies toward disabusing your fellow Muslims of these ideas, rather than demonizing me for drawing attention to the use Muslims make of certain Islamic texts? (And I do mean demonizing -- read on.)

Of course, what Bob means is that I take the jihadists' "hijacked" Islam for the real thing:

There have always been extremists among Muslims who pervert the Qur’an in their efforts to hi-jack their own religion, just as extremists among Christians and members of other faiths have often done so in the past and continue to do so even today.
This, however, is false. As I have said many times, there is no "true Islam." But jihadists make recruits by presenting their Islam as the true Islam, and by pointing out chapter and verse of the Qur'an, as well as the example of Muhammad and the rulings of the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. For peaceful Muslims to stop this from being a successful appeal, they have to confront it. Bob thinks so too, but he contends (in the face of quite a bit of evidence) that the original Islam and the example of Muhammad do not actually contain anything the jihadists can use:

This attack on Islam from within can be countered only when the imams assert their right and responsibility to bring their knowledge of classical Islam to bear in countering and marginalizing Muslim extremists. As I have been preaching for decades, Muslims must revive the classical teachings of the great Islamic scholars, almost all of whom have been imprisoned by one tyrant or another for trying to maintain the purity of Islam as revealed by Allah and taught by the words and actions of his prophet, Muhammad, salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam. Only Muslims can do this. Among Muslims only the most courageous can do so, because the extremists have tried to terrorize all Muslims who disagree with them. And among the courageous we must begin to rely on the imams among us, whose calling is to preserve the purity of the traditionalist teachings of all the world religions....
Crane attempts to establish this in discussing my alleged "lies":

For short-run impact, however, it would be useful to expose Spencer’s demonic lies directly and in detail. For this purpose, I have been asked to write a book for this express purpose. Exposing Spencer’s bias is very simple, because one needs merely show that in every case he quotes only Muslim extremists and ignores untold centuries of mainline scholars who taught the exact opposite of what he contrives to be the message of Islam. His bias is embarrassingly evident throughout the book. For example, he questions whether the Medina constitution calling for protection of the Jews ever existed, but he has little doubt that the story about the massacre of the treasonous Jewish Qurayzah tribe is true. He dismisses the scholarly investigation by W. N. Arafat reported in a lengthy article in 1976 in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, which concludes that the alleged massacre never happened. Spencer attacks Arafat by ridiculing one of his arguments, namely, that such a massacre would violate Islamic law. Since Spencer’s whole purpose is to brand Islam as terroristic, he dismisses every scholarly analysis that would undermine his diabolical strategy.
"Diabolical strategy"! (Hey Bob: Boo!) I stand by my points here. No reference to the Medina constitution is made in any of Muhammad's subsequent dealings with the Jewish tribes with whom it was supposed to have been made. That's rather like there being no mention of the U.S. Constitution in American history after 1789. The Qurayzah massacre has a much greater attestation in the early Islamic sources, and I stand by my view that W. N. Arafat's saying it couldn't have happened because it would have violated Islamic law is both silly and anachronistic. Islamic law was in its earliest stages at that time, and in any case human beings don't always act reliably according to how the laws on the books say they should act. Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature realizes this. Crane might have discussed the merits of that argument, but with Nixonian Enemies List gusto, he instead dismisses me as "diabolical." And he has more in that line coming, too.

Today, I have time only to touch on one example of Spencer’s apparently deliberate distortion both of the Qur’an and of the character of the Prophet Muhammad, salah Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam. This is Spencer’s treatment of the Battle of Badr and the several revelations from Allah that came immediately afterwards. These set forth the guidelines for all subsequent scholarship on human rights in Islam. Spencer distorts all these revelations in an effort not merely to counter them but to reverse their meaning. According to the ahadith on the Messiah al Dajjal, known in Christianity as the Anti-Christ, such reversal of truth and falsehood is the definition of evil....
Good words to keep in mind as we read more of what Bob has to say, and see how much truth and how much falsehood is in what he says. He continues with a long disquisition on defensive jihad, which is generally accurate as far as it goes, and then:

Spencer starts his commentary on the Battle of Badr by asserting, “Allah told Muhammad’s followers to fight fiercely and behead their enemies.” Spencer, incidentally, uses the term Allah rather than God in order to show that Allah is a false god who incites all manner of crimes.
What I actually wrote was this: "I have in all cases referred to the deity of Islam as 'Allah,' while the English translation of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad refers to the same deity as 'God' – as I’ll illustrate in my quotations from that biography in this book. Of course, the word 'Allah' does not belong exclusively to Islam; it predates Islam, and Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use the word Allah for God. The Qur’an, of course, claims that the deity of Jews and Christians is the same as that of the Muslims (29:46). However, since traditional Islam rejects such Christian doctrines as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and others, and classifies Judaism along with Christianity as a renegade perversion of Islam, it seems prudent to me, as well as to many English-speaking Muslims, to continue to use the Arabic word 'Allah' to refer to the Islamic deity in English. I hope that this will not cause further confusion." (Page 17)

Do you think Crane's is a fair and accurate summation of that? Neither do I.

The issue here concerns Surah al Anfal 8:12-13, which uses the phrase “smite above their necks.” Spencer says that this provides the basis for the practice of beheading hostages and prisoners, when in fact this phrase in classical Arabic calls merely for unconditional surrender.
Classical Arabic, English, French, Swahili, you name it, and I expect that "smite above their necks" means something a trifle closer to beheading than just "unconditional surrender." I don't recall there being any "smiting above the necks" of the Confederate forces of Robert E. Lee after he surrendered unconditionally to General Grant. Also, Bob has to deal with the fact that the late Zarqawi himself, as I point out on pages 108 and 109 of the Muhammad book, invoked Muhammad's behavior after the Battle of Badr, when he ordered some prisoners beheaded, to justify his beheading of Nick Berg. So here again, this isn't the demonic Spencer misinterpreting the Qur'an, this is a jihad terrorist misinterpreting the Qur'an, and me reporting on it all. Crane's quarrel should properly be with those Muslims who agree with Zarqawi. If he can convince them all that 8:12 refers only to unconditional surrender, not beheading, I for one would be delighted.

Spencer then uses Surah al Anfal 8:1 and 8:41 to claim that the early Muslims were greedy bandits interested only in booty. In fact, these two ayat were revealed to command that booty captured from the enemy should not be an object of individual greed, as was common at the time in Arabia (Surah al Anfal 8:41). For this reason the sole authority on disposing of the booty was to be the Prophet Muhammad, who was directed to distribute a fifth for the common good as determined by the government, “for the near of kin, and the orphans, and the needy, and the wayfarer.”
Stonewall 'em, stonewall 'em all, eh, Bob? In fact I never say that "the early Muslims were greedy bandits interested only in booty." I do record disputes over booty that arose after Badr, which are recorded by Muhammad's earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq -- a pious Muslim. Is Crane saying that those disputes didn't happen? Then he needs to take issue with every Islamic historian who has ever relied on Ibn Ishaq as a source, not just with me. But I won't be holding my breath.

The third revelation, in 8:67, is interpreted by Spencer, on pages 110-111 of his book, to call for the killing of prisoners of war in order to promote the religion of Islam. In fact, 8:67 merely forbids the taking of captives in peacetime, that is, except after a legitimate defensive jihad on behalf of justice and freedom. This was designed to forbid the taking of slaves as an object of warfare and, in effect, at the time was designed eventually to eliminate slavery altogether. And even those POWs taken in legitimate warfare, according to the previous surah (47:4), must be freed after the war is over.
Crane's interpretation may be true, but I didn't invent mine. Here again, I just record Ibn Ishaq's interpretation of 8:67. You can find it on pages 326 and 327 of the Oxford edition of the Sirat Rasul Allah, The Life of Muhammad. But about the fact that Muslims have viewed the Qur'an this way, Crane is stonewalling again, as any good Nixonian would.

Spencer discusses the ahadith that describe a dispute between the men who became the first two political successors of the Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar, over what to do with the prisoners taken at the Battle of Badr. ‘Umar ibn al Khattab argued that they should all be killed in revenge. Abu Bakr, on the other hand, argued that they should be released in return for ransom, because such an act of mercy might induce them to appreciate the truth of Islam. This dispute was settled by another revelation, Surah al Anfal 8:68, which has been interpreted by most of the classical scholars as a warning that the taking of booty is legitimate but the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin and warranted a “tremendous chastisement.” Spencer uses these ahadith to show the opposite.
I do, eh? I made it all up, I suppose? Here's what Ibn Ishaq says about this incident, quoting and interpreting Qur'an 8:67: "God said, 'It is not for any prophet,' i.e. before thee [Muhammad], 'to take prisoners' from his enemies 'until he has made slaughter in the earth,' i.e. slaughtered his enemies until he drives them from the land. 'You desire the lure of this world,' i.e. its goods, the ransom of the captives. 'But God desires the next world,' i.e., their killing them to manifest the religion which He wishes to manifest..." (Pages 326-327).

Does that sound like "the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin" to you? "I am not a crook," hey, Bob?

Another revelation cited in connection with Badr is Surah al Nisa’a 4:91, which reads, “But if they do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them, for it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]”
This command follows a series of revelations that urge Muslims to seek peace in every way and to make war only after exhausting all means to peace. Spencer perverts every one of these revelations. In his chapter, entitled “War is Deceit,” he argues that they call for the exact opposite of what they clearly mean. In Surah al Anfal 8:58, the Muslims are warned against treachery, whether committed by themselves or by others: “If you have reason to fear treachery from people [with whom you have a covenant], cast it back at them in an equitable manner (sawaa’wink”. The classical scholars interpret this to mean that one should not attack without warning, but announce beforehand that the treaty is no longer binding....

In other words, tell those with whom you are breaking a treaty that you're breaking it. Gee, I feel so bad for making this sound as if it's something negative!

Anyway, Bob goes on to purvey some great steaming piles of careful Islamic analysis on the order of what has gone before, but I think you get the idea. And here's the conclusion:

The major challenge to Muslims today does not come from people like Robert Spencer, who come from the fringes of society, but from all those Muslims who are afraid to speak out against Muslim extremists....
Sho nuf, Bob. I'm just a fringe element. Sure. Unfortunately for you, the elements of Islamic tradition about which I have reported in my books aren't going to go away no matter how much you vilify me and call me demonic. And you're doing less than nothing about this -- in fact, you're abetting it by purveying your inaccuracies about the Qur'an and Muhammad instead of confronting what's there and formulating some positive way to deal with it.

But of course, I'm hopeless:

We must do this not only to educate people like Robert Spencer, who no doubt are hopeless. Much more importantly, we must speak out in order to inspire the youth, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to recognize the power of Islam to change persons and to focus attention on the possibilities and responsibilities to promote compassionate justice as the only road to peace and indeed for the survival of civilization.
I don't think you're hopeless, Bob. Dum spiro spero. I don't think you've been quite as forthcoming as you might have been, but if you're willing to deal honestly with the points I've raised here, so am I -- unless, of course, you're afraid to discuss matters with a demonic, funny looking Jewish Jesuit. And I expect that you are."

[Posted by Robert at June 26, 2007 5:00 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2007 10:41 AM

Hiraba or jihad-the results are the same. Lots of dead infidels killed in the name of Illah. And very few Muslims condemn this sort of thing no matter what it's called.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at July 17, 2007 10:47 AM

The "spoilers" depart from the plan, attack prematurely, and cause damage to the caliphate's long-term plans. These Mufsidoon "fail" their commanders by unleashing a war of their own, instead of waiting for orders.

Yeah, I heard some crap like this...

Supposedly, some in the Muslim community were 'irritated' with Bin Laden because they were happy with the progress Islam was making in the West (building mosques, gaining converts, etc.).

Supposedly, Bin Laden created an awareness of the danger of Islam through 911 (by being impatient) and this in turn is expected to slow the progress of Islam taking over the West.

I cannot figure exactly what is up with our government and its representatives in Washington. The stupidity doesn't make sense for so-called 'educated' representatives.

As with everything happening in the world, I would guess it comes down to power and money in some way. There MUST be a benefit in their mind (or pocket) for them to be willing to sacrifice the United States to Islam and to Globalisation.

It's sickening and our puppet politicians (strings controlled by big business and other sources) should be kicked out of Washington and replaced with true patriots.

Posted by: The Goobs at July 17, 2007 10:50 AM

Another re-posting:

Dr. Robert Dickson Crane's Wikipedia entry on Dr. Robert Dickson Crane:

"Dr. Robert Dickson Crane (born on March 26, 1929} is the former adviser to the late U.S. President Richard Nixon, and is former Deputy Director (for Planning) of the U.S. National Security Council. He has authored or co-authored more than a dozen books and over 50 professional articles on comparative legal systems, global strategy, and information management. His great-grandfather was one of the financial founders of Northwestern University.

Contents

1 Early Life and Education
2 Political Career
3 Muslim Activism
4 Personal Life
5 Publications

[edit] Early Life and Education
Dr. Crane was born in Cambridge, MA. In 1945, at the age of 16, he entered Harvard University to study Russian as the first step in becoming an international journalist. In 1948, he became the first American permitted to study at a university in Occupied Germany, having been accepted at the University of Munich. There he studied the sociology of religion and prepared a book on the phenomenon of totalitarian ideology and on the spiritual dynamics of resistance against it. As a result of “field work” with the anti-Communist underground in Eastern Europe, he celebrated his twentieth birthday as a prisoner in Stalin’s Gulag Archipelago, from which he miraculously escaped twice.

Upon his return to the USA, Dr. Crane got his B.A. from Northwestern University, Evanstion, IL, in 1956, graduating summa cum laude, with majors in political science, economic planning, Sino-Soviet studies. He went on to obtain his J.D. from Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA in 1959 with specialty in comparative legal systems and international investment. His thesis was titled "The Accomomodation of Ethics in International Commercial Arbitration" and was published in the Arbitration Journal, Fall 1959. At Harvard, he also founded the Harvard International Law Journal and acted as the first president of the Harvard International Law Society.

Dr. Crane was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar in 1960.

Political Career

In 1962, Dr. Crane became one of the four co-founders of the first Washington-based foreign-policy think-tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). In 1966, he left to become Director of Third World Studies at the first professional futures forecasting center, The Hudson Institute, led by Herman Kahn.

From the time of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 until the beginning of Nixon’s victorious campaign for the presidency in 1967, Dr. Crane was also his principal foreign policy adviser, responsible for preparing a “readers digest” of professional articles for him on the key foreign policy issues. During the campaign, Dr. Crane collected his position papers into a book, Inescapable Rendezvous: New Directions for American Foreign Policy, with a foreword by Congressman Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon as President.

On January 20, 1969, Dr. Crane moved into the White House as Deputy Director (for Planning) of the National Security Council. The next day, the Director, Henry Kissinger, fired him because they differed fundamentally on every single key foreign policy issue. Kissinger was determined to orchestrate power in order to preserve the status quo. Crane was equally determined to promote justice as the only source of dynamic and long-range stability.

In 1977-78 he spent a year as Principal Economic and Budget Adviser to the Finance Minister in the Emirate of Bahrain.

In September 1981, President Reagan appointed Dr. Crane to be U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, but this also was short-lived. President Reagan’s best friend, Judge William Clark, who became Director of the National Security Council, wanted Crane, as the first Muslim American ambassador, to pursue two-track diplomacy by developing relations with the various Islamist movements in the Middle East and North Africa. The new Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, whose entire career was promoted by Henry Kissinger, wanted none of this and had him fired.

Muslim Activism

From the early 1980s, Dr. Crane has worked full-time as a Muslim activist in America. From 1983 to 1986, he was the Director of Da’wa at the Islamic Center on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C. In 1986 he joined the International Institute of Islamic Thought as its Director of Publications, and then helped to found the American Muslim Council, serving as Director of its Legal Division from 1992 to 1994.

From 1994 until the present time he has headed his own research center, the Center for Policy Research, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C. Since 1996 he has also been a board member of the United Association for Studies and Research and Managing Editor of its Middle East Affairs Journal. He is also an editor for the online magazine The American Muslim.

Dr. Crane was also the founding President of the American Muslim Bar Association.

Personal Life

Dr. Crane is married to Diana Huntress, and they have five grown children. His hobbies include long- distance running and mountaineering. He speaks English, German, Russian, Spanish, French and Arabic.

Publications

His more than a dozen authored or co-authored books include:

Détente: Cold War Strategies in Transition, Dulles and Crane, CSIS, Praeger, 1965
Planning the Future of Saudi Arabia: A Model for Achieving National Priorities, Praeger, 1978
Shaping the Future: Challenge and Response, Tapestry, 1997.

These books have been augmented by numerous monographs, including the following produced under the Islamic Institute for Strategic Studies before the events of 9/11:

Meta-law: An Islamic Policy Paradigm, 49 pages
The Grand Strategy of Justice, 83 pages
Kosovo and Chechnya: Products of the Past, Harbingers of the Future, 32 pages
The Role of Religion in America, 24 pages
The Muslim Challenge in America and the World, 35 pages"

The bizarre nature of Dr. Robert Dickson Crane should be apparent to everyone. No doubt a reading of his pamphlets, listed at the end with such pride, would do much to buttress that suspicion.

One piquant detail, however, that has nothing to do with him, is his wife's maiden name: Diana Huntress. Now that is something. And it is possibly the only undisturbing part of the biography of this psychically marginal creature, who apparently once made it into the National Security Council -- one more alarming sign of criminal negligence at the top, for it is not only the traitors of the Hanson Soviet-agent variety, at the FBI and CIA, who worry, but also infiltrators who, as True Believers, owe their sole loyalty to Islam and the cause of Islam."

[Posted by: Hugh at June 26, 2007 7:33 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2007 10:53 AM

On May 11, 2007, the National Post published an article (by Douglas E. Streusand) entitled: "Don't call them 'jihadis'".

What a bunch of claptrap that article was. What ticked me off was that Streusand took great pains to illustrate just how awful it would be for a non-Muslim to dictate to Muslims (and Muslim sensibilities are ever so delicate and must needs be tended to). Yet, in the next breath, Mr. Tyrant announces (another Queen Victoria here?), "We are NOT to call them 'jihadis!'" or it is *I* who will dictate what it is we shall call them.

This Streusand (one has to wonder if this fellow has ever in his life dusted off a history book) further declared that Islam's transformation "into a totalitarian ideology is a pronounced deviation from the historical mainstream of Islam in practice and theory..."

The scary part, of course, is that Streusand is "professor at the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College." (hmmm....yet another reason why the West is not winning?)

Posted by: J.S. at July 17, 2007 12:03 PM

Let the Whahabis call Jihad whatever they will, and see if it makes an ounce of difference. I doubt it will. We call it “Jihad” because that is what it is, a war against us and our way of life, against our freedoms and constitutional government, against our social agreements, and against our personal safety, and against our freedom of belief. Let us not obscure who is our real enemy, the Jihadists, and call it what it really is. Islamic Jihad is a war against us, period.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 17, 2007 12:14 PM

All I ask is that when the jihadists set off a WMD, they do it in Washington.

Posted by: PRCalDude at July 17, 2007 12:49 PM

So now "it's the words, stupid"?

Hirabadis and jihadis alike should be asking themselves --- are the "holy" words (e.g. jihad, hirabah, etc.) of Almighty Allah's "perfect" system a.k.a. Islam THAT prone to misuse by kafirs? So vulnerable, in fact, that kafirs actually have the power to mislead both the faithful and faithless with their so-called "ignorant" mishandling of these words? Why appeal to Spencer and the unbelieving media to correct such things? What about appealing to the power of Almighty "He-Who-Split-The-Moon" to sway "sheeple" back, stop misuse of His "holy" lingo, and prevent kafir ignorance to reign? Is the Almighty's might THAT helpless and hapless against infidel media mischief? How can this be for Him-Whose-Greatest-Miracle-Is-The-Words-Of-The-Quran?

And shouldn't the hirabadis be telling their jihadi brethren (not infidels) that they're the ones ignorantly misusing the word "jihad"?

And just who in the ummah determines what is "good" (jihad) and "bad" (hirabah) war?

Just some of the things that should make Muslims go "hmmmm..."

Posted by: yadayada at July 17, 2007 1:25 PM

PMK,

Anything is better than training Islamic militants in Iraq with our soldiers being used as live targets. Bush is personally mired in a serious conflict of interest with his ties to the Saudis. We need to force a termination of that "friendship". Our present course can not be anything but disastrous.

Why is it that there's always talk about invading Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan...but Saudi Arabia is never mentioned in those terms? Saudi Arabia's malicious intent towards the West is quite possibly the worst kept secret in the world, with their slow jihad approach.

It's time to play hardball here. Let the Saudis try to squeeze us with their oil. Lets see how much control they really have over the exportation. Let's see how long they can deal economically without US patronage. And, if need be, let's see how they fair when their own refinery infrastructure is befallen by a catastrophic accident. How much are people going to pay for the oil as it spills into the sand?

Posted by: awake at July 17, 2007 1:33 PM

A little more on Jim Guirard and his "TrueSpeak Institute." The sources of funding -- the clients and other well-wishers -- of this "TrueSpeak Institute" are not clear. Perhaps others can find out more.

Here from his own website -- www.TrueSpeak.com, is list of appearances -- 2 hours here, 2 hours there. But where there is a Saudi will, there there is a Saudi way:

Lectures Given 2003-2007

Major briefings/Q&A sessions during late 2004 and 2005-06 have included the following:

Early March 2004 Briefing / Q&A to Pentagon PsyOp Officials
August 2004 Senior Advisory Cmte to Secretary of Homeland Security
December 2004 CSIS Working Group on Public Diplomacy in Global War on Terrorism
January 2005 US Army PsyOp Brigades HQ at Ft. Bragg, NC
January 2005 Ft. Bragg, NC PsyOp Alumni Association Chapter
February 2005 Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Leadership
March 2005 Center For Security Policy, Political Warfare Working Group
May 2005 US Army's World Conference on Public Affairs, Tysons Corners, Va.
July 2005 Teleconference Briefing/Q&A to NORAD-Northcom Conference on the GWOT
September 2005 Major Panelist, Assn. of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS) Annual Convention
October 2005 Combined classes of Prof. Dan Kuehl at National Defense University
November 2005 Federal Council of Executive Secretariats (hosted by the FBI)
January 2006 Major Panelist, NORAD-Northcom Conference on Militant Extremism
February 2006 Lecture to combined Kuehl/Rochte classes at Nat. Defense University
March 2006 Briefing/Q&A to the LSU ROTC Faculty and Senior Cadets
April 2006 Military Conflict Institute Annual Meeting (Institute for Defense Analyses, IDA)
June 2006 Briefing and Q&A to the Joint Staff Strategic Communications Working Group
June 2006 2-hour tutorial to the annual NORAD-Northcom PA/PD Training Session
July 2006 2-hour tutorial to Prof. Dan Kuehl's advanced anti-Terrorism class at NDU
October 2006 Briefing to "Future of Terrorism" DHS Advisory Committee, Los Angeles
December 2006 2-hour tutorial to DIA Information Operations Class, Bolling AFB, Wash DC

JIM GUIRARD -- TrueSpeak Institute 703-768-0957 Justcauses@aol.com

Give Jim a call. Find out what kind of tutorial he has given to the "DIA" and the "DHS" and at "NFDU" and at the "annual NORAD-Northcom PA/PD" and the "IDA." God, what a world he inhabits.

Posted by: Hugh at July 17, 2007 1:43 PM

Hugh,

That is SCARY the influence he wields. Yikes.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at July 17, 2007 1:59 PM

It's odd that Bob, demonises Robert, as if Robert is more than just wrong on some points (every point). RS according to the demonising logic of a raving paranoic, is a one man Islamic demolition team that must be stopped. This tells me that Bob, is afraid of Robert. Bob sounds hysterical. If Bob were not fearful of Robert, he would have tried to correct him, without demonising him. But then, Bob is mostly likely a leftists so demonising is just standard stuff. They think that gives them the upper hand, but all it really doe's is expose their psychosis.
See a shrink Bob...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 17, 2007 2:19 PM

awake wrote:

Why is it that there's always talk about invading Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan...but Saudi Arabia is never mentioned in those terms?

I've often wondered how things would've played out if the USA had never come to Kuwait's defense in 1990 and let Saddam invade Saudi Arabia (if that was his intent). And maybe let the Chinese, Russians, French, Canadians, Japanese, etc. lead the way to defend the Gulf, fight aggression, blah, blah, for once instead of us Americans (I can dream, can't I?). And assuming the very likelihood that they didn't, would buying Saudi oil from Saddam be any different than it is today? Would there have even been a 9/11?

Posted by: yadayada at July 17, 2007 2:21 PM

"One would like to have full disclosure of the sources of James Guirard's funding -- direct, indirect, you name it." - Hugh

One thought . . .the IRS. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.
There was a time when those words could bring a grown man to his knees. The IRS tax audit was (perhaps still is) the worst nightmare one could face.

Also-

Every taxpayer who submits tax returns to the IRS has a record that is maintained by the IRS. These records are known as Individual Master Files (IMF). Since 1974 the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT has allowed taxpayers to access their IMFs.

Does the FOI permit any taxpayer to see another taxpayers records?

Posted by: justamomof4 at July 17, 2007 2:41 PM

"And in Washington, a man closely connected to the Saudis, James Guirard -- some say the Saudi Embassy and the Saudi lobby, all-powerful as ever, channel their views right through him -- keeps pushing the view that the word "jihad" should never be used by Infidels, but only the word "hirabah" that the Saudi government favors, a word which lets Islam as a belief-system off the hook, and implies simply an ideological disorder that can in time be cured."

Posted by Hugh at July 9, 2007 8:34 AM

I fully agree Hugh, but just how can we prove that financial link.

Anyone?

Posted by: awake at July 17, 2007 3:07 PM

http://www.truespeak.org/content/sections/financialsupport.php

Indeed, I bet it will.

Posted by: awake at July 17, 2007 3:16 PM

www.newsmeat.com identifies campaign contributions - which may or may not lead to more.

Posted by: justamomof4 at July 17, 2007 5:51 PM

Unbelievably hysterical...
WHAT is there NOT to understand...

taqqiyyah, taqqiyah, taqqiyah...'nuf sed

jihad="death to infidels" (that includes you, pc-ers)

terminator=an automaton that cannot be bargained with, reasoned with, doesn't feel pain, pity or remorse, and absolutely will not stop...until you are DEAD.

jihadist=all of the above...armed with taqqiyah as a "get out of jail free" clause to rape rob murder beg borrow steal as long as his religion is invoked-all's fair...programmed to kill all infidels (all who are not islamist- A-L-L of them), and pushed with the fervor of an automaton in terminator mode...only way to complete the mission is to kill every infidel on the planet Earth.

Like I said...N-O-T-H-I-N-G to MISunderstand.
There is only one solution to this disease masquerading as a movement.

Posted by: jcom972 at July 17, 2007 6:02 PM

awake,
I think we're in agreement, but I just doubt that electing people who despise the house of Saud will accomplish anything, simply because of the world trade setup. As the only country (so they tell us, anyway) with the resources, it has been left to the US to protect international commerce. Multinational corporations don't give squat about Americans, even if their HQ is in the US.
Given the many treaties we have signed with countries that rely on OPEC, would removing the friends of Saud from office accomplish anything?
It's not that we shouldn't remove them, as a matter of principle. It's just that we shouldn't expect much different from their successors.
Both Clinton and GWB said one thing while campaigning and did something else once in office.

Posted by: PMK at July 17, 2007 10:20 PM

Just imagine how much safer we might all feel right now if we knew all those "Lectures Given 2003-2007" were from Robert or Hugh, instead of James "I'll spin it anyway you want for dough" Guirard.

Imagine all those informed, aware, anti-Jihadist from the CIA, DOD, DHS, military institutes,etc., out there now, taking the correct steps towards protecting and defending the U.S.

Why are we left to just fantasize about this?

Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at July 17, 2007 11:23 PM

If the enemy calls it "jihad", I'll defer to their triumphalistic, arrogant honesty.

(Plus "harabah" sounds too much like "blah-blah-blah", in every sense.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 17, 2007 11:39 PM

Slightly OT:

Steve Emerson correctly and adequately calls out the ill-informed and arrogant Michael Scheuer, former CIA failure in Bush's "get Bin Laden program", a true card-carrying Dhimmi, on Glenn Beck this evening.

Transcript below:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/17/gb.01.html

Posted by: awake at July 17, 2007 11:39 PM

I had been thinking about that, how people here just join the jihadist, actually for their 5 minutes of fame! Robert answered it. I was thinking in opposite. I suppose this is the same though. Who would know. Who cares in the islamist world?! As long as they can find a ignorant-gullible sole to blow himself up. Especially an infidel on top of it to blow up other infidels. How sweet! That seems it would be haraba. Do you swear.. ya ya... ok bla bla.. kill! These people even in America who join the jihadist are really not for they are not 'true' to islam the queran. Then the ones that arn't jihadist lets say Ellison-haraba-because he has no knowledge. All lies. They have alot of words for lies and to get around them. Lie to cover lie, to purposely lie in the name of religion! How strange!
While reading this I thought how great! How am I going to explain this to my friends? lol..they are starting to worry now they all look real strange at me and wonder and ask how i know so much about this!? I don't know squat! ?
For if you take the "peacefull muslim", that believe but do not fight or join they could be considered jihadist in denial.lol.. an american who barely knows nothing and will fight they are haraba, which is against islamist believes. The believer too. Haraba a just in case...
For we are going to have alot of people that want to join the islamist because they want to do destruction and havoc to America. America has let so many of their own people down and they want to rebell. When they are joining what they rebell!
If ya can't beat em join em. So many family lifes already destroyed by what is happening to this country! They see these people gained alot of power, fianances, weapons, movement, and they have no life what so ever or a chance to ever having one. Wages still the same as 10 years ago!
We invoke slavery. Through immigration, through trades! It is stupid! I have to laugh some, I am becoming a new learner. jihadist in denial-I don't know I am making up words.? Or are they dormant? I need a new book from Robert it is not in his PIG book to Islam and the Crusades.
I am just a rookie so I hope you can tolerate me and bare with me. I have soooooo...much to learn!

Posted by: MZ at July 18, 2007 12:02 AM

You can coax people into doing thing you can never tell them directly to do.

Do we plan on wiping all the Muslims out? No. So we need to undermine support for the Jihadists. We need most muslims to reject the extremists. So we are going to need to start playing a public relations war. Much like they have played on us with some success over the war in Iraq.

Perhaps switching the work "hirabah" for "jihad" isn't the right thing to do. But I understand the sentiment behind the PR game.

I'm one of the people who thinks we should be dropping more bombs in the Middle East than we do now. But I also know there is no way we are going to wipe out all the Muslims anytime soon. And it isn't a logistics barrier. It is willful choice not to do that. There would have to be a lot more 9/11's for us to have the will to genocide the whole lot.

So there needs to be a way found to coexists with Most of them. And reminding them with every breath that they ALL are part of a psychotic death-cult is not a longterm plan for coexistence.

Posted by: jpm100 at July 18, 2007 6:17 AM