War on Terror

Posts filed under War on Terror

Institutionalized Islam is Neither a Religion Nor Peaceful

Filed in Politics, ReligionTags: War on Terror

Salim Mansur, a Muslim, writes this article in response to a call for apology from Muslims, by fellow Toronto Sun writer Michael Coren.

From the earliest years of post-Prophetic Islam, Muslims holding the power of the sword and what constitutes the authoritative meaning of the Koran and the prophet's traditions, have rigged the boundaries of institutionalized Islam. The wielders of the sword and interpreters of faith have worked in tandem to impose their consensus on all Muslims, and those who have questioned their authority have paid a steep price.

Yet we must still tolerate the ad nauseum recitations that Islam is a "Religon of Peace" - even amid all of the threats and acts of violence against so much as mere words that the supposedly "peaceful" practicioners of Islam find offensive?

This institutionalized reality of Islam and its resulting complexity are not well understood by non-Muslims. Institutionalized Islam is represented by Muslim majority states and their political and religious leaders who share a consensus on matters of politics and faith.

What is to be understood or misunderstood? The reasons why fascists are fascist, and their means of enforcing their fascism, are entirely irrelevant. Only the will and means to defeat them bears any importance. We do not care to understand Muslim fascists; we only care to defeat those who would murder innocents and attempt to impose their will by force on otherwise free society.

Below institutionalized Islam's scrutiny exists a vast unaccounted number of Muslims who seek anonymity to escape the coercive notice of authorities in mosques and in presidential or monarchical palaces. Their voices, were they heard, would be rudely dismissed as heretical.

And it is the embodiment of those voices that must rise up, unite, and overthrow the fascists from within, before your religion will ever have any chance of respect from and peaceful co-existence with the free world.

From its beginnings, institutionalized Islam's representatives hollowed out the spiritual content of Islam in the service of political expediency. The inevitable followed -- politics dressed in the robes of religion.

In other words, Islam is nothing more than fascist socio-political ideology disguised as religion. Given that the modus operandi of Islam has not changed since the days of Mohammad, we have no reason to believe that Islam has ever been otherwise.

The faces of institutionalized Islam -- political leaders such as Egypt's Hosni Mubarak or religious leaders such as Lebanon's Hasan Nasrallah -- are revealing of what politics have done to faith.

Islam has never been a religion of faith. Righteousness by works is, by definition, in opposition to righteousness by faith. This truth sets Christianity apart as unique from all other religion, in that it is only by the interceding work of God Himself, to take on the sin of the world, in order to redeem mankind to Himself, that man is saved from sin and reconciled into right relationship with God. Nothing man does can save himself, apart from faith in the redemptive work of his Savior God. No component of Islam in any way resembles this doctrine.

The doctrine of faith is tied immutably with grace, and its adherents are compelled by nothing other than love to spread this doctrine to others. Islam is a doctrine of works, and its adherents are compelled by their desire to accomplish their own righteousness through the conversion of as many as possible. This desire leads naturally to the use of force and jihad as a means to add to one's "good works".

Politics have not perverted Islam; fascist political ideology is the natural progression of the religious ideology itself.

Within the Arab Sunni world the Egyptian-born Sheikh Qaradawi, 80, of Qatar, is the face of institutionalized Islam. He is the closest to what might pass for a titular head of Muslims akin to the Pope. Qaradawi's words, now broadcast by television network al-Jazeerah, are taken as authoritative pronouncements of Islam. He is the "spiritual" leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a movement formed to repudiate freedom and democracy, and a defender of Islam's war against the West by any means, including suicide bombings.

If "authoritative pronouncements of Islam" include the repudiation of freedom and democracy, war against opposing culture, and suicide bombings, then Islam has no claim whatsoever as a "religion of peace".

For such representatives of institutionalized Islam, all things are political. They are the authoritative guardians of the ideology that in Islam religion and politics are inseparable, and jihad -- holy war -- is its defining aspect.

War is the "defining aspect" of the self-proclaimed "religion of peace"?

Hence, since this institutionalized Islam is at war with the West, for Coren or anyone else to expect an apology from its generals is rather naive.

Thank you, Salim, for proving the point: Islam is at war with western civilization, and as such it is not a "religion of peace" but rather a fascist political movement under the guise of religion. Islam, as you indicate, does not have "titular religious heads", but rather, "field generals" bent on the destruction of freedom and democracy - again, by your own admission. Certainly, those bent on our destruction are not wont to apologize for attempting to carry out that end. Therefore, we are fully within reasonable right to hunt down and destroy every arm of this fascist movement.

Via Lucianne.

Plame-Gate: Flame-Out

Filed in PoliticsTags: Media Bias, Republicans, War on Terror

I told you so.

Christopher Hitchens lays it out.

Plame-Gate, Part I: The Joe Wilson Niger Affair:

I have now presented thousands of words of evidence and argument to the effect that, yes, the Saddam Hussein regime did send an important Iraqi nuclear diplomat to Niger in early 1999. And I have not so far received any rebuttal from any source on this crucial point of contention.

Plame-Gate, Part II: The "Outing" of Valerie Plame:

But there was always another layer to the Joseph Wilson fantasy. Easy enough as it was to prove that he had completely missed the West African evidence that was staring him in the face, there remained the charge that his nonreport on a real threat had led to a government-sponsored vendetta against him and his wife, Valerie Plame.

In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not the other way around. But now we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has—like Robert Novak's—long been a byword in Washington. It is particularly satisfying that this admission comes from two of the journalists—Michael Isikoff and David Corn—who did the most to get the story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long beyond the span of its natural life.

And the conclusion:

The answer to that question (of whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had been broken), as Patrick Fitzgerald has since determined, is "no." But there were plenty of senior people who had known that all along. And can one imagine anybody with a stronger motive to change the subject from CIA incompetence and to present a widely discredited agency as, instead, a victim, than Tenet himself? The man who kept the knowledge of the Minnesota flight schools to himself and who was facing every kind of investigation and obloquy finally saw a chance to change the subject. If there is any "irony" in the absurd and expensive and pointless brouhaha that followed, it is that he was abetted in this by so many who consider themselves "radical."

Checkmate.

(Hat tip: Lucianne)

Missile Strike Kills Zarqawi in Iraq

Filed in PoliticsTags: Military, War on Terror

One less terrorist mastermind:

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings whose leadership of the insurgent group al- Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in the country, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday.

...

Zarqawi, a Sunni, was killed along with seven aides, officials said.

...

Zarqawi was killed in a rural house in the village of Hib Hib, about 55 miles northwest of Baqhdad, Maliki said.

"Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting . . . when the air strike was launched," [U.S. General George W.] Casey said.

He said Zarqawi's identify was confirmed by "fingerprint verification, facial recognition and known scars."

Via RedState.com.

More here, here, here, here, here, here, and of course, Ask The Cats.

Domestic: The New International

Filed in PoliticsTags: Media Bias, War on Terror

Spying. Eavesdropping. Surveillance. Warrantless Searches. What do all these terms have in common? The MSM continually insist on describing these activities, with respect to the much-aligned NSA program of intercepting calls originating outside the US by known al qaeda aperatives, as being "domestic" - every single time. When challenged about this terminology, the MSM seems confused as to why calls from one country to another are "international":

Q Back to the NSA. The White House last night put out paper backing up its claims that this was a terrorist surveillance program, saying the charges of domestic spying — you defined what “domestic” meant. Isn’t one end of that phone call on domestic soil? Why is the charge of it being domestic spying so far off?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the same reasons that a phone call from someone inside the United States to someone outside the United States is not a domestic call. If you look at how that is billed on your phone records, it’s billed as an international call, it is charged the international rate. And so that’s the best way to sum that up. Because one communication within this surveillance has to be outside of the United States. That means it’s an international communication, for the very reason I just said.

(Emphasis added by source)

(HT: Allman's Electric Stove)

For the terminologically challenged, I offer the following entries from dictionary.com:

do·mes·tic
adj.

  1. Of or relating to the family or household: domestic chores.
  2. Fond of home life and household affairs.
  3. Tame or domesticated. Used of animals.
  4. Of or relating to a country's internal affairs: domestic issues such as tax rates and highway construction.
  5. Produced in or indigenous to a particular country: domestic oil; domestic wine.

in·ter·na·tion·al
adj.

  1. Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations: an international commission; international affairs.
  2. Extending across or transcending national boundaries: international fame.

Oh, but let's get back to the exchange, shall we?

Q Right. But one of the people being eavesdropped on is on domestic soil.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it leaves an inaccurate impression with the American people to say that this is domestic spying.

Q Why is that inaccurate?

MR. McCLELLAN: For the reasons that General Hayden has said, for the reasons that others have said within the administration, and for the example I just provided to you. You don’t call a flight from New York to somewhere in Afghanistan, a domestic flight. It’s called an international flight.

Q Right, but –

Right, but... you're either an idiot, delusional, or intentionally trying to mislead.

I take that back; I'm guessing you're all three.

Starting to Sound Plausible

Filed in PoliticsTags: War on Terror

Reports of Al Zawahiri's demise might actually be true, and they're doing forensic tests:

Eighteen people were killed, according to the villagers who said women and children were among the fatalities.

But Pakistani officials tell ABC News that five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures, and their bodies are now undergoing forensic tests for positive identification.

Officials say Zawahiri was known to have used safe houses in this area last winter and was believed to be in the area again this winter.

The 'sphere has been all abuzz with the initial reports, but I'll wait for the forensic evicence to come back before I get too hopeful...

Nice

Filed in PoliticsTags: Humor/Satire, War on Terror

From the Media Research Center, Letterman does Saddam:

From the June 22 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Reasons Saddam Hussein Loves Doritos." Late Show home page: www.cbs.com:

10. Three-cornered chips remind him of the Sunni Triangle

9. Chemical Ali taught him how to convert the spicy powder into a nerve agent

8. The "crunch" sounds like the breaking of a dissident's bones

7. Pringles are for Kurds

6. They are corn chips of mass deliciousness

5. Goes perfectly with a tall glass of camel milk

4. Endorsed by his favorite late night television host, Al-Asaad Muhammed Leno

3. "Cool ranch" flavor is a preview of the paradise that awaits a martyr

2. When beard is full of orange crumbs, he can do hilarious "Yosemite Saddam"

1. Delicious taste allows him to momentarily forget he'll spend eternity in Hell

Ann Unleashed

Filed in PoliticsTags: Military, War on Terror

Dear Lord, thank you for giving us the World According to Ann. In her latest take-down of the Lunacy of the Left, Ann Coulter takes down the ridiculous Gitmo rhetoric:

In the interests of helping my country, I have devised a compact set of torture guidelines for Guantanamo.

It's not torture if:

  • The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
  • Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
  • You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
  • Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
  • It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
  • It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.

This piece is Ann at her finest; best column in weeks. Perhaps one of her best two-liners:

Others claimed they were forced into uncomfortable, unnatural positions, sort of like the Democrats' position on abortion. Next, the interrogators will be threatening to slightly undercook the Lemon Chicken!

I have to thank my mom for introducing me to Ann's columns a few years ago. What a perfect ending to a Wednesday.

The Responses of Civilized Society

Filed in Religion, Social IssuesTags: War on Terror

Unlike the completely alleged, never-substantiated, and since-retracted Newsweek story, much religiously motivated desecration takes place in the world. Not surprisingly, the vast majority is perpetrated by extremist Muslims. (Referenced in the articles linked: desecration of Joseph's tomb and the murder of a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah, a Jewish cemetary on the Mount of Olives, the Jewish religious school at the Shalom al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho, the Christian Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine, Sinead O'Connor ripping up a photograph of Pope John Paul II during a Saturday Night Live appearance, and the destruction of two priceless, 1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.) How do Jews, Christians, and people of other faiths respond?

CNSNews reports that the usual response is not outraged violence, but grief:

"No one has ever been killed [over a desecration]," Rosenblum said. "There have been desecrations here in shuls [synagogues]," he said. "It provoked rending of garments."

And what of the Christian response?

Christian places have also been desecrated. The most prominent example was the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, seized and held by Palestinian militants for more than a month. The church is built over the grotto where many Christians believe Jesus was born.

During the 39-day siege, in which the militants held clergy captive, militants reportedly urinated on the floor, used pages of the Bible as toilet paper and stole all the gold and other religious ornaments they could find.

When the militants left, the Christian response was to clean the place in time for Sunday Mass.

Columnist Jeff Jacoby explains why Islam is disrespected in a Boston Herald column today. While Muslim nations rage, civilized society reacts to similar (and much worse) treatment without resorting to violence:

Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never occurred.

Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain.

Of course, I find it completely hypocritical that a society that encourages "honor" killings of rape victims - not to mention all the other myriad human-rights violations of Muslim women - claims to value a mere book so highly.

And let us not forget: the one documented incident of Qa'ran desecration at Gitmo was perpetrated by... a Muslim prisoner:

Other Pentagon officials said the only person who had desecrated the Koran at Guantanamo Bay was a detainee who ripped pages from the Muslim holy book and used them to plug a toilet as a way to protest his detention.

Operation: Matador

Filed in MiscellaneousTags: Military, War on Terror

Lots of news throughout the 'sphere detailing Operation Matador:

Belmont Club's coverage:
-Battle on the Syrian Border
-Hearts and Minds
The Fourth Rail's coverage:
-Bringing It On
-The Matador's Sword
-Foreign Elements
-Grist For The Mill
Roundup from Winds of Change
The Adventures of Chester:
-Live Blogging Marine Operations on Syrian Border
-Snap Reactions
-Matador Updates
-Narrative Summary and Map
-Noon Wednesday Updates
One Hand Clapping:
-Big Operation Underway in Iraq

DOD News Briefing Transcript

More Reuters Bush Bashing

Filed in PoliticsTags: Media Bias, War on Terror

Vyvoda asks what "Bush supporters" have to say about this Reuters article, which in typical roto-Reuters fashion is headlined World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count:

The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate on whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said on Tuesday.

The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed on the numbers by State Department and intelligence officials on Monday.

Sounds pretty bad for the Bush Doctrine, and the Global War on Terror, no? Oh, but wait; let's dig a bit deeper, shall we? Elsewhere in the article, we find:

Waxman's letter said that of the about 650 significant attacks last year, about 300 reflected violence in India and Pakistan, leaving some 350 attacks elsewhere in the world -- double the total 2003 count.

He suggested this reflected enhanced U.S. efforts to monitor media reports of violence, thereby leading to the identification of "many more attacks in India and Pakistan related to Kashmir."

Okay, stop right here. Which is it? Terrorist attacks tripled, or we just weren't counting them in the first place? Is it even plausible that the number of terrorist attacks in Kashmir alone is double the total number of terrorist attacks in the entire world just a year prior? Obviously, this year's count reflects better information/intelligence gathering with respect to world terror. So, this story is really a non-story, right? Oh, no - Reuters can't end it without letting some Democrat hack take a cheap shot at Bush:

"What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven't been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed 80 percent of the world's terrorist incidents" in past years, said a Democratic congressional aide. "How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?"

So, it's Bush's fault! Of course! But, wait; a little earlier in the article we read:

It later said the number killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist attacks -- those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things -- rose to a 20-year high of 175.

(Emphasis added)

So what's the implication? Roto-reuters would have you believe 1) Bush's counterterrorism policy has been an abject failure due to its inability to count terrorist attacks accurately, and 2) Bush's counterterrorism policy has been an abject failure due to its inability to prevent terrorism from spiraling to more than three times its 20 year high.

So what's the truth?

Congressional aides said about 10 full-time employees worked on the 2004 count, up from about three in past years, and that this produced a more complete count.

So, Bush put together the Department of Homeland Security, has made a good-faith effort to enact intelligence changes proposed by Congress, and is generally putting significantly more resources into HumInt than previous administrations ("previous administrations", referring directly to Clinton, is the correct translation of Reuters' misleading "past years") - and Roto-reuters manages to blame him at every turn.

A better analysis of this information is that world terrorism was higher all along, and the Bush administration should be praised for dedicating the manpower to track and count terrorist acts more accurately and completely.