Sleeper Cells May Not Be The Problem
Two interesting commentaries appeared today in the July 15, 2005 edition of the Washington Post, here and here.
A few excerpts from the first commentary "Europe's Native-Born Enemy," written by Charles Krauthammer:
"...The fact that native-born Muslim Europeans are committing terrorist acts in their own countries shows that this Islamist malignancy long predates Iraq, long predates Afghanistan and long predates Sept. 11, 2001. What Europe had incubated is an enemy within, a threat that for decades Europe simply refused to face....
"...One of the reasons Westerners were so unprepared for this wave of Islamist terrorism, not just militarily but psychologically, is sheer disbelief. It shockingly contradicts Western notions of progress. The savagery of Bouyeri's act [Bouyeri was the slayer of Theo van Gogh], mirroring the ritual human slaughter by Abu Musab Zarqawi or Daniel Pearl's beheaders, is a return to a primitiveness that we in the West had assumed a progressive history had left behind.
"Our first response was, therefore, to simply sweep this contradiction under the rug. Put the first World Trade Center bombers on trial and think it will solve the problem. Even today there are many Americans and even more Europeans who believe that after Sept. 11 the United States should just have done Afghanistan depose the Taliban and destroy al Qaeda's sanctuary -- and gone no further, thinking that would solve the problem...."
In his commentary "From Average Joe to Jihadist," Eugene Robinson writes the following:
"...What's so chilling is that you can't really call these men a terrorist 'sleeper cell.' They were home-grown: the maniacs next door.
"Something changed these ordinary men, and I'd sure like to know what that was. In retrospect, friends told reporters, they had become more religious in recent months...What made these men so receptive?..."
Both Krauthammer and Robinson make the point that most Muslims are not followers of radical Islam. On its face, that point may be true. But Krauthammer asks two important questions:
"Where are the fatwas issued against Osama bin Laden? Where are the denunciations of the very idea of suicide bombing?"
In a previous news article in the Washington Post is the following:
"...Shamin Khan, a 24-year-old student of Pakistani origin, condemned the bombings, and violence in general, but said Muslims were daily being oppressed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and killed in Iraq, and were understandably angry.
"'People are asking why are other Muslims getting killed, how come no one does anything about that?' he said. The bombings 'are happening because of oppression against Muslims,' he added. 'People have no choice -- they're fighting for freedom.'"
From what I have learned about Islam (I'm not referring to Islamism, but to Islam itself), the jihadist martyr in the one who is assured of the best place in Paradise--the promise of 72 virgins.
I believe that the Koran states these words:
“Not equal are those believers who sit at home and receive no injurious hurt, and those who strive hard, fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause with their wealth and lives. Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”
Therefore, I ask this question: Do many Muslims not speak out against terrorism because they fear jeopardizing their own hope for eternal life?
posted by Always On Watch @ 7/15/2005 08:36:00 AM
25 comments
25 Comments:
Ron,
As a matter of fact, I am a Christian, but I don't go around saying "Accept the Gospel, die, or be subjugated."
And--no offense taken. Honest commentary is what blogging is all about!
Fundamentalism in any form takes on disturbingly radical elements. As politically incorrect as this may seem, it appears to me that there are literally millions of these people in the Middle East who have seriously retarded thought patterns. Every time I hear them complaining about the West Bank and Gaza Strip, I get the impression that they've all read the same book; and of course, the 24-year-old was a Pakistani. How about Pakistanis solving their own serious problems before getting involved in someone else's mess? Oh, and never mind that Israel is in the process of pulling settlers out of the Gaza strip . . .
So here's my solution: Make them stop reproducing. In sixty years, this would all go away.
Mustang,
You commented "Every time I hear them complaining about the West Bank and Gaza Strip, I get the impression that they've all read the same book." Of course, they've all read or otherwise been exposed to the Koran and the haddiths.
Also, however, they've all been indoctrinated from a very early age, in both madrassahs and in the mosques, to hate the Jews and Israel. I recently learned a lot about this aspect from Kenneth Timmerman's book "Preachers of Hate." One imam whom Timmerman cited even said that if Israel were to vanish off the map, fundamentalist Muslims would continue to hunt down Jews wherever they could be found--and other infidels, for that matter.
A commenter named "Caroline" over at Liberty and Culture or at The Beak Speaks (I can't remember which of those, but I'll check) has been researching various aspects of victim mentality. Her comments are worth reading and go a long way to explain the tone of your comment "As politically incorrect as this may seem, it appears to me that there are literally millions of these people in the Middle East who have seriously retarded thought patterns." It scares me that it's not only the fundamentalists who are so hate-filled and locked into illogical thought patterns.
BTW, Pakistan is loaded with Wahhabists. They won't be solving their own problems anytime soon, and we all know that Pakistan has been actively acquiring nukes.
Mustang,
"Caroline's" comments can be found @
http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
2005/07/root-cause.html
Mustang,
I forgot to mention that Timmerman also points out the influence of one particular book entitled "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Amazon.com has info on this book; according to Amazon.com, this book, which is virulently anti-Semitic, was long ago proved to be a forgery and a fraud. I haven't read the book, but it must be quite something because Amazon.com publishes a disclaimer about it.
According to Timmerman, some Muslims believe the content of this book, which was inspiration for Hitler.
To answer your question, I think there are some that consent because they don't want to go to hell. Many are just plain afraid of the thugs. And most (if not all), just hate Israel.
One thing is so true, they didn't get this way overnight.
What irritates me about "moderate" Muslims is that they can never denounce any act of terror outright. There is ALWAYS a "but"....
Esther, one "prominent Imam" in London the other day said that Muslims would never do such a thing (as the London Bombings) and this was really an act perpetrated by London Police authorities who wanted to discredit Muslims. Now, can you believe that? Are they really so moronic to believe such tripe, or that anyone else with half a brain would believe it either?
Maybe it's the water . . .
By the way, if you want a shock, check out the link at my site that references "The Current Mood of Muslims." What will distress you is the attitudes among Americans about the "extremist threat."
In the words of a jihadist who survived from
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
printFriendly/0,,1-7-1692606-7,00.html :
"'..It’s as if a very high, impenetrable wall separated you from Paradise or Hell,' he said. 'Allah has promised one or the other to his creatures. So, by pressing the detonator, you can immediately open the door to Paradise — it is the shortest path to Heaven.'
“'The power of the spirit pulls us upward, while the power of material things pulls us downward,” he said. “Someone bent on martyrdom becomes immune to the material pull....'"
Just how does one combat such zealotry?
Someone said it the other day; it may have been Caroline. Islam has never gone through a reformation, and until it does -- and it can only do that from within -- there will be no changes in the lunacy. We can urge reformation, we can ask them to consider the logic of what they are doing, but until they start "thinking" it through, our task should continue to be focused on killing bad guys.
I wrote on this subject with a different take . We reap the rewards of feeding Muslim persecution fantasies with PC education and media. People do not learn about Islamic invasions of Europe , Jim Crow dhimmi laws and large scale slavery. Thus the message we send is that Islam has done nothing wrong and the West is evil. Mental illness is not a bad thing if one gets help. Yet it becomes a problem if someone feeds and enables the illness. The far left has been doing this for years and defining deviancy down.
Beak,
Your statement "People do not learn about Islamic invasions of Europe, Jim Crow dhimmi laws and large scale slavery" also rings true to me, especially with regard to what textbooks present.
This past spring, I took advantage of the county's offer for any citizens to look over the new social studies books. After I had spent over three hours looking over the books, I spoke to the social-studies curriculum head after I had reviewed the books, which were filled with whitewash and subtle statements such as "Jews believe that..., Christians believe that..., Mohammed received revelation from the angel of Allah." Notice the omission of "believe" in the last statement. Also, the enrichment activities for Islam were sympathetic to jihadism in that the activities emphasized the FEELINGS of 'persecuted' Muslims. In the fifth-grade book, students were to recite out loud the five pillars of Islam, but of course, they never recited the creeds of any other faith. The truth about present-day slavery was completely omitted. In all the textbooks, common ground among the three major religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) was emphasized; differences were never addressed.
The curriculum head herself (a very nice person who seemed grateful that I had called her to have a rational discussion) was woefully ignorant of the history of Islam, other than to cite the Christian injustices during the Crusades (She didn't seem to know about Muslim atrocities previous to the Crusades). The controversy with the Hindus, a large population in this county, got coverage in the media and resulted in adding a unit to the program of studies. I'm sure that some Christians and Jews who reviewed the books also suggested added or amended material, but the poison of multiculturalism won't allow for those two groups to have much say.
At that time, I didn't know that Susan Douglass, cited in the text credits as a specialist in Islam, is a convert to Islam and used to teach at the Islamic Saudi Academy, which has been under scrutiny for the Islamist/Wahhabist teachings there. As far as I know, that school still has murals of world maps which don't show the existence of Israel.
Mustang,
If the Islamist extremists get ahold of WMD's, reformation will be mighty difficult to achieve. A big enough showing of force from the West might encourage reformation. Or might not.
One problem we are facing is that we can't sort out the bad guys from the good guys.
Always
I took my neices test on the subject of Islam and failed. Islam was apparently spread by trade . The conquests and trading of lives apparently was a minor detail
Beak,
Well, I'm not surprised. The spread of Islam by trade is a falsity presented by almost every textbook I've seen.
It's interesting that the books don't much emphasize (if at all) that Columbus went in search of new routes to the Indies because of marauding tribes, many of whom were Muslims.
While much is made of the evils of slavery, the books gloss over the fact that Muslims sold Africans (some Muslim, some not) to the shipmasters.
And little is mentioned about the Gates of Vienna nor the hardships that many eastern Europeans suffered at the hands of the Turks. On the other hand, the Spanish Inquisition is condemned with no mention that some of the interrogation techniques used were the same that the Moors used on the Spanish Christians.
Excellent discussion in here, AOW. The only thing I have is--the Qu'ran tells the ummah (the body of muslim believers) to fight and kill the infidel, or force them to submit to Islam.
The "zealots" or "extremists" aren't, in fact, extremists at all. They're just following what's written in their holy texts. Now, not all of them do that, but those who are not fighting in the field take up the fight in other ways.
The believe that "war is deceit" and lying for the sake of Islam is permitted. (al-Takiyya) So it's very difficult to even figure out the truth behind what they say--because much of the truth is in what they DON'T say.
Our western culture is built on trust of one another; regardless of your race or religion. Arab culture is built on hatred of the infidel and terrible violence that builds a bridge back to the 7th century.
There have been a number of domestic challenges to American democracy, not the least of which was the German-American Bund in the late 1930s and early 1940s. In this case, American democracy demonstrated that it really works, and Americans repudiated the ideologies of this pro-Hitler, National Socialist group. At the same time, however, these American Nazis never advocated terror as a principle strategy, and other Americans vocally opposed them.
Today, many of us continue to think that American democracy is really working; so much so, in fact, that there are very few voices in opposition to the ideologies of murder and mayhem. Even as we know or suspect that Islamacists are doing evil within our midst, silence from Americans, Jews, and Muslims is quite literally deafening.
Neptune is correct; most citizens are very secular, indeed. This gives Muslims the ideal position of "waiting to see" how this all turns out. If we defeat the barbarians, they will rally to our side of this question, but if they win (and this is still a good question), hordes of Muslims will flock to the radical Imams and proclaim their undying loyalty.
I sure hope that someone in Washington has a "plan," but I have to say that I don't see much evidence of that.
Always
I do not know if you have read the secular Islam site. In that site ex Muslims portray Jihad as an extension of Arab militancy that is cultural and would be present without the religion as well.
Jason has quoted from that site. I prefer not to but we should not forget the mistreatment of Hindus and Bhudists mentioned there as well.
Neptune and Mustang,
Yes, most Muslims are secular although here is the D.C. area, we seem to have a huge proportion of activists in the Muslim population. And sometimes secular Muslims become more ardent about their faith. For example, one of my former neighbors was a Muslim prior to 9/11, and until his son was born, he didn't seem much interested in observing Muslim customs or in attending mosque--until he started making frequent trips to the UAE. The more trips he made back home, the more devout he became. The change in him reminded me of the book/movie "Not Without My Daughter."
Even before the London bombings, I was worried about what goes on inside the mosques and the Islamic schools here. Under First Amendment rights with respect to freedom of religion, the imams and teachers can preach jihad because so many verses in the Koran advocate jihad. The recent conviction of Al-Timimi is a hopeful sign that certain statements go beyond First Amendment rights, but the Washington Post's editorial today basically takes Al-Timimi's part by using the free-speech portion of the First Amendment.
The big question: Are Islam and the Western ideals of freedom and democracy compatible? The religion and the geopolitics are intricately entwined, more so than in any other religion.
Now, were Islam to be secularized and brought into the 20th Century, would it still be Islam? Apparently, the Wahhabists don't think so. Wahhabism appeared in the 18th Century, and so far the other Islamic sects have been unable or unwilling to deal with that form of extremism.
Beak,
I know the site you mean. I have read Ibn Warraq's book "Why I Am Not a Muslim."
The tribes which MTP unified had a long history of militancy prior to Islam. Before Islam, their militancy was directed at each other, i.e., tribal warfare. And indeed, such tribal warfare among Muslims still exists; Sudan is a good example of Muslims at war with Muslims.
Did MTP adapt Islam to them, or did they adapt MTP's teachings to accommodate their own proclivities? Neptune makes a good point above when he states, "Muslims invent 'ancient customs' on the spur of the moment to fit the need."
CAIR must have missed the last PR briefing because some honest Muslims are denouncing them for denying Islam has anything to do with terrorist attacks.
Mr. Beamish,
Thank you for posting the link to the interesting story condemning CAIR for not presenting the truth about the meaning of jihad. I saw the story late yesterday and had to read the letter twice.
I guess that CAIR's support of some shady characters and civil-rights agenda for Muslims isn't enough for the Anti-Zionist Coalition, who distributed the letter.
So, let's see...The jihadists promote the caliphate through violence, while CAIR promotes Islamification by legal meeans. Some choice for us infidels!
Mr. Ducky,
How sneaky of you to post a comment here, and while I'm sick, too!
I'll answer your comment with
information from
http://www.walidphares.com/ , with a portion of a July 16, 2005 essay entitled "Jihad Leads to Leeds" by Dr. Walid Phares, Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a Professor of Middle East Studies and, most importantly, fluent in Arabic:
"Back in November of 1999, I was on a trip to meet officials at the House of Lords in London to discuss the 'Jihad threat to minorities in the Middle East' and make few presentations on the subject in different locations in England. My travel across the country was very informative, and I was able to compare the findings with my previous trips in the 1980s. My observations that year found them very troubling: The Salafi Jihadi presence in Britain was on the rise, six years before the London bombings, four years before the Iraq war, and two years before September 11.
"A web space educating, inciting, mobilizing, recruiting and guiding the shabab (youth). My British interlocutors at the time, both in Government and advocacy groups knew less than what they should have learned about the Jihadi surge.... Few months before al Qaida attacks the USS Cole in Yemen, the ikhwan (brothers) were discussing the dar al harb notion. Although the 'room' was not claimed by the now-infamous al Muhajirun and their Syrian-born Omar Bakri, it had all the fingerprints of this organization. The 'mentor,' answering a question by interested souls unequivocally stated in Arabic: 'Britania aduw kafir, walakin nahnu naeeshu fiha.' Which literally means: 'Britain is an infidel enemy, but we live in it for now'....
"The final leg of my trip took me to Leeds. Hundreds of miles to the north of the capital, I didn’t expect to encounter 'their' presence that far from London. I was wrong: I met the Salafi Jihadi phenomenon in a small sandwich shop. Books, newsletters and fliers were on the counter. Regardless of who dropped them there, the owners or workers, these reading material were destined to be absorbed by Arabic-speaking minds....
"This sociological field trip in 1999 England was revealing: The Jihadists have penetrated the country since the end of the cold war. Any expert in the field would have understood as of the mid 1990s that the systematic spread of the Salafi ideology and its activists in the UK was to end up in Terrorism. It was ineluctable that the British dar al Harb had to be attacked at some point; especially when many among its elites –inside academia or its political establishment- were confirming what the Islamists were convinced of: That the country was indeed evil, and it needed justice...."
So, Duck, I don't see Krauthammer as a fool of any sort. You, on the other hand, have committed an error in logic: post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore, because of this).
We keep forgetting that the Jihadist handbook instructs the terrorist to strike where the enemy is weakest, and if caught, rely upon the democratic principles they seek to destroy to avoid infidel punishments. I realize that most Americans have a memory lasting no more than a few moments, but we ought to at least remember that because it is our warning to be always vigilant. And it should also serve to remind us that the people who came into OUR society have done so with ulterior motives. Who can tell if a neighbor belongs to a sleeper cell, or detests the cowardice of terrorism as much as we do? It is a situation Jihadists created and seek to exploit. If moderate Muslims are not willing to truly denounce Jidhadism, then “we the people” should confront them (civilly) about it.
A war is not won in a defensive posture; a war can only be won by being aggressive. We can choose to be victims, and ultimately see our way of life go the direction of Islamofacism, or we can see ourselves as a nation of warriors who will go down defiantly. This isn’t too hard to understand, so I have to assume that most of us are simply in “denial.” Denial today, dead tomorrow?
I strongly agree with what you wrote, especially "A war is not won in a defensive posture; a war can only be won by being aggressive. We can choose to be victims, and ultimately see our way of life go the direction of Islamofacism, or we can see ourselves as a nation of warriors who will go down defiantly."
We civilians can be trained, as the Israelis are, to recognize an attacker in advance. Yes, many attacks occur in Israel, but more would occur without civilian training. As you put it, we must be "always vigilant." Anything less invites attack.
Those who will not take the American oath of loyalty and act accordingly should get out. Words DO matter, as we saw in the Al-Timimi case and as we are seeing in London this month. The jihadists are declaring their intentions, so we have no excuse for ignorance.
Post a Comment
<< Home