And yet, the infiltration into America of Mohammedan hordes from Rabat to Bandar Seri Begawan goes on...

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 5, 2008 11:29 AM

My first introduction to the concept of fard ayn jihad was OBL's 1998 fatwa. I've seen it dozens of times since used as justification for murdering Americans of any sort, anywhere. Stephen Coughlin was fired for explaining it in detail.

Despite the centrality of this concept, I've yet to see a single American mainstream media mention of it. The Muslim Brotherhood Project has been very successful.

Posted by: Beagle at July 5, 2008 11:33 AM

Rehman said it was not un-Islamic to go to Afghanistan for jihad and to defend Afghan Muslims in the war against the United States-led allied forces.

The USS Cole and the Saudi barracks bombing would seem to fit this guy's criterion for "defensive jihad". If it is stretched, so can the attack on the Pentagon - the heart of the US military.
But how does "defensive jihad" validate either attack on NYC? How does it validate the attacks on the African embassies?
The blind sheikh should have sent his minions back to the Middle East, from whence they came. If Mohammed Atta was so upset shouldn't he have gone to Saudi Arabia or to Iraq and joined those trying to fight us there?
Muslims were not and are not under threat in the US - from either the government or their fellow citizens. This is in stark contrast to what we and all non-Muslims face in Muslim countries.

Posted by: PMK at July 5, 2008 11:41 AM

He's right, so I expect every 'obligated' muslim to leave Canada , The US, Britain, France, The Netherlands, and Europe in general, and make their way by the millions to Afghanistan, where US forces
will greet them with open arms.
I read somewhere that Mahdi was going to gather a vast army in Afghanistan, ride out and subdue the world for Allah and justice. Well here's his chance.
Millions of untrained, unarmed, and hungry jihadists showing up in the same week would be a disaster for the Taliban. This is a kind of muslim immigration I like. Once they are out, lock the door behind them. Those that survive the hunger, the US forces and the Taliban, are not welcome back. 'You made your bed, now lay in it'...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 5, 2008 12:08 PM

"Rehman said it was not un-Islamic to go to Afghanistan for jihad and to defend Afghan Muslims in the war against the United States-led allied forces.

I'm all for this. I hope millions of homesick and holy Muslims jump on the first plane out of the West, to fly to the aid their beleaguered brothers in the sandbox. The ticket would have to be one-way, of course. When each one steps off, a Western soldier can take his seat on the one-way trip back.

Too bad life isn't that simple.

Posted by: Abscedere at July 5, 2008 12:16 PM

Sending very expensive-to-recruit-train-maintain-and-outfit Western troops to Iraq, and keepig them there to attempt to attain a goal both impossible of attainment -- the Sunnis will never acquiesce in their loss of power to the despised Shi'a, and the Shi'a Arabs, who constitute 60-65% of the population in Iraq (and hence about 80% of the Arab population), will never surrender the power, and the money that comes with the power, that they acquired -- inevitably and inexorably acquired -- once Saddam Hussein's regime had been overturned.

The current American government -- and by the looks of it. either of the two alternative successors to the Bush Administration -- fail to grasp this. They fail, furthermore, to grasp that being worried about "chaos" and "violence" that would follow "an American pull-out" misses the point.
Chaos and violence in the Arab and Muslim world, chaos and violence that weakens that world, that causes men, money, materiel to be used up not by Americans and other Infidels, but by Muslims fighting with each other, is not a bad thing, but a good thing.

We interrupt this posting to ask, for the hundredth time, the following question:

Was the Iran-Iraq War a Good Thing, or a Bad Thing, from the point of view of Infidels?

Answer: it was a very Good Thing. It should have gone on forever.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled posting.

The failure of the Bush Administration to grasp this is in the main a failure of intelligence and imagination, but also a failure to admit that it has been wrong. And the claque, the so-called "
conservative claque," of the boots-kagans-kristols, or even of those who, because they are in the "Spreading Democracy in the Muslim World" racket and their funds, and therefore their personal well-being, depends on their continuing to argue for, and at this point to pretend to believe, in some version, perhaps a little toned down, of the Light-Unto-the-Musliim-Nations Project/

And the anointed Republican candidate, John McCain, himself a military man, continues to think of "war" only in the most obvious military terms, as in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, and does not realize that the permanent war that Islam is requires its followers to engage in -- see Qur'an, see Hadith, see the Sira -- whenever Muslims possess the necessary wherewithal, continues and gains strength, as we squander our men, money, materiel, and morale, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

The Jihad is not a tangential but a central duty. It is the "struggle" to spread Islam, not in one place, not in the Middle East alone, but everywhere, to remove all the obstacles -- including such obstacles as the legal and political institutions of Infidels that are flatly contradicted by both the letter and the spirit of the Shari'a, and among the greatest of those obstacles are he Constitution of the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- to the spread, and then to the permanent dominance, of Islam. It's not something fabricated by "Islamophobes." It's clearly in the texts and tenets. And those texts, those tenets, have been acted on, over the past 1350 years, in most unambiguous ways, in the conquest of lands possessed by non-Muslims, and then in the subjugation of non-Muslims (where they were not killed or forcibly converted at once), who are reduced, where allowed to remain alive, to the status of dhimmis, a status that is one of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.

McCain doesn't know this. Will anyone on his staff begin to explain it to him, so that he, in turn, can begin -- in time - to make the appropriate signs that he has at last begun to understand that the mission in Iraq to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" was one of sentimental messianism, or messianic sentimentalism (take your pick), one that ignored the nature of Islam and the view of man, and of the ruler, that Islam implicates: the ruler is to be obeyed if he is a Muslim, and the legitimacy of any ruler depends not, as in Western democracy, on the expressed will of the people, but on the will expressed by Allah, through his medium Muhammad, in the Qur'an, and as further glossed by Muhammad in the Hadith, or as revealed by the details of Muhammad's life collected in the Sira.

There is a kind of "victory" that can be obtained by America, and by the West, in Iraq, but as I have written here a hundred times before, that "victory" depends not on staying but on going. That "victory" must be defined as ending in a situation that causes division and demoralization within the Camp of Islam. In Iraq there is a great chance, a great opportunity, for in Iraq there is permanent sectarian hostility and sometimes, open warfare. There is permanent ethnic hostility, between the supremacist Arabs and the non-Arab Kurds.

All the Americans have to do is recognize that if they continue in the present course, there is no end to this. They will be using up men, materiel, and money (now approaching, or perhaps having exceeded, two trillion dollars, spent, squandered, in Iraq -- money that might have gone, for example, to energy projects that would have made a real dent in the Muslim Money Weapon, that comes entirely from the sale of oil and gas)this year, next year, the year after. The officers and men in Iraq are spinning their wheels. And some of them know it. The morale problem in the army grows; 15,000 captains have not re-upped. The suicide rate, which tells us something, is up; morale is down. And it is down, in large part, because the American soldiers have come to understand, even if they do not yet understand why, that is not yet understood what Islam teaches, what Islam causes, that the Iraqis will take and take and take, and whine and whine and whine, and use the Americans against their local enemies, but no real friendship can be expected, no loyalty -- only meretriciousness, only malevolence, only -- in the end-- the hostility that Muslims must feel toward all non-Muslims.

It is cruel, and it is stupid, for the American civilians, in the Pentagon and in the White House, and in Congress, to keep wasting mens' lives, in a vain effort, an effort that is based on a refusal, a great unwillingness, to study the meaning, and then the menace, of Islam. McCain may think he understands it, but he doesn't. And those who calling themselves "conservatives" nonetheless keep loyally defending an indefensible and stupid and wastewful policy, often because they have a personal stake in this, don't want to be shown up, don't want to be judged as irrelevant (if you were an early enthusiast, and have stayed such, at this point it is almost impossible to allow yourself to realize how foolish and ignorant of Islam, how careless of fact, how negligent of, for example, the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest you have been -- and you just won't do it). Nor will assorted operators, in every sense, who in their one-man or ten-man operations (ah, think of the donors, think of the need to maintain plausibility with the public, and the private, donors) who have a personal stake, even a financial one, in continued belief in the "democratization of the Muslim world" project. They're all in the same galere.

We have a chance, by leaving, to create a permanent fault-line being established between the forces of Sunni Islam (the local Sunnis being backed by Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., other Gulf Arabs, Jordan, Egypt, and Sunni Arabs in Syria who may be let out by their Alawite rulers to join co-religiionists in Iraq, as a way of getting rid of some domestic enemies of the syncretistic Alawites) and Shi'a Islam (the Shi'a Arabs of Iraq are not all admirers of the Iranian regime, but the Iranian regime will feel compelled to help them against the Sunnis).

Make provisions to rescue, or protect, the Christians -- Assyrians, Chaldeans, even tiny sects such as the Mandeans. They can be moved into redoubts in the north, and armed, possibly in Kurdistan, if and only if the Kurds agree to protect them, and if and only if the Americans will, possibly over the horizon with air power, be there to be the final enforcers of that promise and to add a little protection of their own. Some may wish to leave, for Syria. I have suggested why an exchange of populations -- local Muslim Arabs in the "West Bank" for Arabic-speaking Assyrians and Chaldeans -- should not be dismissed but looked into. Let Israel be the protector of some of those those hounded, persecuted, murdered Christians -- fellow non-Muslim victims of Muslims -- and that will be good for Israel, and good for the way in which the non-Muslims of the world will then begin to understand Islam, and the threat it poses to all non-Muslims.

As for Afghanistan, it's much the same kind of expensive waste. It's an impossible place, a primitive place. Build a school for girls. The next day, or next month, or next year, it will be blown up. Teachers will be dragged out and killed. Girl students will themselves be killed. Build a grid of roads, and the Taliban will use those roads. Put in more electricity, and the Taliban will exploit that to spread more easily, through computers and televisions, their message -- the message not of an Islam mis-understood, but simply an Islam taken seriously, in its every aspect.

Let the Uzbeks and Tadjiks fight with the Pashtun. Let one group of Pashtun fight another. Let the Hazara, whom the Taliban wished to wipe out, be supplied with enough weaponry to fight, in turn, the hyper-Sunnis of the Taliban. Let it be all against all.

And in Pakistan, don't keep pouriing money into the meretricious Pakistani military. That was done for decades. In return, we got A. Q. Khan, and the Pakistani military's "Islamic bomb," and attacks on India supported by, paid for by, planned by, those in Pakistan.

Cut off all aid to Pakistan if there is not a complete change in attitude toward not only the Taliban, but toward all Pakistani mosques where hatred of Infidels is inculcated. Look for an Ataturk, and make sure the Pakistani military realizes that the decades of being taken in by them are over. We want our tens of billions back, and we want that money now -- or we want results. We in the West can cut airlinks to Pakistan - no more toing and froing to Great Britian. We can halt all Pakistani immigration, and start to expel non-citizens from Pakistan, and then go from there, to find out which among those who have acquired citizenship committed perjury in their oath of loyalty, leaving only those who can swear allegiance to an Infidel nation-state and mean it, which means that they are not going to be good Muslims, not those loyal, as they are supposed to be, only to Islam, only to fellow Muslims.

We can help the rebels in Baluchistan, who deserve a little help (last year the Pakistani military murdered the most beloved tribal leader in Baluchistan, aged 79, and his son. We can do all kinds of things, including boycotting Pakistani goods -- so many of those rugs, after all, are made by child-labor, and according to reports, the children in question are often miserably treated Christians -- that would cause the Pakistani rug trade, and the smiling Pakistani owners of such businesses in this country, to suffer). Oh, and as for the Sunnis of Sipaha-e-Sahaba, the ones who specialize in killing the Shi'a? What would they do if they saw the Shi'a in Iran helping co-religionists in Iraq kill Sunnis? Do you think they wouldn't be inspired to seek revenge -- just a little?

There should be in the Pentagon, a wing, open only to non-Muslims, that will be the nerve-centers for listing, and studying ways to encourage, the Pre-Existing Divisions within the Camp of Islam. Start with Sunnis and Shi'a, and list all the places where there could be, are likely to be, more Sunni-Shi'a trouble if in Iraq a permanent simmering warfare, or perhaps not so simmering, between the two sects continues. List them all: Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (where several hundred thousand Shi'a live in the Eastern, oil-bearing, Province). List numbers, list groups, list resentments, list fears, of these Shi'a, or those Sunnis.

Have another room, devoted only to the matter of non-Arab Muslims and the various ways they have suffered from Arab supremacism, whether it be mass-murder (as with the Kurds and black African Muslims in Darfur), or cultural and linguistic, as with the Berbers in North Africa, or a combination of these, as well as the political exploitation of non-Arab Muslims by the Arabs who essentially dominate, even run, the O.I.C. and lay down the law about what constitute the most important Muslim causes.

And have still another room devoted to the economic resentments and splits within the Camp of Islam. The poorer Arabs have had those resentments dampened because they have been allowed to rely, for tens of billions in aid, on the Western world. That aid allmost immediately took on the character of Jizyah: that is, a tax on non-Muslims, paid to Muslims, to buy temporary tolerance. The American government is now afraid -- afraid! -- to cut aid to malevolent Egypt, Jordan, meretricious Pakistan, the so-called "Palestinians" -- merely the "West Bank" and Gazan Arabs who are the shock troops of the pan-Arab and pan-Islamic Jihad against Israel.

And if the Infidels are "afraid" to end the Jizyah of what they still call "foreign aid," the recipients of that aid are not grateful for it, do nothing to deserve it, continue in Egypt and among the "Palestinians" to be viciously antisemitic and anti-American (and enough about this line that reporters are sometimes fed and sometimes believe, because they know nothing of Islam, about how "we (Egyptians, Jordanians, "Palestinian" Arabs) "{don't like your government but we like the American people" -- Islam tells us otherwise, tells us that as Infidels, no matter what aid we give, no matter how much we knock ourselves out for them in other ways -- ah, those hundreds of billions, even trillions, spent to make Iraq a better place, a place where we will rebuild everything, schools, hospitals, power grids, roads and bridges, you name it, and what's more, we will rebuild, or build, the country, so that lions can lie down with other lions, as all of them feign for the gullible Infidels to have been lambs in the first place.

Basta.

The men in Iraq know it. The officers, or those not wedded to parroting the party line, know it. Many, pari passu with the increase in their knowledge of Islam, know it.

What is keeping those who presume to instruct us (), and to protect us (in the government) from finding out the same things, from studying the same things, that we have all done, at this and other websites? What? Too busy praising each other as the most important people in the world, and giving even a Tim Russert practically a State Funeral, or at least coverage, worthy of Winston Churchill? What is it, exactly, that makes so many of those who report, or pontificate in columns, think they can continue to get away with such ignorance? Or those who, in the executive branch, and the legislative branch, and even in the judicial branch (where judges are going to have to find out a lot more about Islam if they are going to make judgments in terrorism cases)

After such ignorance (as noted before), what forgivenes?

Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2008 12:33 PM

Mahometans are missing a main part of the whole concept of defense, defense is when someone is attacking you to take something from you, either your goods or your life. America is not doing that.

On the contrary america could have gone the cold war route, cut off all contacts, organize blocs to guard against Islamization the same way that was done to guard against communism.

But instead the dream of international global economy, the idea that all people are part of a global community so instead of following the cold war mode we looked at the oppression in Iraq and Afghanistan and bestowed upon the Mahometans a gift.

Unlike other nations where colonies followed armies, or where nations that fell to invading armies were stripped of everything of value and local culture was repressed with brutality, which is the normal natural usual chain of events. We are building roads, we are setting up schools.

People tend to judge others using themselves as a sort of plumbline. But in some cases that straightedge that the sheiks and imams are using is a crooked and twisted one.

Posted by: stickman at July 5, 2008 12:36 PM

It is like ed macmahon showing up at somebodies door to award a sweepstakes prize and being assaulted by the person who was going to win because they thought that obviously they were there to steal their ratty flea infested couch or to start living in their broken down rat infested hovel.

Posted by: stickman at July 5, 2008 12:39 PM

We have a chance, by leaving, to create a permanent fault-line being established between the forces of Sunni Islam"
well if Obama gets in, your wish will be granted, but at what price may l ask? iranian mullahs will have more power in the area giving the impression that the American got driven out. Obama will begin talks with iran, give in to more concessions to iran and syria. iran goes ahead with nuke programs, and attacks Israel.
l dont think either the McCain camp or Obama camp understands enough of islam, with McCain a bit better at knowing there is "evil" with the islamists, and Obama will blame the US policy in the ME under Bush,etc.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 5, 2008 12:42 PM

"if Obama gets in, your wish will be granted..."
-- from a posting above

Not necessarily. He may be reluctant to do what McCain, if he could be made to see the Jihad in its world-wide context (especially the problems of Da'wa, demogrpaphic conquest, and the Money Weapon deployed in the countries of Western Europe) might more easily and swiftly do. After all, McCain doesn't have to prove, so it is believed, his "toughness" in national security. Obama now talks in terms of "16 months" and of "sitting down with commanders in Iraq" -- who are the commanders, at this point, because they are the ones left who still believe, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, in the quasi-stated "mission." Under Obama troops might be there for his entire first term.

It would be useful and heartening to to see McCain start to make the noises that will be interpreted, correctly, as his becoming aware of the great unhappiness of officers and men, aware of how the Iraq goal is the wrong goal, and to attain it we will be there forever because, in Islam, there is no desire, to being raised up in, the need for compromise. It's all a matter of Victor and Vanquished. That's how the Sunni Arabs feel, and that's how the Shi'a Arabs feel. They'll take the American money, and take whatever arms they can get their hands on or further inveigle out of the Americans (oh, please do leave us these tanks and these fighting vehicldes and these helicopters, and a few dozen airplanes, if you don't mind -- they will make us much more able to control an "unstable" situation, and you don't want "instability" after you Americans leave, do you?).

And if Obama were not to simultaneously show that such a withdrawal from Iraq is not a sign of weakness, or still worse, a sign of a desire to appease the Muslims of the world, that would be bad.

But if he, or if McCain, were to carry out that withdrawal swiftly, not leaving behind weaponry (save for possibly the Kurds, if a deal can be struck with them, for they will have to rely only on the United States) for what should be seen rightly not as potential allies but as people whom we allowed ourselves to believe were something other than, let's face it, what they always were in the mass (you don't make policies for Iraq on the basis of a Makiya, a Rend al-Rahim, a Chalabi, but on the basis of what the mass of primitives in that country believe).

If Obama, or McCain, precedes or accompanies or follows that withdrawl quite quickly with a series of acts designed to make clear that the withdrawal is part of a new, much more inteligent, no-nonsense, unsentimental, even ruthless attempt to exploit pre-existing fissures and other weaknesses in the Camp of Islam, while we turn our attention to the most important problems, such as the attempt by Iran to gain nuclear weapons (that problem may have to be dealt with even before the new President assumes office), and in the historic heart of the West, Europe, the need to counter or check all the most effective instruments of Jihad (the Money Weapon, Da'wa, demographic conquest), and to cease prating so monomaniacally and misleadingly only about "terrorism."

And certain bold actions may also be taken. I have repeatedly suggested that, for a very small investment of men and money, great defeats can be inflicted on the expanisionist aims of Islam in Africa. A few thousand American troops, with the Sudanese airforce preemptively destroyed, could seize the southern Sudan and Darfur, and hold those territories -- pictures world-wide of grateful black Africans tearfully welcoming their American soldier-saviors, many of the latter themselves black, who will as they occupy those territories learn a lot about the behavior of Arabs that will stand them, and our country, in good stead when they return to civilian life) -- until a referendum on independence from the north can be held. And while the seizure would damage the cause, and image, of Islam, and raise the morale of imperiled Christians in black Africa, not least in southern Nigeria -- it will also be so obviously a humanitarian rescue, that no one, save Muslim Arabs (who will be enraged and yet unable to adequately express their rage, knowing how it will be taken), could object -- not even Nicholas Kristof, not even Samantha Powers.

And there are a dozen other such measures that might be taken to make sure that no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, thinks that an American withdrawal from Iraq is a sign of weakness. It would, or could be, a sign of mental clarity, and indeed, of a highly desirable end to messianic sentimentalism, and an embrace of uncompromising, and indeed ruthless, realism.

Posted by: Hugh at July 5, 2008 1:27 PM

And yet, the infiltration into America of Mohammedan hordes from Rabat to Bandar Seri Begawan goes on...

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 5, 2008 11:29 AM

.. thanks to the corrupt, greedy, timid and self-serving politicians (except Tom Tancredo, R-CO). While Mohammedan hordes are the real threat, political corruption is no less, specially in a deomcratic govt. system.

Posted by: Alert at July 5, 2008 1:34 PM

"But how does "defensive jihad" validate either attack on NYC?"

You need to see the bigger picture of how evil America has been "interfering" in the Third and particularly the Muslim World and therefore "oppressing" Muslims around the world. To get that bigger picture, see the fatwas issued by Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, Alexander Cockburn, Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Marlon Brando, Pastor Wright, Louis Farrakhan, John Kerry, etc...

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 5, 2008 2:35 PM

DenverRodeo,
Just pointing out the taqiyya.
Defensive jihad is okay. Come to Afghanistan.
What jihad is NOT okay? Killing American civilians when no Muslims were being oppressed anywhere in the US is not defensive. It's not even coming to the aid of someone in trouble.
And why would any Muslim give a rat's behind about what John Kerry or Rosie O'Donnell has to say? Last I looked, neither worshipped Allah.

Posted by: PMK at July 5, 2008 4:36 PM

People - the WSJ has now published 12 comments!

Check 'em out:

http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=3170&sid=542571828ae44346e27ff1a7316f6096

Posted by: darcy at July 5, 2008 4:40 PM

The best politicians that money can buy(with some exceptions) do understand Islam the way they want to understand it...as a "peaceful religion". Anything else would be politically or financially incorrect.

It is hard for egomaniacs to learn about Islam when they think they know it all.

Posted by: Spot on at July 5, 2008 5:01 PM

HUGH is totally correct in his analysis about the NATURE of THIS GLOBAL WAR.This is the THIRD WORLD WAR, although it isn't being called that,YET.
As each sucessive WAR in history incorporates new technologies to be added to those existant, we are now in the midst of the most "MULTI DIMENSIONAL" WAR IN HUMAN HISTORY,INCLUDING THIS CYBER/ONLINE/WEB/INTERNET DIMENSION.This DIMENSION is a means to put into action HUGH'S PLAN FOR VICTORY.
I ECHO HUGH'S THOUGHTS ON THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR!

It is also instructive to take note of the fact that despite the open friendship of the SHAH for THE UNITED STATES,ISRAEL,GREAT BRITAIN,ETC. ,SADDAM HUSSEIN did not attack IRAN until the "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN" and its ISLAMONAZI REALITY!REMEMBER DURING THAT WAR HOW THE IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS/BASIJI /PASDARAN (of which ACHMEDADINEJAD WAS A LEADER) grabbed 9yr olds off the street, put them on trucks,issued them PLASTIC "KEYS TO HEAVEN" AND SENT THEM INTO MINEFIELDS AS MARTYRS to explode Iraqi landmines with their bodies!!!HOW'S THAT FOR MASS CHILD ABUSE?!
That WAR IS EXACTLY WHAT HUGH IS TALKING ABOUT!
SADDAM HUSSEIN,who viewed himself as a MODERN DAY BABYLONIAN EMPEROR/ISLAMIC SUNNI ARAB CALIPH/SALADIN went after the SHIITES IN THEIR NEW POWER BASE,IRAN, BEFORE THEY CAME AFTER HIM!
There are actually TWO SIMULTANEOUS WARS going on.ONE WAR IS BETWEEN THE JIHADISTS(SUNNI or SHIITE),INCLUDING IRAN AND OTHERS AGAINST US!
THE" WAR WITHIN THE WAR" IS BETWEEN SUNNI AND SHIA , A CENTURIES-OLD CIVIL WAR WITHIN ISLAM,WHICH TO THEM MEANS WHO GETS TO RUN THE JIHAD AGAINST US,ISRAEL,AND THE WEST,AND THAN RULE THE "G-L-O-B-A-L C-A-L-I-P-H-A-T-E"!

Posted by: CHOI at July 5, 2008 5:08 PM

PMK, "Killing American civilians when no Muslims were being oppressed anywhere in the US is not defensive."

It is "defensive" if you think the US (especially NYC and Wash. D.C.) is the cultural and political nerve center, command center, of the worldwide American "oppression" against Muslims.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 5, 2008 5:17 PM

Choi-- for the umpteenth time, please lay off the caps lock. Visually, it's very disruptive; you might notice you're the only one doing it.

Marisol Seibold
Jihad Watch News Editor

Posted by: MarisolJW at July 5, 2008 6:08 PM

Jihad against regular Englishmen:

http://www.iamanenglishman.com/rogues_gallery.php

Zip! I was reading Enoch Powell last night.
Snip! And it looks like Enoch Powell was right.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 5, 2008 6:41 PM

[ But how does "defensive jihad" validate either attack on NYC? ]

"Those who kill our women and innocent. We kill their women and innocent, until they refrain."

Posted by: jaguarbp at July 5, 2008 6:46 PM

DenverRodeo, in war as in American football, the best defense is a good offence. General Neyland was half right.

The Allies turned the tables in WW2; the Germans and Japanese were forced to play defence. That aspect of war and football was fully understrood by Coach Mo.

Hugh, I still do not believe that the Kurds can be trusted, and I also believe that the point in time where non-Arab Muslims can regain their heritage and re-evaluate Islam has long past. Pakistanis are not ethnic Arabs, but Islam trumps their pre-Islam Indian heritage.

Posted by: Pelayo at July 5, 2008 6:57 PM

The word is out that the US military surge is successful in Iraq, and now the islamists putrid clerics are telling their terrorists to go and fight the US and Nato forces in Afganistan. The MSM and Democrats are not reporting the sucesses in Iraq, not reporting even in AFganistan the numbers of islamists being killed by the NATO forces and by the US military. So now, not surprising the islamists are doing a sweep of their youngest to join in the fight. Going to Afganistan is much more difficult and any foreign islamists fighters are at a disadvantage. l say keep on knocking them down and with patience the mop up of islamists will be done. ps take no prisoners!

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at July 5, 2008 7:39 PM

The word is out that the US military surge is successful in Iraq

How is it then that you are unable to withdraw,
you've been repeating that "surge be working" line for over 12 months now.

How many Crusaders have been killed, like 4000?
That's more than the Raids on New York and Washington

Posted by: jaguarbp at July 5, 2008 7:55 PM

when will they give up!

now the crazies have migrated to another site.

http://www.islamfactor.org

Posted by: Scarecrow at July 5, 2008 8:12 PM

For those of you who haven't, I highly recommend the very enlightning interview of Carolyn Glick by Jamie Glazov from Front Page Magazine.

It is intitled "Shackled Warrior" from her new book.

You can read it here on Carolyn Glicks Website:

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/

Posted by: Mackie at July 5, 2008 10:38 PM

Well its a good thing jihad and Islam have nothing to do with muslims or vis a versa or how ever they explain away the obvious anymore, I cant be bothered to care.

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at July 5, 2008 11:38 PM

Where do i send money for there plane tickets we should all send them plane tickets.

Posted by: spcbat at July 5, 2008 11:44 PM

Being in Afcrapistan and Iraq lets us kill the worst of them. It is better to have some place as a killing field that everyone understands. These people have been coming from everywhere for the chance of dying. Accommodate their wishes.

I think the World at large has tried for the last 1400 years, to stay as far away from Islam as Humanly possible. To no avail. There has been times where Mass Slaughter has diverted its attention to other directions. Sharing the suffering so to speak. Today they seem to be rubbing everyone the wrong way.

Everyone wants to leave Iraq before the job is done. There are pressing their Middle School Students into battle at this point. Just like Hitler did at the end. The one age group most Indoctrinated in the cause. The whole point it to force them to change, As painful as it may be.

Besides, Nobody is leaving Iraq and Afcrapistan until Iran is dealt with.

Iran is the main problem. Well, actually, the MSM is the Main problem. But that is another matter altogether.

Obama is set to make History if Elected. The first leader of a Country to predetermine the end of a War while still actively engaged with the Enemy.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at July 5, 2008 11:57 PM

". . . pictures world-wide of grateful black Africans tearfully welcoming their American soldier-saviors . . . "

Much like those grateful black Africans in Somalia greeted their American soldier-saviors freeing them from the warlords, I presume, or those grateful Iraqis tearfully welcoming the soldier-saviors rescuing them from a teargassing, raping, murderous tyrant.

No, I don't think so. Westerners will never, ever be "welcomed," tearfully or not, in any culture that has been affected by the Muslim mindset of supremacism and mindless tribal violence. Gratitude does not exist in a people infected by the idea that a cruel and whimsical god wishes them to rule. What part of the Koran's advice of "smile in their faces and murder them in their sleep" is so hard to understand? Why do their savage betrayals, so clearly prefigured by Mohammed's behavior, surprise us every time?

More adventures in Africa will simply lead to more ratholes-- more of our sons and daughters dead, more accusations from smug Europeans letting us do the dirty work while they appease, and appease, and appease their resident Muslims, those slaves of Allah who pray daily to slit the kaffir's throats and make their pretty children prepubescent "wives" and catamites.

The fissures in Islam will simply have to develop by themselves, which they will do with a hands-off containment strategy. To summarize the hotpoint of the Sudan --I believe that we are responsible for defending only the women and children Koranically attacked, raped and killed by pious Muslims in our own country.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at July 6, 2008 3:16 AM

"Pakistan halts assault on militants"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jIE0IUn4WIiaMBpjG8SI_6H5RXzgD91NPNFO1

(Has a beautiful image of imitaters of uswa hasana, al insan, al kamil protesting assault. Treat.)

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 6, 2008 5:16 AM

It's anniversary time folks.

"Thousands gather for Red Mosque seige anniversary"

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200807/s2295760.htm?tab=asia

The link below has images.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iK5-sEnvEtZ0VZ2_-K7pZaWht7ZA

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 6, 2008 5:27 AM

Duh!

Posted by: awake at July 6, 2008 11:59 PM