Jihad in the U.S. -- Oh, yes, it's underway here too...

[Snowden]

Spencer: War On Terror Ends?


More on Washington's new Orwellian turn, in my Human Events column this week:

Good news: the war on terror is over! Charles Allen, the Department of Homeland Security’s senior intelligence official, said last week that American officials should stop calling this conflict we’re in a “war on terror,” far less the president’s term, the “global war on terror.”

Why? Because it offends Muslims, of course. When they hear “terror,” you see, this hurts the feelings of peaceful non-terrorist Muslims. “[It] has nothing to do with political correctness,” insisted Allen, straining credulity well past the breaking point. “It is interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam and we don’t need this.”

Why on earth would they get the idea that a “war on terror” equals a “war on Islam,” when President Bush has gone out of his way to say things like this: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” Homeland Security Department spokesman Russ Knocke explained: “We are at war with terrorism, and its underlying ideology -- not Islam -- and we’ve gone out of our way to make that point. In truth, war has been declared upon us.” But who has declared war against us?

Of course, it wasn’t generic terrorists, or the IRA or the Tamil Tigers. Rather, it was Muslims who quote the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad to justify waging war against unbelievers.

And that is the biggest problem in how the Bush administration has behaved since 9-11, and in what the DHS people did last week. Unless we clearly and directly label the terrorists, their ideology and the nations that sponsor them correctly -- in terms of their Islamic roots -- how can we defeat them and their ideology?

In truth, Mr. Bush should mean -- and say -- that it is of Islamic jihadists he speaks when to Hizballah, Hamas and their ilk. To dismiss the Islamic content of the jihadists’ appeal to their fellow Muslims sidesteps the questions of why their version of Islam has gained such traction within the Islamic world. It leaves us with no idea why the jihadist claim to represent “true” or “pure” Islam has so much resonance among Muslims, such that armed groups are committing violence in the name of Islam in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Nigeria, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere around the world.

To avoid discussing or examining the Islamic element of today’s global jihad also hinders our understanding of the jihadists’ motivations. We cannot investigate what they believe and why, much less strategize on the basis of such investigations, because that will lead us to examine elements of Islam’s theology of jihad that the Department of Homeland Security would apparently rather ignore. The fundamentally wrong assumption in the DHS today is that jihad is a good thing, a holy thing, and that the jihadists have twisted its meaning it in defiance of Islamic theology and law.

They apparently believe -- again wrongly -- that if we start using different terms to refer to the jihadists and their activities -- criminals, unlawful warfare, rather than jihadists and jihad -- the moderate Muslim majority will feel empowered to rise up against them, and take back Islam.

Unfortunately that’s just a fantasy. The imperative to wage war against unbelievers in order to establish over them the hegemony of Islamic law wasn’t invented by Al-Qaeda; it is taught by all the Sunni schools of jurisprudence, and by the Shi’ites as well. The jihadist appeal to peaceful Muslims is rooted in this fact: they claim to represent Islamic purity, and as long as their claim goes unchallenged, it will continue to be effective. This doesn’t mean that every Muslim takes it seriously. But it does mean that simply waving away the Islam in Islamic terrorism is voluntarily giving up the one tool our enemies have given us to help us understand them, and counter them more effectively.

“War on terror,” however, really is a misleading term -- but not for the reasons Charles Allen thinks. The main problem with it is not that it refers to Islam: it doesn’t. But only those who value political correctness above national security would pretend that this present conflict has nothing to do with Islam. The main problem with the term “war on terror” is that it focuses exclusively on violence, at a time when the jihadists are succeeding most rapidly by a stealth jihad. In America this stealth jihad takes the form of Sharia finance initiatives, demands that Americans accommodate Islamic prayer in schools and workplaces, and much more. But “war on terror” suggests that our opponents are all simply bomb-throwers. Would that it were that simple.

In the interests of political correctness, official Washington is retreating farther and farther from reality. It’s just whistling in the dark to think that Al-Qaeda’s claim to represent Islamic purity can’t draw on genuine elements of Islamic theology that encourage bellicosity. Fantasy-based policymaking is never wise. America will be paying the price for years to come.

Jihad Watch: Spencer: War On Terror Ends?

[Snowden]

Wafa Sultan: "Islam attacks me, and I am merely attacking back"




The great Wafa Sultan says some very harsh things here about Muhammad and Islam. Her assertions are all accurate in terms of Islamic history and theology -- not that truth has ever mattered to the jihad apologists, Muslim and non-Muslim, in the West, or to those who, even at the highest levels, are given to wishful thinking and fantasy-based policymaking instead of sober analysis.

If CAIR is so inclined, although I suspect this would be more likely if she had said this in English in some high-profile forum, her words would end up on the organization's "Incitement Watch." But the real incitement came from Qaradawi, as she points out. Yet that salient fact will never show up on any CAIR "Incitement Watch." Now, why is that?

"Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan Blasts Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and Sheik Al-Qaradhawi, and States: When You Criticize Their Prophet, It Is As If You Chopped Off Muslims' Noses," from MEMRI, May 29 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on May 29, 2008.

Wafa Sultan: When I examined the Koran, the hadith, and the Islamic books under a microscope, I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible – impossible! – for any human being to read the biography of Muhammad and believe in it, and yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.

[...]

Do you remember the way that [the Prophet Muhammad] killed ‘Asmaa bint Marwan? His followers tore her body apart limb from limb, while she was breastfeeding her child. When they returned to him shouting “Allah Akbar,” he said: “No two goats will lock horns over her.” As you know, goals lock horns over the most inconsequential thing. For Muhammad, however, the killing of a woman while breastfeeding was too trivial a reason for goats “to lock horns over.” Is this a prophet of God?

[...]

It makes me very sad that Al-Jazeera TV allows an insane and terroristic creature like Al-Qaradhawi to use it as a medium for the spreading of his poisons, his terroristic fatwas, and his babbling. The words he used against me incited many young Muslims – who have been brainwashed and blindfolded, and who have been programmed to hate – to rain curses and threats upon me, right after the show in which he discussed my appearance on Al-Jazeera.

[...]

When Islam considers women to be deficient in reason, and I refute this assertion – in that case Islam attacks me, and I am merely attacking back. When Islam calls to kill whoever does not believe in it, and I refute this, in that case Islam attacks me, and I am merely attacking back. I do not attack Islam. I criticize it, but unfortunately, we, the victims of Islamic upbringing, view any criticism as an attack.

[...]

I always focus on the language – the language of Islam. The language of Islam is a negative, dead language, replete with violence, anger, hatred, and racism. Man is the product of language, the outcome of the negative and positive language to which he is exposed in this lifetime. If his life is dominated by negative language, he will emerge as a negative, reckless, and non-productive person, who rejects everything. On the other hand, if positive language dominates his life, he will emerge as a positive, happy, and productive person. This is why the negative language of Islam has failed. It has failed to produce people with a spontaneous and positive outlook. It has produced negative people. If we take a look at Islamic societies, we see what that negative man did.

[...]

I do not view Islam as a religion – according to my notion of religion. Islam is a political doctrine, which imposes itself by force. Any doctrine whatsoever that calls to kill those who do not believe in it is not a religion. It is a totalitarian doctrine that imposes itself by force. When I read, for example, the verse: “The adulterer and the adulteress – flog each of them with a hundred stripes, and do not let compassion for them move you” - I do not discern any spirituality in this verse. Whena certain faith manages to can strip its believers of their last grain of compassion, it strips them of their spirituality as well.

[...]

Jesus Christ is the symbol of peace. He did not carry a sword, chop off heads, or accuse anybody of heresy. The problem in Islam is that if we were to act similarly to the Christians of the Middle Ages, and we were to model our lives after the life, actions, and words of Muhammad, we would find ourselves in an even bigger mess than the one we are in, and we would end up like Osama Bin Laden and his ilk. Read about the life of Muhammad. What do you find there? Nothing but his raids and his wives, in addition to his hadiths, some of which make you shudder. I shudder when I hear the hadith: “A woman’s paradise is under her husband’s foot.”

[...]

The Islamic teachings have become dreadful in the skulls of the Muslims. I see no alternative but to open up these skulls, and to clean the life-threatening cancerous cells in these brains.

[...]

When the Syrian people swarmed the Danish embassy and burned it down, it burned my heart too. Why? The Syrian people are dying of hunger. The Syrians, despite their [ancient] civilization, chase after their daily bread. Why don’t they swarm the palace of their president, who has 40 billion dollars in European bank accounts, and burn down the palace, along with its occupant? They swarmed the Danish embassy, giving the West the wrong image of the moral and civilized Syrian people. Therefore, I describe their conduct as barbaric and backward.

[...]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a religious conflict. I support the Palestinian cause. I support the Palestinian children. I lose sleep over the suffering of Palestinian women. I cannot even step on an ant, so how could I possibly be against them? This is inconceivable. This is a political conflict, and they should ask their leaders about what they have done to resolve the problem. But the problem is rooted in religion. A week or two ago, I read a short story in an Islamic book, according to which Muhammad was walking with some of his followers when they heard a commotion. They asked him: “What is this, Messenger of Allah?” He said: “These are the Jews being tormented in the grave.” Regardless of the conflicts Muhammad had with the Jews back then, this statement indicates that the graves of their ancestors were in Saudi Arabia, correct?

Interviewer: Yes.

Wafa Sultan: They are people of this region, as is evident from the Islamic books and the Koran itself.

[...]

The problem with the Muslims is that they do not distinguish between their prophet and their own noses. When you criticize Muhammad, his actions, and his life, it is as if you chopped off their noses.

Jihad Watch: Wafa Sultan: "Islam attacks me, and I am merely attacking back"

[Snowden]

What is going on at Fox News?


"Shame on Fox News," from the United American Committee:

What was often viewed as one of the most pro-American and patriotic news channels just a few years ago has now resorted to the same anti-American, anti-Western propaganda and revolting journalism as many other pro-Islamist and anti-American media networks, according to the United American Committee. In a recent posting on YouTube by the United American Committee of a story appearing on Fox News, a Fox reporter hangs out with terrorists as he watches them build rockets in a location known by him, and then gleefully films them launch their creations onto civilian targets. This is the same journalist who most recently hung out again with his Hamas friends as the media hungry terrorists gave him a guided tour of smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Egypt.

See the disgusting reporting posted on the UAC's YouTube channel here.

After watching the video, please let Fox News know what you think of this reporting.

FoxNews Swithboard: 212-301-3000

Jihad Watch: What is going on at Fox News?

[Snowden]

Bridge for sale: Saudi king calls for end to "extremism"

Here is a case study in the hazards of limiting the discourse on Islamic jihad to what parties with highly dubious intentions ("friend and ally" illusions aside) are willing to talk about, which is a consequence of banishing certain terms from the "terrorism" lexicon. Doing would deprive us of tools with which to challenge vague language like this from the Saudi king, the Deobandis, and others. And whom does that make safer?

"Saudi king: End Islamic extremism," from YNet News:

Islam must do away with the dangers of extremism and present the religion's positive message, Saudi King Abdullah said Wednesday as he opened a conference of Muslim figures aimed at launching a dialogue with Christians and Jews.

The three-day gathering in the holy city of Mecca seeks a unified Muslim voice ahead of the interfaith dialogue. In particular, Saudi Arabia hopes to promote reconciliation between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

"You have gathered today to tell the whole world that ... we are a voice of justice and values and humanity, that we are a voice of coexistence and a just and rational dialogue," Abdullah told the 500 Muslim delegates from 50 Muslim nations in his opening speech.

Uh huh.

Abdullah walked into the conference hall Wednesday with powerful Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who later sat on the king's left on the stage, sending a message that the Sunni kingdom does not have a problem with moderate Shiites like him.

Abdullah announced in March that he wanted to sponsor an interfaith dialogue between the world's monotheistic religions — specifically including Jews. It was the first such initiative from a nation with no diplomatic ties to Israel and a ban on non-Muslim religious services and symbols.

He said Wednesday that the Islamic world faces difficult challenges from the extremism of some Muslims, whose aggressions "target the magnanimity, fairness and lofty aims of Islam."

"That's why (the conference) invitation was extended — to face the challenges of isolation, ignorance and narrow horizons, so that the world can absorb the good message of Islam," he said.

Jihad Watch: Bridge for sale: Saudi king calls for end to "extremism"

[Snowden]

Obama's brilliant career as Defender of Israel lasts about one day


He backs away from his undivided Jerusalem comment. "Obama clarifies united J'lem comment," by Hillary Leila Krieger for the Jerusalem Post, June 6 (thanks to Infidels Are Cool):

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

"Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said.

Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.

"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.

"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.

"If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling."

"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged....

Yep.



Jihad Watch: Obama's brilliant career as Defender of Israel lasts about one day