If America is ever to triumph in its war against Islamic terrorism, we must get past the idea that we are its root cause. Specifically, we must get past the idea that a suicide bomber is just a peace-loving Muslim who, if we hadn’t set him off, would be growing figs and building sandcastles. Strapping explosives to your torso, marching yourself into a crowded marketplace and blowing yourself up in order to slaughter as many civilians, including women and children, as you can is a profoundly demented act, an act which undoes a dozen or so millennia in the moral evolution of the human species.

Such an act is not triggered by America’s sociopolitical landscape or by its foreign policy. Rather, it is nurtured by an intellectually degenerate culture, sponsored by sleazy kleptocratic regimes and authorized by a once-honorable religious tradition perverted to serve the pipedreams of an apocalyptic death cult.

It’s Muslim civilization, not America, that must change in order for Islamic terrorism to cease.

mark goldblatt -national review online

i think that about sums it up.

tags: war on terror, jihadists

israel’s former PM makes the case against a cease-fire.

The objective of the military campaign currently being waged on Israel’s northern border, as well as any diplomatic effort to bring that campaign to an end, must therefore be to disarm Hezbollah, first and foremost from its missile arsenal. A failure to do so would be a great victory for that terror organization and for its sponsors in Tehran and facilitators in Damascus. It would enable Hezbollah to rebuild its lethal capacity for waging war, continue to threaten the people of Israel and hold hostage the people of Lebanon, and sow the seeds for an even greater conflict in the future. In contrast, disarming Hezbollah would help restore Israel’s deterrence and security, give hope to a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future for Lebanon, and deal a heavy blow to the forces of international terrorism.

the times online has this to say about the israeli / hezbollah throwdown:

The pincer war launched by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel is also related to domestic politics. In the occupied territories, Hamas needs to marginalise Mahmoud Abbas’s PLO and establish itself as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In Lebanon, Hezbollah wants to prevent the consolidation of power in the hands of a new pro-American coalition government led by Fouad Siniora, the prime minister, and Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader….

The strategy is high risk. If the Israelis manage to crush Hamas and destroy Hezbollah’s military machine, Iran’s influence will diminish massively. Defeat could revive an internal Hezbollah debate between those who continue to support a total and exclusive alliance with Iran until the infidel, led by America, is driven out of the Middle East and those who want Hezbollah to distance itself from Tehran and emphasise its Lebanese identity. One reason why Hezbollah has found such little support among Arabs in Egypt and Saudi Arabia this time is the perception that it is fighting Israel on behalf of Iran, a Persian Shi’ite power that has been regarded by the majority of Arab Sunnis as an ancestral enemy.

that’s why we must allow israel to do what it is doing, because it’s about more than some petty regional dispute. you can hate israel all you want to, but there’s a more critical matter to be addressed in this case. wouldn’t you rather have israel exist in its current state than live in a region controlled by unapologetic terrorist thugs? it’s clear that in some parts of the middle east, hatred for israel runs deep. does it run deep enough to surrender control of everything to iran and syria, or their terrorist representatives? i hope not.

Technorati Tags: hezbollah, israel, iran, syria

religions of peace don’t behead people. people of peace do not make signs promoting violence. the late ayatollah khomeini’s words would have spun all this conventional wisdom to the contrary on its head. if its proponents tell the truth about the kind of islam they are promoting, what else is left to say? (h/t to lgf). here’s what the ayatollah had to say:

Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law]. …

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does that mean that Muslim should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill the [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

that settles the question for me. it’s interesting that he says the struggle is against repression and cruelty, when those are two characteristics of hard-core islamic states. even some of the real-life events depicted in the fictional story the kite runner are glaring examples of how extremists don’t really practice what they preach. they don’t seem to be very concerned that the struggle between repression and cruelty had been lost. looking in from the outside world, it’s hard to understand why anyone would desire to have an islamic state, at least from a citizen’s POV.

if you need more evidence of the twisted intent of this kind of islam, how about this fatwa against jews and against the united states, originally issued in 1998:

World Islamic Front Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
(excerpt dated February 23, 1998)

…On that basis, and in compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, “and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together,” and “fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah.”

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah:”And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? — women and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'”

We — with Allah’s help — call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan’s U.S. troops and the devil’s supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

should it really be necessary to attach caveats to every criticism of islam that this extremism does not represent every single muslim? i think all reasonable people would agree that it does not. however, it would be impossible to address the war on terror without dealing with the religious aspect of that war. what we are seeing today is a result of the implementation of radical islam, and we need to be honest about this: islam, as it is practiced by extremists, is NOT a religion of peace.

other interesting reading:

Al Qaeda: Profile and Threat Assessment (pdf)
Thomas F. Madden on Crusades on National Review Online

Technorati Tags: islam, religion of peace, islamic extremism

update: abdul rahman has been released and as far we know, is still alive. hopefully we can keep him that way.

this is not just about abdul rahman. this is also about others in afghanistan who have chosen to reject islam and choose christianity. will we raise our voices just as loudly for those who follow a similar path to rahman? will we object to the denial of religious freedom to others in afghanistan and press for a permanent policy change? the answer to those questions has yet to be determined.

william f. buckley jr(editor of national review) :

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns did not earn a medal of freedom for his public statement in the matter, but he was formally correct in saying, “This is a case that is not under the competence of the United States. It is under the competence of the Afghan authorities.”

That’s right. And the hell with Afghan supremacy. If an occupying military force whose presence every day continues to be critical to keep Afghanistan free cannot protect one citizen who embraces the faith of our fathers, then the government of Afghanistan should pause for a moment to worry not about the indignation of the Afghan people if Rahman is kept safe. Thought should be given to the indignation of the American people, who will stare in disbelief at the phenomenon of a country recently liberated by the expenditure of American lives and money failing to protect from the wrath of the mob a 41-year-old citizen whose crime was having chosen Christ.

couldn’t have said it better myself. read more.

more conflicting interpretations of the koran bring into question its “peaceful” nature. investor’s business daily has some tough queries for cair (council on american-islamic relations). what we would really like to know (and IMD dares to ask) is whether the koran actively promotes violence against infidels and those who choose to reject islam. i’m not an expert on the koran, but the evidence to support this seems to be there based on what i’ve read in the above article and others.

cair and others in muslim leadership owe it to those in their religion (who are not participating in acts of violence) to set the rest of us straight if we are misunderstanding islam. i don’t think we are. this doesn’t mean that i believe that all muslims are terrorists, or that they all support terrorists. what the rioters, suicide bombers, and spiritual leaders of islam are saying and doing does not represent the average muslim. that goes without saying. it’s harder to separate the koran from its own words about the appropriate punishment for unbelievers.

previous:
afghani democracy: a flaw in execution

Technorati Tags: abdul rahman, afghanistan

Mark Steyn:

It’s not enough for Abdul Rahman to get off on a technicality. Afghanistan is supposed to be “the good war,” the one even the French supported, albeit notionally and mostly retrospectively. Karzai is kept alive by a bodyguard of foreigners. The fragile Afghan state is protected by American, British, Canadian, Australian, Italian and other troops, hundreds of whom have died. You cannot ask Americans or Britons to expend blood and treasure to build a society in which a man can be executed for his choice of religion. You cannot tell a Canadian soldier serving in Kandahar that he, as a Christian, must sacrifice his life to create a Muslim state in which his faith is a capital offense.

this is where the neo-con theory is tested. the new democracy that the united states helped to create with the sacrifice of many of our military men and women is still struggling with sharia law. i don’t think this is what we had in mind when we kicked out the taliban — that a man could be executed under this new government’s laws for converting to Christianity . the legitimate question that should be asked here is whether our sacrifice has produced the kind of democracy that we intended to bring to afghanistan. based on the current state of affairs, that’s a debatable question. we cannot allow the sacrifice of american lives to be trivialized by allowing an execution like this to take place.

at this moment, the case against abdul rahman has been dismissed. this isn’t the end of the story. he could still be put to death. there is still the possibility that islamic radicals could take their own vigilante action against rahman regardless of what the government decides about him. we cannot allow this. the united states and its allies have sacrificed the lives of their men and women to bring freedom as well as self-governance to afghanistan, and we have the right to object to the treatment of rahman.

more reading:
Afghan Christian Rejects Islam— the koran vs. christianity (california conservative)
Free Abdul Rahman–washington times op-ed
Steyn: Will we stick our necks out for his faith?
Michelle Malkin: ABDUL RAHMAN TO BE RELEASED

Technorati Tags: abdul rahman, afghanistan

in case you are still not convinced that this port deal is a good idea, read this sister toldjah post. it could change your mind.

If the events of the past week don’t put an exclamation point on to what we are dealing with – the irrationality and hatred resulting from tools of fanatical Islamic propaganda – and force everyone to realize that the enemy we face is dangerous and only getting more daring, what will it take? How long before we can no longer say anything about the Practitioners of Peace without having them threaten to engage in their ancient ritual of removal of head from body?

Most dangerous is the willingness of those who are right to give in to the demands of the fanatics. Israel constantly gives in to the commands of the Palestinians as a result of their desire for a peace that the fanatics do not want. Countries apologize for their own free speech codes in their own country after the Crazed Ones take to the streets with torches. Late last year, France responded to mass rioting by Muslim youth by promising more welfare programs for them. Giving in to the enemy is more dangerous than fighting it and telling them enough is enough. Giving in to their demands only encourages them.

dustin hawkins, “At Least They Are Not Crazy” (posted at california conservative)

read more in this post at california conservative, which is, as always, right on the money. negotiating with extremists usually doesn’t produce the desired result. the right to dissent is an important one, but it has been abused by these protestors. we cannot reward this kind of behavior with concessions, and as soon as the europeans realize this, they will become more serious about how they treat such behavior. michelle malkin’s got more interesting artwork here.

a country who actually has admitted to having a nuclear program and that defiantly refuses to stop that program (iran) has been given the ultimate warning: a referral to the UN security council. threats like this worked so well against saddam’s iraq…why not try it again? for reasons not to trust the UN in serious international affairs, read this. if sanctions imposed by the UN are not strongly enforced, and if the UN’s resolutions are ignored by rogue dictators with evil intent, what then?

do you want a man (iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad) who makes statements such as these to have access to nuclear weapons? i think not.

victor david hanson has an excellent analysis here. he says:

When a supposedly unhinged Mr. Ahmadinejad threatens the destruction of Israel and then summarily proceeds to violate international protocols aimed at monitoring Iran’s nuclear industry, we all take note. Any country that burns off some of its natural gas at the wellhead while claiming that it needs nuclear power for domestic energy is simply lying. Terrorism, vast petroleum reserves, nuclear weapons, and boasts of wiping neighboring nations off the map are a bad combination.

there’s no simple solution for what exactly to do about iran, because each alternative comes with its own set of negative consequences, as hanson points out. for now, (even though i remain skeptical of the UN’s ability to successfully negotiate a satisfactory compromise for both sides) we should seek a diplomatic solution. the results of this effort should determine what steps to take next.

scott ott at scrappleface gives the rest of us his unique take on iran and the UN. it would be really funny if it weren’t so close to the truth. read. enjoy. bookmark.

related:

Iran defiant over nuclear warning–BBC
Q & A Iran nuclear stand-off–BBC
Bush, Merkel united on Iran’s nuclear threat – Jan 13, 2006— CNN.com
Victor Davis Hanson on Iran— NRO
Iran Threatens to End Nuclear Cooperation –Los Angeles Times

Let’s make sure we do better with Iran than we did with Iraq –some suggestions from across the pond (The Guardian). some are worth considering. some are not. judge for yourself.