Friday, July 6, 2007

One, two, three four... I declare a Holy War?

When radical islamists lay down their arms and abandon Jihad, there will be no more Global War on Terror. When we lay down our arms and abandon the Global War on Terror, there will be no more "us."

There is an absolutely silly debate raging in certain circles over why Islamic terrorists target and attack westerners. The two camps are generally divided into what I call the Paulites, who believe 9/11 and other terrorist missions against the U.S. and its allies are a result of our aggressive, imperialist policies in the middle east; and the Sentients, who understand the truth.

The truth is that Islamic fundamentalists hate the west because we are infidels. We will not be forced to proclaim that there is but one God, Allah, and that Muhammed is His prophet. We reject the entire framework of Sharia and we choose to govern ourselves. We will not submit to an Islamic state and we will not be governed by a Caliphate. We completely and utterly reject the Sunnah; we will not ever follow the way of the Prophet. In fact, many among us feel that Allah is not the one true God at all; but that Allah is indeed the one true Satan, and that his followers are being led straight to Hell.

In some countries, I could be arrested, jailed, tortured, even killed just for writing this. In Saudi Arabia, my entire family could be punished. We choose to live in a society where not only am I allowed to write the above, the right to do so is defended to the death. Those freedoms are a precious gift, and very little of the rest of the world enjoys that gift.

Because we believe the way we do, Islamic clerics tell their followers that their ghod commands the faithful to kill us. That is a fact. It has nothing to do with politics, policies, imperialism, or oil. It has nothing to do with the United States' steadfast support for Israel. It has everything to do with the fact that we will not bend to the will of Allah. Because of that, muslims are called to Jihad. They are told to

"Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and all worship Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. (Surah 8:39)

"O Prophet (Muhammad)! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand. (Surah 8:65)

So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Surah 9:5)"

If the United States and the rest of the western world stayed peacefully within our borders, yet maintained the system of beliefs I touched on above, then we would still be infidels. The verses of the Qur'an quoted above would still be in the Qur'an, and the radical clerics of Islam would still be sermonizing the faithful that ghod demands our heads. Radical islamists use the policies of the United States as a convenient, modern excuse for their violence, in part because they realize that if they used the real, religious reasons for jihad, the world would declare them all to be zealots. It is much easier, and much more productive, to invoke the "imperialist America" rhetoric. People buy that story. The religious story is a much tougher bill of goods to sell, and the Islamic freaks know it.

Anyone who applies a system of rational thought is capable of understanding and accepting this. But there are those in our society whose first reaction is always to "Blame America First." They blame America for global warming. They blame America for world poverty. They blame America for human rights violations in Sudan. And they blame America for jihad. I have a question I'd like you to ask these idiots:

If we never set foot in the middle east and never consumed a drop of foreign oil, would you still demand the right to refuse to proclaim that there is but one God, Allah, and that Muhammed is His prophet? If so, then that person is an infidel, and there is a radical cleric in a mosque calling for his head.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

The Religion of Peace

From time to time, I will post a series of photographs that do an infinitely better job of conveying an analysis of an issue than a carefully crafted 15,000 word essay. Have a look at this short collection of images from the last couple of weeks.

Religion of Peace, indeed.

Pakistan's Powderkeg

The events of this week in Islamabad, Pakistan came perilously close to a becoming a radical islamic tsunami, threatening to swamp southwestern Asia in a drowning sea of 7th century fundamentalism. Fighting erupted after the mosque's leadership abducted a group of Chinese women for alleged crimes of vice (i.e., prostitution). The government surrounded the mosque compound and firefights ensued. The mainstream media took casual note of the standoff at Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, which pitted the group of radical students against Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf. The students are led by firebrand imam Maulana Abdul Aziz and his equally outspoken No. 2 man, Abdul Rashid Ghazi. The group professes a "relationship of love and affection with all jihadist organizations," but denies that it has any militants, only "students." Right. As of today, more than 1,100 such "students" had surrendered, but the mosque still contains at least 250 hardcore islamists, armed with AK-47's and explosives that Aziz says were provided by "friends."

The situation in Pakistan is tenuous, at best. President Musharraf is a strong ally of the United States and international efforts to rid the region of Taliban and terrorist influence. Clerics like Aziz (he is far from being the only outspoken radical) are bitterly opposed to the government's support of the Great Satan, and the abduction of the Chinese women was yet another incident in the terrorists' attempts to enforce the Taliban's 7th century flavor of islamic law in Pakistan. Musharraf has also taken intense criticism for his unwillingness to hold free elections in his country, but given the radicals' "relationship of love" with terrorists, Musharraf is navigating between the Scilla and Charybdes. If he holds onto power, he further enrages the radical islamist factions, fuels their violent rhetoric and risks inciting other confrontations. If he gives into international pressures and holds elections, he risks losing power to those who might not take such a hard line stance against terrorism and the Taliban. Musharraf frequently points to the 80/20 rule: That 80% of the country's problems are caused by 20% of the people. But those 20% are increasing the anti-west, anti-secular rhetoric and ratcheting up the violence. While this week's event is likely to end without swamping Pakistan in a sea of bloodshed and radical revolution, there is considerable risk that a future confrontation will have different results. If he wishes to avoid blowing the powderkeg, Musharraf should brutally crack down on the radical imams before they have a chance to push Pakistan into a repeat of the Iranian revolution.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

When the Commanding Officer talks, the troops stand at attention. When the top enlisted man talks, the troops listen. Command Sergeant Major Neil Ciotola is the highest ranking enlisted soldier in Iraq.

Follow this link to see what he thinks about the pols on Goat Fucker Hill.

Hoo ahh.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Simon Tisdall
Tuesday May 22, 2007
The Guardian

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."


This item appeared in The Guardian late last month, foreshadowing developments such as this item from the AP:

"Bergner said Iraqi extremists were taken to Iran in groups of 20 to 60 for training in three camps "not too far from Tehran." When they returned to Iraq, they formed units to carry out attacks, bombings and kidnappings.

"Our intelligence reveals that the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity," he said. He said it would be "hard to imagine" that Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was unaware of the activity.


MNF-Iraq knows it. The White House knows it. The press knows it. The Iraqi people know it. Does the United States Congress know it?

"The President's 'surge' strategy can not achieve it's goals of securing Iraq and giving the Iraqi government time to reach a consensus, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said on Face The Nation."

Apparently not.

Earlier this month, the American people inundated Senatorial phone lines, fax machines and email servers with a surge of their own, denouncing the Amnesty Immigration Bill and all but forcing the Senate to reject the measure. Perhaps it is time to re-surge the surge, and tell people like Lugar, Voinovich and Warner that we cannot allow a radical islamic state like Iran dictate US foreign policy. Iran is attacking our soldiers in Iraq, and the President should not have to watch his back from attacks on Capitol Hill.