Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Canadian Jihad: A family affair
Posted by: McQ on Friday, June 30, 2006

The Globe and Mail has a fascinating and disturbing piece on 4 of the wives of the 17 arrested in Canada for terrorist activities. Apparently the paper uncovered some posts on both forums and blogs in which these 4 wives spoke freely about their belief in jihad. In fact, one even mentioned that she had seriously considered putting a clause about jihad in her prenuptial agreement which allow her to divorce her husband if he didn't take advantage of an opportunity to participate should it present itself:
"[And] if he ever refuses a clear opportunity to leave for jihad, then i want the choice of divorce," she wrote in one of more than 6,000 Internet postings uncovered by The Globe and Mail.
These postings mostly took place in a 20 month period starting in 2004 and, as I mention, are a fascinating look inside the minds of homegrown Islamic fundamentalists and their support of terroristic activities.

Canada, which considers itself as one of the most benign and tolerant societies on earth comes under withering criticism from these 4:
Ms. Farooq's hatred for the country is palpable. She hardly ever calls Canada by its name, rather repeatedly referring to it as "this filthy country." It's a sentiment shared by many of her friends, one of whom states that the laws of the country are irrelevant because they are not the laws of God.

In late April of 2004, a poster asks the forum members to share their impressions of what makes Canada unique. Nada's answer is straightforward.

"Who cares? We hate Canada."

[...]

Ms. Jamal's zealousness for homegrown Muslim causes is matched only by her rejection of just about everything Canadian. As the June, 2004 federal election draws near, she repeatedly advises Muslim youth to completely avoid the process. Voting, she tells them, inherently violates the sovereignty of God, making it the most egregious sin against Islam.

"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state?" she asks. "Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a Muslim?"

Ms. Jamal's list of forbidden institutions goes beyond politics. Banking, membership in the United Nations, women's rights and secular law are all aspects of Canadian society she finds unacceptable.
An interesting aspect of this is the story of one of the wives who essentially came from what could only be called a slightly religious family. Her father, putting it in percentages, said he and his wife were probably 30% religious while his daughter was 100%. Her radicalization obviously came about elsewhere. One would guess part of it had to do with the Internet community in which she participated.

The irony, of course, is the "filthy country" of Canada allowed her a level of freedom most likely unavailable to her had she lived under Muslim law in a Muslim country, given the present status of women.

Another of the women is a Canadian convert to Islam. She warns those on the forum about the possibility of Muslims being rounded up and put in internment camps like the Japanese were in WWII.

Do read the whole thing. As Captain Ed points out:
The portrait painted by the G&M are of an angry subculture that praises oppression and opposes the freedoms that they exploit to pursue their recruitment to jihad. It also paints them as rather naive and foolish; they obviously never considered the trail they left behind them of missives and screeds that support the image of militant jihadis. They may not mind that image, but their husbands will find it very inconvenient when they come to trial.
Indeed.

UPDATE: I found one of the four on a Google search. This is Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal who converted to Islam but is of Scottish descent. She goes by the user name of "UmmTayyab" ("Mother of Tayyab"). She discusses her Scottish lineage in answer to a message on one board (apparently their main board where they all usually hung out is undergoing "upgrade" and is unavailable).

In her answer she starts by claiming she's not a Canadian first and then goes to exremes to establish her "Canadianess" to another user:
No, I'm not a Canadian first. I am a MUSLIM first, and then a Scottish decendant, 7th generation Canadian. I can even name each of those ancestors who lived before me right back to Uig, on the Isle of Lewis, including the father and son who arrived aboard the Anne of Sheeles and landed in Pictou, Nova Scotia in 1812. So when did your family get here?

I once pinned a rose on the lapel of the then newly elected Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and I once represented the Canadian Military in a NATO Tattoo in Stutgaard, Germany as a drummer in the Lahr Drums and Pipes in a Massed Band along with the British Army's Gordon Highlanders. My grandmother co-designed the first Official Canadian Tartan, the Nova Scotia Tartan and registered it with Lord Lyons of Scotland. My grandfather fought as a Canadian Soldier in WW1, and was a Mountie during WW2... Shall I continue???
She then explains, in a second message, why Canada means nothing to her:
What you don't understand is that I put nothing above God. Sovernty lies in God, not the state, the country, the government, the constitution, the charter, nor the flag. So first and foremost, I am a Muslim, one who submits to the Will of God. God's law is supreme, not Canada's law. I submit myself to God, I do not swear allegiance to the flag. When you understand this, you will no longer need Canada to serve as your god.
Interesting stuff.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
But why do they hate us? Surely it’s our support of the "Zionists" or maybe our "stealing" of muslim oil, or perhaps our past support of the Shah of Iran and other dictators?
Voting, she tells them, inherently violates the sovereignty of God, making it the most egregious sin against Islam.

"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state?" she asks. "Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah?
Oh, I see.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
But do these wives represent the "Broad Strata" of Canadian society?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I hope every person on the anti-war left reads this. The most exasperating aspect of engaging the left is their total, blissful ignorance of their own ignorance and the pretense to knowledge that results. It’s stories like this that demonstrate that there are those in this world whom have their own values, their own belief systems and their own agency which haven’t the first thing to do with the left’s worldview and of which the left has no more capacity to understand than any other outsider. And I hope they notice that the thing these women most abhor is exactly that which permits western leftist to still refer to themselves as "liberals," and to this extent the war on terror is being fought as much or more in their existential behalf than that of anyone else.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Peter

I’m anti war and I read it.

I have listened to drunken right wing bigots talk about how much they hate this country ’cuz its run by niggas, jews, and spics. I read that one christian group wants its members all to move to South Caralina so they can make it the first Christian state.

My point is that hatred and intolerance are not just a radical muslim virture. Christians and jews do it too.

By the way security experts think we are losing the war on terror because of Iraq.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/29/20060629-A3-00.html
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
My point is that hatred and intolerance are not just a radical muslim virture.
Yup, there’s the fabled "moral equivalance" again....played like a get out of jail free card as usual
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
LOL, PROFOUNDLY, at cindyb. Is it just that you fail to realize that these islamofascist scumbags are killing people worldwide and are doing it on behalf of the founder of their religion? As opposed to the idiot christian bigot who is just that. A bigot, who happens to be Christian. I can honestly say, I just don’t understand people like cindyb. While absolutely knowing that the people she is upset about exist, I don’t see them murdering, in the name of their god, people across the globe. Ya see, cindyb, that’s the difference. Don’t ya think?
 
Written By: ThePolishNizel
URL: http://
Do you have a point that is in any way relevent to the discussion cindy? Other than sounding a lot like the "2nd grader defense" Oliver Willis used in the Stampede for the Gutter post?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
have listened to drunken right wing bigots talk about how much they hate this country ’cuz its run by niggas, jews, and spics. I read that one christian group wants its members all to move to South Caralina so they can make it the first Christian state.

My point is that hatred and intolerance are not just a radical muslim virture. Christians and jews do it too.
I think you are, technically this is true. BUT the charges others level against ring true as well. Yes there is a Klan, BUT the Klan didn’t fly airplanes into buildings on 9/11. Yes, there’s Fred Phelps, BUT he isn’t founding Madrassa’s around the world preachng Jihad. It seems that under the guise of a true statement you look for a moral equivalence, i.e., he said N*gger so that’s the same as.... Beheading Nick Berg. And it’s not. Not all acts are equally BAD, though they may all be judged bad.
By the way security experts think we are losing the war on terror because of Iraq.
Well SOME think we’re winning, because of Iraq....Certainly Iraq has been the graveyard of and sinkhole for many AQ Jihadis and Dollars. My question would be did these "experts" support the operations against the Taliban, to include their replacement or did they support law enforcement efforts and limited retaliatory strikes? Going to Expert motivation...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Peter Jackson writes:
And I hope they notice that the thing these women most abhor is exactly that which permits western leftist to still refer to themselves as "liberals," and to this extent the war on terror is being fought as much or more in their existential behalf than that of anyone else.
I strongly advocate closer scrutiny of any would-be immigrants or VISA-applicants who are Muslims. And they must be expected, if they want to be citizens, to assimilate to our political values as embodied in the BoR. Period. It isn’t because I like religious profiling that I advocate such scrutiny, it is simply that Scandinavian Lutherans aren’t rioting and killing over cartoons, Buddhists aren’t murdering "blasphemous" filmmakers, and Hassidim aren’t issuing bounties on the heads of Western novelists. And these other religionists also aren’t flying aircraft into this nation’s centers of commerce and military power.

That all said, I also do not, remotely, believe that the Islamic terrorists represent an "existential" threat in terms of their ability to kill enough of us to come close to destroying us, and am aware of little evidence that should cause me to believe otherwise. But, when Western media organs refuse to splash those Cartoons all over the TV and in every newspaper, when they cave to fear (of, say, a bomb going off at the CNN studios), they allow our speech rights to be eroded. True bravery would have been for all the American media to disseminate those things quite widely. I’m not even saying I’d have the strength to do it myself, just saying that would have been an impressive display of American "give me liberty or give me death" virtue.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mona:
That all said, I also do not, remotely, believe that the Islamic terrorists represent an "existential" threat in terms of their ability to kill enough of us to come close to destroying us,
OK
But, when Western media organs refuse to splash those Cartoons all over the TV and in every newspaper, when they cave to fear (of, say, a bomb going off at the CNN studios), they allow our speech rights to be eroded
The Roman Empire faced invasions of several hundred thousand barbarians, repeatedly. It fell to invasions of tens of thousands. Because Romans wouldn’t undertake those efforts necessary to defend the Empire. The barbarians ARE WINNING when CNN and Borders won’t publish these cartoons, out of fear. That IS an existential threat to the West.

We may be talking in agreement here, but IF CNN is frightened and won’t do it’s duty then the bad guys have won and the West is under threat, even if it’s not the threat that each and EVERY will be beheaded or car-bombed.

In the Empire example even after it fell for decades things went on "normally" for the citizens of Gaul...it wasn’t that the Visogoths or Huns slaughtered EVERYONE.

It’s when your society simply WON’T or can’t be bothered to oppose the new mode of thought that your society is doomed. Not every Inca or Aztec died under Pizarro or Cortes... they simply became Catholics and the thralls of the Spanish monarchy, they adapted to and adopted the alien philosophy and CEASED BEING Inca or Aztec, not that they CEASED BEING.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
We may be talking in agreement here, but IF CNN is frightened and won’t do it’s duty then the bad guys have won and the West is under threat, even if it’s not the threat that each and EVERY will be beheaded or car-bombed.
Hey they won’t publish cartoons, but I bet they would’ve run a story on top-secret intelligence gathering by the evil Bush administration.
What’s your problem? They’re defending our rights!(snark snark)
Serious question though - What does that say about who the media fears?.

As to McQ’s example woman - she sounds like someone from a Cromwellian army.
Fanatic.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Joe writes:
We may be talking in agreement here, but IF CNN is frightened and won’t do it’s duty then the bad guys have won and the West is under threat, even if it’s not the threat that each and EVERY will be beheaded or car-bombed.
They are terrorists, and terror is their only weapon; and that in turn reduces to the weapon being fear. They cannot do to us what the USSR could have done with thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at us, and they cannot behead, bomb or deploy sarin on more than a bare fraction of us or the rest of the West. But it is the fear of being a member of that fraction that gives them their power. It really began, in my view, with Salman Rushdie. What novelist since then, of any prominence, is going to "blaspheme" against Islam? There are not many corners of the world to retreat to where some jihadist or another with a knife or gun can’t find a person.

This is a terrible threat, but it is a different kind than we have faced before, and is not a conventional "war." There is no nation-state we can defeat to win it, and none to hoist the surrender flag.

The enemy is a malignant but diffuse strain of a world religion and its adherents. If Bush and the GOP Congress had called on every American to publish those Cartoons in whatever media they had access to — newspaper, TV station, blog or even yard sign — that would have been a truly American response. Violating congressional laws by bypassing the warrant requirements of FISA, isn’t.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
The enemy is a malignant but diffuse strain of a world religion and its adherents. If Bush and the GOP Congress had called on every American to publish those Cartoons in whatever media they had access to — newspaper, TV station, blog or even yard sign — that would have been a truly American response. Violating congressional laws by bypassing the warrant requirements of FISA, isn’t
So it’s Bush’s fault because.....I don’t even know why, this doesn’t make much sense.

If Bush had called on every American to publish the cartoons, what would’ve happened? The NYTimes would’ve gone along in a fit of patriotic fervor? The Upper West Side Liberals, the San Francisco Hippies, the Boston Elites- they would’ve gone along and shown the cartoons? CNN would’ve run with the images?

What the f*ck are you smoking?

Instead, we’d be hearing endless whining about how Bush was "imflamming the situation" how he was being so "insensitive" how he was being so "mean spirited" and so on and so forth, how showing those cartoons would "incite another attack" and of course, the old favorite "this is why they hate us"

So in your book:
1) Meaningless gesture Great
2) Useful countermeasure Not Great

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It really began, in my view, with Salman Rushdie. What novelist since then, of any prominence, is going to "blaspheme" against Islam? There are not many corners of the world to retreat to where some jihadist or another with a knife or gun can’t find a person.

Does anyone recall a guy name John Wilkes Boothe?
Lee Harvey Oswald?
Gavrilo Princip?
Michael Collins?
Anyone care to discuss the early explosive methods used by the Jews to drive the British from Palestine, or the techniques the Irish used to drive them from Dublin?

Quit pretending terror techniques, assassinations and bombings are something that came into play in the last 20 years.

What’s changed is the ability to be in Dar-al-salam early this morning (Dar-al-salam time), and to be in Washington DC late tonight (EST).

The ability to sit in a cave in the Hindu Kush and contact men in London, Cairo, Paris and Berkley and put them into motion in the next 5 minutes.
Virtually instant communication, rapid travel and a ’smaller world’, ’one world’ ’everybody is okay’ mindset are the real changes that enable terrorism to succeed in modern society.
Violating congressional laws by bypassing the warrant requirements of FISA, isn’t.
It used to be a lot easier to get inside the command loop of the bad guys, they were geographically restricted because of their language, education and apperance. Now they get global financing, and use our travel and communications infrastructure against us.

But by all means, restrict the government, particularly because you hate George Bush, from trying to get the information they need to do the job you’ll demand they do. After all, your ’digital privacy’ is protected somewhere in the shadows of the Constitution, even though you’re using an essentially public service to move your information and make your calls.

The government is supposed to ’intuit’ all the necessary bad guy information without benefit of being able to do detective work, the difficult, connect the dots, plodding grunt work that gathers clues that point to danger. Especially if it’s George Bush’s evil empire government (which isn’t MY government, no no no, MY government asks me politely and would just get all this stuff right without having to go over mounds and mounds of information, they’d just know you see! Whereas George Bush’s government is listenin in on my personal calls to my Auntie Maybeth, because they’re so interesting you know.)

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Mona,

Once again you are arguing against a point not made in Peter or Joe’s case, though maybe they are in favor of the NSA program. The argument they are making is

1) against the idea that the reasons Islamists are attacking us have to do with all the many issues leftists and liberals feel they should have wth us. They ignore the real reasons Islamists want to attack us and so their solutions are not only ineffectual, but are likely to make things even worse. I am not saying Bush’s solution doesn’t suffer from the same flaws, but that is the argument they are making. Also, because you often respond with this kind of tack, I don’t need you to tell me you don’t fall under their criticism or that many liberals don’t (Eric Martin or Praktike being two good examples.) Peter already knows that.

2) That there is an existential threat. You make the standard argument that they are not an existential threat (and by the way, are you saying by throwing in that the wiretapping is wrong in this case without being prompted that all these policies might be justified if they were an existential threat in your mind?) but you miss the point. Of course they cannot do to us what the Soviets theoretically could do. However, as a pratical matter they may be far more deadly. The Soviets had a state they could preserve, at this point AQ and their various progeny and fellow travelers do not. They therefore may be far more likely to launch a devastating attack upon our shores which could kill tens of thousand, if not millions. As was pointed out above, attacks like those combined with the likely response on our part would end our lives as we know them as long as that threat was manifestly real. That is existential enough for me.

In addition, I find it awfully ahistorical the idea that these various fascist strands, whether AQ, the Baathists or others cannot be equated with the Soviet Union as a threat. They certainly seem far more threatening than Lenin and Stalin pre 1917, not only in the likelihood that they might actually achieve a large fascist empire some day, whether Islamist or Baathist, but that they have a legitimate capability of inflicting serious damage upon us. The same could be said of Mussolini in the twenties, who ruled a state no more powerful at that point than Iraq or Syria. Or Hitler early on, or the two combined in 1937. Is that likely? Of course not, but the eventual threat of the Soviet Union, Germany or Italy would have seemed unlikley then as well. The reason any of these groups or movements are unlikely to become a large threatening state is we are unlikely to allow it to happen, unlike in those previous instances. That, of course, implies resistance.

If you, as I do, believe that these movements without resistance on our part would continue to have grown in power then one must assume we would have had to at some point had to resist. I assume it would be long before they were an actual threat to, say, invade Europe? If so, we would be in much the same situation we are now, but having to face a much more powerful foe and over a much larger swath of territory. We would certainly crush them, but that is the point, Peter and I believe that the conflict is inevitable and the threat is existential. Not today, that is why it is a threat. The Soviet Union was only a threat because they were worried about their own survival. If they had not been it would have been a promise, we would have mostly died. What we are fighting now is a threat which left to its own devices will eventually be an immediate threat to our very lives and certainly to the existence we have enjoyed up to this point on a scale very comparable to the Soviet Union or the Axis powers. The question is at what point to intercede forcefully? We choose now. Right now they are relatively weak, though incredibly dangerous. We don’t believe they are likely to stay that way forever.

Of course we may be wrong. Unimpeded by us except by tightening our borders and various law enforcement activities they may dissipate with time. I don’t think so, and I am not willing to take that chance. What I am sure of is the idea that they are not an existential threat over the long term is ludicrous. Thay may fail, but they are certainly a threat. History shows us time and again what a committed band of revolutionaries can do and the unexpected heights they can reach. This bunch won’t get close, though they have already killed millions, far more than Hitler, but that is because I believe we won’t allow it, not because they can’t.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Mona,

I would also like to repond to Looker’s comment. I am quite unsure how I think we should react to the intiatives looker defends. However, he has a very good point. If we are not to use military force to combat the Baathists and other forces who are using terror against us, exactly how is our government to do so?

I also find it astonishingly silly where we are drawing the line. You and others are obviously exercised about the government combing over phone and financial records. Okay, those bother me as well. Yet I am not exercised about it. Why? If I got exercised over intrusions like that in general, as opposed to only when they are perpetrated by this adminstration, then I would have already died from stress and disappointment. If the reporting on these two programs is to be believed then they would be far down the list of government intrusions I would want to eliminate. I’ll bring up one program. My yearly taxes. Think of the enormous invasion of my privacy every time I fill out my taxes. I have exceeded the various programs we have had revealed to us in its level of intrusion before I even start entering in any financial data. By the time I am finshed I promise you, if I could give the government my phone records in exchange for not having to disclose everything I do on that single document, then I would do it in a heartbeat. I can list hundreds of uncontroversial ways the government does more than these programs if I wanted, but I think the point is made.

Go ahead and fight these programs, I understand. I just don’t get why you have so much venom for Bush and others for defending them while you hang out with Kos and friends who have supported these and want more even more significant invasions to accomplish their goals. It isn’t your venom towards Bush and conservatives that confounds me, it is the lack of it towards people who have supported worse, but we have just grown used to it because they have been so successful for so long.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
During the 2000 Census, I got the ’long form’. Since I was prepared to suffer the consequences of not answering it (the fine) I didn’t respond. (Actually I got it in two places because I was working out of town all week, and only home on weekends).

Well, eventually they sent someone out to ’help me’ fill out the forms. They came to the house, sat at my dining table, and asked me if I had flush toilets and etc.

Mona, you’ll pardon me if I don’t worry about them overhearing my calls to tell my wife I’m on my way home from work, and watching my money move as they have been doing since 1970.

I’m not totally defending all their programs, but you know, at this point in time, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If we were in Ronald Reagans 80’s I’d be more inclined to pitch a fit. But 9/11 changed a lot for me.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Lance writes:
Mona,

Once again you are arguing against a point not made in Peter or Joe’s case, though maybe they are in favor of the NSA program.
I’m not responding merely to Peter and Joe.

looker wrote this:
Hey they won’t publish cartoons, but I bet they would’ve run a story on top-secret intelligence gathering by the evil Bush administration.

AFTER WHICH
I observed that:
Violating congressional laws by bypassing the warrant requirements of FISA, isn’t [American].
Lance also writes:
You and others are obviously exercised about the government combing over phone and financial records. Okay, those bother me as well. Yet I am not exercised about it. Why? If I got exercised over intrusions like that in general, as opposed to only when they are perpetrated by this administration, then I would have already died from stress and disappointment.
Myriad are the times I’ve made this point, but let me say it again— I do not have any, zero, zip, nada objections to the NSA intercepting telephone calls as it is described to be doing, as an operational matter — I actively WANT it to do that. But I ardently advocate that it done with the warrants and the judicial oversight that the law mandates. Islamic terrorists are going to be a serious problem for decades, and in the meantime we will have Republican and Democratic presidents, human beings all, whom Congress has for 30+ years sought to keep honest by means of statutorily required judicial review in a secret court. Supporting the suspension of the rule of law for the decades that administrations of both parties will be in power is surpassing, utter folly.

As for whoever suggested that I imply terrorism is only 20 years old, get real. The Islamic problem is not akin to the issue the British had with the IRA or any other of the cited examples. Beginning with Salman Rushdie, and vividly illustrated by the Western media’s largely falling into craven compliance wrt The Cartoons, it is clear that the significant pockets of Islamic jihadists who are willing to riot, murder, and threaten murder are pervasively spread throughout the West and Asia. There are few safe places in which one can "offend" Islamicist sensibilities, because the ideology is even taking root in freakin’ Canada.

In the history of the U.S. and the Western world at large in modern times, this is novel. A theocratic, violent ideology is controlling, via fear, what our artists, writers and journalists are willing to publish. Removing the Taliban (while wholly justified) didn’t stop that. Removing Saddam hasn’t. Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to manufacture Islamic jihadists, and they grow domestically now in Europe, Canada and even in the U.S. (John Walker Lindh).

Fighting nation states will not end this new menace, tho it may sometimes be in order, and I believe it was vis-a-vis Afghanistan. It is true, I completely agree, that the West has been way too tolerant of welcoming those who espouse ideologies that are a threat to our way of life, and I reject these excesses of multi-cultural "tolerance." But that underscores that the problem is not primarily a military one, it is a cultural pathology.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to make her sequel to the Submission film in secret locations under rigid security, presumably in the Netherlands. Wherever, it was done of necessity secretly in Europe almost certainly; it is unlikely many if any Western venues will actually dare to air the finished product. Deposing Baathists in Iraq isn’t going to fix that problem.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I have been participating in internet discussion forums such as this one for several years now, and it seems to me that every time the topic turns to jihadism someone will rise up to demand that we "address the root causes" of jihadist terrorism.

When pressed to descibe these "root causes", though, the people who want them addressed rarely answer in terms of the history or ideology of the jihadists themselves. Instead, they invariably project their own (usually Left-wing) critique of US foreign policy onto the jihadists, so that every terrorist atrocity is a vindication of the Left’s criticisms, and "addressing the root causes" translates into adopting the Left’s foreign policy agenda.

The profile of "Ms. Jamal" in The Globe and Mail reminds me of a profile of the Bali bombers that appeared in the Times of London (as reported in the Los Angeles Times on 5/14/03):
Amrozi and two other Bali bomb suspects were quoted by the Times of London this week as saying that they had no remorse for the bombing and that they expected to be executed by firing squad.

Amrozi’s brother Ali Imron, one of the alleged conspirators, told the newspaper that they attacked the Sari Club — the nightclub where most of the victims died — because it was an immoral place.

"In short, it was a place of sin, so it deserved to be demolished," the Sunday article quoted him as saying.

The men said their goal was to kill Americans, but they apparently could not tell Americans from Australians. The dead included 89 Australians and seven Americans.

"Australians, Americans, whatever — they are all white people," Ali Imron told the newspaper."
It is very educational to hear the jihadists speak for themselves.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Mona writes :
This is a terrible threat, but it is a different kind than we have faced before, and is not a conventional "war." There is no nation-state we can defeat to win it, and none to hoist the surrender flag.
These ladies, these terrorists believe that Islamic law is supreme. That a book written second or third hand hundreds of years ago is the supreme arbitar of how we should live. This is called Fundamentalist Islam. It is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran. These nation states fund the fundamentalist Islam in many other countries including Canada. If these nation-states were defeated then the problem would go away. This is an external threat solvable by military action.
...underscores that the problem is not primarily a military one, it is a cultural pathology.
Tarring over a billion people as probable terrorists, suffering from a pathological culture that causes them to want to kill. Stating that they should all be discriminated against because a fringe group of nut jobs within their religion.

Cindyb said:
I have listened to drunken right wing bigots talk about how much they hate this country ’cuz its run by niggas, jews, and spics. I read that one christian group wants its members all to move to South Caralina so they can make it the first Christian state.

My point is that hatred and intolerance are not just a radical muslim virture. Christians and jews do it too.
Christianity will be next on Mona’s watch list of thoughts to be discriminated against? Where do we stop?

Gifting the state power to make a judgement call on what we can and cannot believe in is a VERY BAD THING.

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
This is called Fundamentalist Islam. It is practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran.


Most Muslims are fundamentalists. The jihadists, or Islamists, are a small cult-like sect of fanatics operating within the larger culture of Islamic fundamentalism:

Islamic scholar Malise Ruthven, A FURY FOR GOD: THE ISLAMIST ATTACK ON AMERICA (Granta books, 2002):
What distinguishes [Islamists] from other Muslims is radicalism, rather than piety. In this respect the word ’fundamentalist’, adopted from American Protestantism, is a misnomer. With few exceptions (for examaple, anti-abortion activists who assassinate doctors performing abortions) American fundamentalists are law-abiding, political conservativeswho use their voting power - in elections or in local community structures such as school boards - to express their religiously based concerns. Most are biblical literalists insisting, for example, that the account of creation in the Book of Genesis is scientifically true, that Adam and Eve were real people and that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead.

Many Muslims - indeed the vast majority - share such ’fundamentalist’ attitudes in so far as they believe the Quran to be the unmediated word of God dictated to Muhammed, without human editing. The Islamists, however, go much further than their American counterparts in defending their literalist positions.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
In the history of the U.S. and the Western world at large in modern times, this is novel. A theocratic, violent ideology is controlling, via fear, what our artists, writers and journalists are willing to publish. Removing the Taliban (while wholly justified) didn’t stop that. Removing Saddam hasn’t. Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to manufacture Islamic jihadists, and they grow domestically now in Europe, Canada and even in the U.S. (John Walker Lindh).
Iraq and Afghanistan were but 2 of the first steps in a long process (a process which has seen ripples and rumbles in Lybia, Lebanon and Egypt)

You’re so f*cking defeatist. What is your plan?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I have listened to drunken right wing bigots talk about how much they hate this country ’cuz its run by niggas, jews, and spics. I read that one christian group wants its members all to move to South Caralina so they can make it the first Christian state.

My point is that hatred and intolerance are not just a radical muslim virture. Christians and jews do it too.
cindyb
Ahhhhh, moral equivalency! The Lefty Bastion.

As we all know, Jews are noted head-choppers, just like the radical Islamists. Westerner’s famous battle cry is "Death in the Name of Jesus, the Most Merciful and Compassionate.

Oh, it isn’t?
And Jews aren’t head-choppers?

The typical Lefty then goes..................weeeeelllllllll, a thousand years ago maybe they were. And Jews must be collectively guilty of some grave, ancient crime that puts them on a par with bin Laden today.

No, in fact it’s wrong to say the sins of the father are justly passed on to the son, let alone "crimes" that happened 40 to 100 generations ago.
Typical Lefty - But...but...What about Timothy McVeigh?? He was a Christian which proved Christians are as prone to terror as radical Islamists. We are morally the same!!
Islamists kill in the name of Islam, smiting infidels a pass to Paradise. We determined that McVeigh did not kill other Christians to advance Christianity, but for political reasons. Same as Lee Harvey Oswald was a Fidel-loving, Far-Left Communist who happened to be good shot, but we determined the fact that he was white and communist and a screaming Lefty Democrat had no bearing on his killing JFK...to advance white people or serve the spread of global communism.

No moral equivalency whatsoever.

Get back to me when Jews begin flying planes into skyscrapers or when you wish to alert me, after Muslim nations invite millions of Christians to come live in their nations in full tolerance —-that the Christians have formed hundreds of terror cells, are responsible for half the crime in Muslim countries, and have done thousands of gang-rape pack attacks on "Muslim sluts that give us release" because our Christian women are too pure to defile so..

Ms. Farooq’s hatred for the country is palpable. She hardly ever calls Canada by its name, rather repeatedly referring to it as "this filthy country." It’s a sentiment shared by many of her friends, one of whom states that the laws of the country are irrelevant because they are not the laws of God.

Islamic terrorists are just the tip of the spear. They count on a much larger number of Muslims that support them, agree with them, urge them onwards, celebrate their butchery, and who will mourn them as public heroes if they martyr themselves in Jihad. In Saudi and Palestinian towns, suicide bombers are beloved as Shaheeds, and in death are the Islamic celebrity version of American baseball or movie stars.

Ms. Farooq is a reminder that it takes a village to raise an Islamic terrorist.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Aldo I think that is kind of disingeneous. Islam has at its fundamentalist core the neccessity to wage holy war against non-muslims.

 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Aldo I think that is kind of disingeneous. Islam has at its fundamentalist core the neccessity to wage holy war against non-muslims.



Since even religious scholars cannot seem to agree on the "core" meaning of Islam, you and I are not likely to settle the matter. We might as well argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Fortunately for us, the vast majority of the billion-and-change Muslims in the world do not seem to agree with you that waging war against non-Muslims is a religious "necessity" for them.

The ones who do believe that religious war is a necessity are more usefully viewed as cultists, in my opinion, than mainstream Muslims. Since they come from Muslim cultures, these particular cultists have developed a cult around Islam, but the important factor is their own psychology, not the tents of Islam
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Mona,
Myriad are the times I’ve made this point, but let me say it again— I do not have any, zero, zip, nada objections to the NSA intercepting telephone calls as it is described to be doing, as an operational matter — I actively WANT it to do that. But I ardently advocate that it done with the warrants and the judicial oversight that the law mandates. Islamic terrorists are going to be a serious problem for decades, and in the meantime we will have Republican and Democratic presidents, human beings all, whom Congress has for 30+ years sought to keep honest by means of statutorily required judicial review in a secret court. Supporting the suspension of the rule of law for the decades that administrations of both parties will be in power is surpassing, utter folly.
NOT MY POINT! Please read! I said I don’t like that either. My problem isn’t that I believe you are wrong on the issue, I don’t, I just cannot figure out why this is what bothers you so much and leads you to act as if this administration is so unique, or that it justifies hanging out with people who advocate far more intrusive things. You defend Kos and others while leveling rhetoric at Bush and his supporters which makes it sound as if what he is doing is uniquely awful. It isn’t, it is generically awful. In much more difficult circumstances he has done far less than many other Presidents (if not on these specific issues) over these last 30-50 years to curtail our liberties or privacy and with a much better excuse. You hang out with people who deify Roosevelt who did much more and virtually ignored the legal process on a regular basis. Yet your rhetoric about Bush at times borders on the apocalyptic and allows you to defend Kos? Please. I am not questioning your commitment to defeating the terrorists, though we may disagree about the means. I question your rhetoric and the excuses you make for others.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
We might as well argue over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
What would decide it without dipping into theology is to know where their money comes from. Apparently it has been under investigation for the past few years with a program that has convicted 2 recipients, so presumably the program has traced back to source. Really keen to find out where the cash comes from.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I was questioning the utility of insisting that the billion-plus Muslims who are NOT at war with us really OUGHT to be if only they understood their religion correctly.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Good point. I also hope it is not the case, but the utility value of my (or any westerner) telling them how to practice their faith is nil. If however this worst case is true then it will require religious reform, which cannot be achieved from the outside (cannot be achieved by us).

Best approach is to attack the problem in a way that negates the religion (what the religion actually says does not matter), thus forming a less religious, more compatible society. For this I advocate the devils approach - lead them away from their religion by offering temptation and suffering. Suffering can be provided kicking over islamist regimes and temptation by the fruits of the tree of capitalism (success, wealth, greed, covetnous). I advocate this solely on the basis that it is known to work so damm well.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider