Mark Steyn in the Spectator is unequivocal:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-09-11&id=4987

However, this is not widely read. More mainstream is Melanie Phillips writing in the Daily Mail:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/

Generally, though there seems to be a real reluctance to use the M word when these blatant acts of Jihad are committed.

Posted by: Interestd at September 11, 2004 8:24 AM

When there are attacks, always use the word jihad,
"the jihad in Beslan" for example. Over and over
again, use the word jihad, and if someone asks what you mean define it as war against the infidels, war to spread islam, and a part of their doctrine. Say "that is what the muslims call it."

In this way we spread the word to general use in
our language.

Posted by: the poetess at September 11, 2004 9:01 AM

Michelle Malkin, New York Post, September 11, 2004, wrote an excellent article today on this...

Posted by: jawa at September 11, 2004 10:23 AM

The poetess:

Excellent idea - it gets round the 'but most Muslims are peaceful' idea. Most jihadists, by definition cannot be peaceful.

Posted by: Interestd at September 11, 2004 10:45 AM

Everyone:

"Khaled" is "Reza".

Posted by: CGW at September 11, 2004 1:06 PM

Jihad could be the death of Islam.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at September 11, 2004 2:09 PM

That's wishful thinking, Dr. Phibes. I remember thinking the same thing about 911.... that it could be the end of Islam. But really, I think I can sum the problem by appending your original sentence:

JIHAD WITH EITHER BE THE DEATH OF ISLAM, OR IT WILL BE THE DEATH OF EVERYONE ELSE.

Now Robert Spencer candidly says: "It is not a right wing/left wing thing...

Did everyone see that? Gary, DC, Son, Catharine, alaskan1000, Bar? Did everyone read that? I hope so. Now maybe we can leave political graffiti at political websites, and come here to talk about Jihad and dhimmitude.

Thank you for your honesty Mr. Spencer. I've been waiting to read those words for so long. Thank you very, very much.

Posted by: kj at September 11, 2004 2:22 PM

And one must wonder, as we have already done here, where dhimmitude stops and intentional collaboration begins. Some 'willful dhimmis', like many at the BBC, seem to me to be one more Jihadist tentacle.

Here is one story that has just irked me.

Spanish Woman's Loss

It seems so full of humanity, care, the story of a young, attractive woman who lost her fiance in Madrid. I understand her feelings, in a way, and feel horrible sorrow...but she, like so many, blame the Spanish government for Madrid. 'No Iraq, no bombs...' (And besides that she is very attractive which ensures a high 'click count')

Has the BBC chosen to tell her story because she derserves her say, which she does, or because she tells the world directly or indirectly precisely what the BBC wants it to hear. That Islam is not to blame. That Islam is not a threat. That America is the problem. That Israel is the problem. That we are the causes of 9/11...as with all the mass murder in Jihad in Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Indonesia, Thailand...things just get so 'confusing', how does one actually 'blame' someone? But there is always America, Israel, and now, that bastard Putin and the fascist Russian army.

All of these things flow not from this story, but from the context, the tone, the overall presentation of the stories taken in their totality.

So, this young woman in Madrid, who has not thought through the real causes of her fiance's death, is not being given a 'voice' but used in Jihadist propaganda, courtesy of the publically funded BBC.

There are dhimmis, and then there are simply traitors.

Posted by: JTF at September 11, 2004 2:37 PM

The reluctance, or inability, to express things properly, a general failing of many supposedly literate people in the age of mass quasi-education, is killing. It is not so much a case of words fail us, as a case of us failing words.

Look at how various the means by which the obvious is avoided. If you are Paul Berman, or Christopher Hitchens, you prefer to modify the word "Islam" by affixing a nasty tail to that particular donkey: "Islamofascism."

If you go the adjectival route, you come up with "radical" Islam.

If you prefer, again, the little dingle-dangle at the end, you use the word "Islamist."

Even some of those using those words know better, but for now, for the sake of what they deem to be "effectiveness," they will not use the unadorned word "Islam."

But it is Islam, Islam itself. And all those attempts to tell us we cannot talk about a "monolith" called "Islam" are part of the apologetics. It is perfectly true that within the world of Believers, there are various ethnic groups. There is Sunni Islam and Shi'a Islam. And even Ibadi Islam, for those with Oman in mind. There are four schools of Islamic law, each equally valid, within Sunni Islam.

And there are, of course, such groups as the "Wahhabis," whom some like to pretend are the problem -- the only problem.

But whatever differences of emphasis there may be (women in Tunisia have an easier time of it than women in Saudi Arabia or in Iran), the main problem, the real problem for Infidels, is that whatever differences or nuances there may be in the imposition of the criminal code, or in the treatment of women, there are NO differences in the attitudes toward Infidels. All Muslims, whatever their other differences, must accept the idea that Islam should ultimately cover the globe, and that the Dar al-Islam must swallow up the Dar al-Harb. All Muslims must believe, as part of Islam, that the Infidels cannot ever be permitted to live as anything other than ahl al-dhimma, People of the Pact, who will not be treated as equal citizens, but only as dhimmis, subject -- if 1350 years of the Muslim treatment of non-Muslims is our guide, and since we have no other, it must be -- to a status of permanent humiliation, degradation, and insecurity. This has been written about most famously by Bat Ye'or, but a thousand other scholars, eyewitnesses, and Muslim jurisconsults have also written about it. Possibly the fullest compendium devoted to the matter is Antoine Fattal's dry "Le statut legal des non-musulmanes dans les pays musulmanes." But Bat Ye'or's "Islam and Dhimmitude," "The Dhimmi," and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," also should be read.

There is nothing in the history of Islam -- plain Islam, devoid of modifying and mollifying epithets, of hemming-and-hawing prefixes and suffixes -- to make any Infidel capable of thought regard the further strengthening of Muslim numbers, Muslim economic and political power, either in the Western world, or anywhere else, without the deepest, and most justified, apprehension.

Again, Ibn Warraq: "There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate." And the definition of "moderate" Muslim must be very limited indeed, particularly given the ever-present Manchurian-candidate problem.

Posted by: Hugh at September 11, 2004 2:38 PM

kj, it's still September 1939, the main conflict is yet to come. Things are moving relatively slowly, partly because of the number of terrorist attacks which have been foiled. If more of those attacks had succeeded, public awareness of what we're up against would be that much greater, and we'd be further into the war by now. So in a way, success is failure; rounding up terrorists before they can murder and maim us merely postpones the inevitable. And the inevitable won't be good news for Muslims, however much they lie and squirm when the day of reckoning finally arrives.

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at September 11, 2004 3:12 PM

JAWA: Michelle Malkin is my 'shero'. Been over to the New York Post where you said she has an article.

I couldn't find it.

Could you (or anyone) post a HyperLink to her article?

thankz, Kleo in Anderson, Ca.

Posted by: kleo at September 11, 2004 3:23 PM

Nope. It's not a right wing/left wing thing. But the Left wing has a near-Monopoly on Neville Chamberlains.

I will, however, leave this now until after the election. Let's just hope, if Bush is re-elected, the Left will drop it's screwball idea of impeaching him for Abu-Graib, and let him get on with the business of conducting the War on Terrorism.

Posted by: Gary at September 11, 2004 3:38 PM

This anniversary marks a realy sad day in Canada`s history,even though 24 Canadians were cremated against their will by Muslim Jihadists the Federal Government did nothing to remember the deaths of that September Morning.
Our PC Liberal Leaders didn`t want to offend Muslims,the event is void of any reference to Muslims and just as insulting is the fact that our Prime Minister quickly ran to a Mosque for a photo-op to appease the Muslims that Islam had nothing to do with the attack and Islam is a faith of Peace and tolerance.
BTW,the Imam the P.M. was pictured beside was on the FBI list as a North American fundraiser for middle east terrorism. Also our P.M. helped a Al-Qaeda kingpin get released from custody in Pakistan for his fake-orphanage that funneled money to Osama Bin Laden`s terrorism training camps.
Canada also welcomed back this thugs family that used the Canadian passport for globe-trotting in the Middle east,a TV special showed the family praising the 9/11 hijackers and the Mother said she would be proud if her son did a suicide Jihad
for Allah.
There have been private memorials built with donations,this is because the Canadian Governments memorial Plaque is hidden away in a private room in the Parliament Buildings,I guess as to not offend the Muslims even though it merely states the victims died of plane attacks on the WTC.

This September also marks the demand for a Shariah-Law court system in Canada,CAIR along with the C.I.C. and Sheema Khan(newly appointed head of a civil right body in Canada) insist this will liberate female Muslims and help Canada's Laws come in line with the Quranic codes of conduct. For now Ontario will be the starting point but a TV report showed Islamic bodies in other Provinces are waiting for the outcome and may demand Shariah-Law in their area.
This sounds like a Country wide plan by Muslims to build the foundation for a future Islamic Political Party that will then demand an islamic State or at least Islamic laws when Muslims become the majority. Our Charter and Constitution are only as safe as the Muslims respect for its existance,with no real military or homeland security it wouldn't take too many suicide bombings to make the Leftists knuckle under and bow down to Allah and embrace Islam or die.

The denial and paranoia is what fuels my lack of trust for the Muslim community,self-segregation and the Elitist mindset to force non-Muslims to be Muslims by proxy only needs to be projected forward to see wht the real goal of Islam is,Global domination by making people poor and stupid as to be more controlable as automatrons.

NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE

Posted by: ala-sux at September 11, 2004 4:21 PM

kleo,

Found the following article by Michelle Malkin...

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/mmalkin.htm

Posted by: annakita at September 11, 2004 4:56 PM

The leadership of the United States must come around and call our enemy by its name. President George W. Bush has yet to name it. His reluctance to give voice to the "I" word might be explained by his Saudi connection or fear of offending Moslem voters in the US. Not that his opponent for the presidency is any better. Kerry is worse. He has cozied up to the enemy of the United States once before and his sensitivity towards Islam would be the death of us.

Even Daniel Pipes, for all his commendable work to wake up the West to Islamic danger, will not use the term "Islamic Terrorists." He sticks with "Islamist Terror." I suppose to distinguish the perpetrators from the silent or vociferous supporters of of Islamic terror. Whether they are silent or ululate and give their battle cry of "our god is the greatest" depends on if they are in the majority or still developing into the majority.

In the territories conquered from Islamic nations by Israel, they celebrated 9/11/01 with sweets, dancing, and cries of joy. Moslems only in the early stages of taking over a community in the United States will not celebrate acts of violence by their openly jihadist brothers and sisters--not just yet. Once they are strong, as in London, England, they will unfurl the poison-green banner and show their contempt for the host country.

When we call the enemy "Islam," we are referring to an ideology. There will be loud outcries that Islam is a religion. And, at least in the US, a war against a religion, any religion is a no-no. Therefore, we must hammer home the point that Islam is an ideology. We fought Nazism and Communism, both ideologies. We can and must fight Islam--and win.

Except for a few individuals that claim to be so, there are no moderate Moslems, because there is no moderate Islam. You either are a Moslem or you are an infidel. No half-way Moslem allowed by Koran or its "prophet."

There are "secular" Moslems that drink alcohol and do not stick their rear-ends up five times a day. But, when the chips are down, on whose side will they choose to be?

Although the tide has turned, some journalists dare to call the enemy Islam, governments still do not. We still have much work to do.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at September 11, 2004 7:07 PM

The main problem it seems is that islam is cloaked in the respectability afforded it by its designation as a religion. Certainly there are religious aspects to it, but the part that concerns the world is the seditious political system that accompanies it. Identifying islam as a political system which is in direct competition with the political systems of non-muslim countries that play host to muslims may be important in overcoming resistance to the designation of islam as the correct target for the war we are engaged in.
Unfortunately, the war so far has not been cheap. I understand that the estimated cost of the war in Iraq alone has been put at $200bn. The cost to the enemy for the destruction of the World Trade Center is estimated to be $200,000 - $500,000. The total cost of the attacks to the world economy may be over $1trillion. (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=22022002-040038-8752r) This is unsustainable. An effective way must be found to
(i) attack the enemy at reasonable cost and
(ii) enable the identification of friends and foes within muslim communities.
The way to achieve both of these aims would be to close one mosque and confiscate the land for every non muslim who dies at the hands of the jihadists. The location of the mosque would depend on the country of origin of the person killed.
This approach would force muslims to make a choice, rather than equivocate in the manner we are used to, and would also be a cheap and sustainable way of controlling the enemy.

Posted by: khoment8r at September 11, 2004 10:02 PM

During the Cold War the use of simulated war games began, due to the development of computers.
Nowadays there are numerous simulated 'war games' played in online virtual worlds by millions of players, most of them teenage boys. There are many other games such as 'SIM CITY' and 'CIVILIZATION' that are played by adults.

What if there was a new on-line simulated war game called 'ISLAMIC JIHAD'? Instead of creating a roster of fantasy creatures with 'magical' abilities and weapons, why not people this virtual world with a cast of simulated Osamas and Al-Sadrs? Give them theiur weapons of car bombs, hijacked airplanes, kidnapped foreigners, etc all the way up to the ultimate weapon: the WMD. The Islamic terror team has to act according to its mission statement, its paradigm. The rest of the players, representing the'Dar-al-Harb' play according to their paradigm. For instance, the French play both sides for maximum gain (haha) and its growing muslim population becomes increasingly restive in its quest for the establishment of Sharia.
In the ultimate nightmare scenario a terror cell manages to explode a nuclear bomb in the USA. The results are............

A game like this could be a powerful catalyst to get people to wake up. Do we really need a succession of BESLANs to realize the danger we are in? Do we really need to experience a WMD attack by terrorists before we realize what this will bring about? Do we really want to see the use of nuclear weapons as the only solution to a terror attack? That's where we're headed and once we go there when will we stop? We're not dealing with governments; we're dealing with crazed terrorists operating on their own without a centralized Command & Control structure. How many innocent people will die because of 'guilt by association'?

I realize that this idea is 'out there', it would be a very complex undertaking, but it could be done. Think of 'SIM CITY' meets OSAMA! If a group of creative folks got together and thought it out, developed it to a point of initial solidity, it could then be presented to an established producer of pc games. We're living in the first global media world. Good books, intersting articles, educational web sites such as this; all are ways to get people to wake up and think. But you can only read so many articles, listen to so many speeches but a good game is fun to play!

A game like this would get publicity, it would shock people, it would create uproar, fattwas would be issued, and all of that would get more people involved. It would also make money.

Anyway, this post is probably 'out there', but, hey, what the heck...................

Posted by: Mike H at September 11, 2004 10:53 PM

if europe is any indication as to where the usa is headed... well...

something needs to be done pretty soon to eliminate the respectability and protection now afforded to islam in america or ELSE.

if we cannot convince the usa government that islam is the problem we may be dumfounded one day to find our own government in alliance with the moslems coming against us 'anti-islamic fanatics'.

Posted by: forrest shalom at September 11, 2004 11:54 PM

annakita, thanks for the link to Michelle's article. That was the perfect piece on what's wrong with the way we're handling the War on Terror. "Sanitizing the Killers", she says. That's exactly what the media and most governments do. She points out that when Koresh was up to his lunacy at Waco, the media had absolutely no qualms about pointing out the religious aspect of the issue - "a group of religious zealots with a known propensity for violence". How many times has anybody in mainstream media or govt talked about Islam in that manner????? Never! Islam is given way too much respect for what it is - a disgusting belief system that is dangerous to humanity.

If it were a Christian or Jewish sect, the media would be telling it like it is. But not when it comes to Islam. Not even after the countless atrocities done in its name. "In the Name of Allah ... one atrocity after another, and another, and another" and still, the media whitewashes these pukes. I've sent the link to her article to most people in my address book. Already a few replies back to me were "spot on!" and "unfortunately she's right".

Our enemy has two heads - one head is Islam, the other is Islam-apologists.

Posted by: feralee at September 12, 2004 5:20 AM

Anyone else see the front page article iin Saturday's Independent (UK) ? Written by King of the Dhimmis Robert Fisk it was a bumbling, confused, badly-written hatchet job on America's handling of events post 9/11. As you would expect from fisk everything is America's fault, even apparently the fact that his mother died from Parkinson's Disease. According to fisk's logic if the US hadn't spent money trying to get Bin Laden then that money would have been spent on a cure for his mother's illness ! As he rambles on, fisk also claims that the 9/11 hijackers were "just 19 murderers" as though they were just 19 nutjobs who decided one day to kill thousands of people. In fisk's world there is no global jihad, no Saudi petro-dollars supporting the jihad, no terrorist infastructure in Afghanistan, no history of Islamic conquest - just 19 murderers out on a day trip. The rest of this egotistical piece (he talks more about himself then anything else ) justifies the mutilation of the four US contractors in Fallujah, mentions the US bombing of "Stone Age Afghanistan" without once mentioning the Taliban regime or the tens of thousands of Muslim terrorists who were trained there and , of course, throws in a side swipe at Israel. As I said, in the whole article there is no mention of an Islamic element to anything currently happening in fisk's world - no mention of the behaedings, the car-bombings, the massacres, the stabbing of school children NO it's all the fault of America and it's failure to cure Parkinson's disease. Oh and by the way according to fisk the terrorists in Iraq are "insurgents" but the brave Iraq National Guard and police force are "torturers". The sad thing is that this incoherent drivel is given pride of place in the UK's so-called "newspaper of the year" - judging by the poor standard of fisk's "writing" I'd hate to see what the runners-up are like.

Posted by: Son Of Albion at September 12, 2004 8:42 AM

to mike h.: great idea. you should pitch it to electronic arts, take two, or some other video game company (or all of them as the case may be). get a simple copyright to protect yourself, then make a deal where you get a consultant stipend during development (someone will have to explain the jihad to the programmers i'd imagine) with a share in gross profits from sales (that would be a share of revenues minus development costs)

Posted by: ted at September 12, 2004 7:03 PM

I also commend Michelle Malkin's work. By the way, she's of non-white immigrant stock (Filipino-American).

Posted by: Kepha1 at September 14, 2004 4:41 AM

Mike H,

Good post, but your comment:

We're not dealing with governments; we're dealing with crazed terrorists operating...

is not exactly correct. We ARE dealing with governments who either condone, support, finance or otherwise help the islamokillers -- Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Yemen....

Posted by: yahudimrevenge at September 14, 2004 1:39 PM