Recently in Islamic Terrorism Category

ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF ISLAM

This Financial Times report below on killings in northern Nigeria "neglects" to identify the attackers and explain their motives. Like all too many of such reports missing are the words "Islam" and its aim to drive all Christians out of the lands in which they live so Islamic control and Sharia can be imposed on those lands and the remaining people.

The plan: Burn the churches, destroy the economy, gun down the Christians they come across and the rest will flee to the south of Nigeria.

Since Boko Haram has begun its murderous campaign in 2009, this article's author estimates that more than 12,000 have been killed, mostly Christians and no doubt some Muslims who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

In a recent article the claim was made that Boko Haram has killed more people in the last five years than all the other al-Qaeda affiliated groups combined in the Middle East and Africa. While their kill total is impressive, that's probably not so. Muslims are busy killing Muslims in Syria (to say nothing of Iraq) and the estimated death toll there is 200,000, which include many Christians who apparently are being killed by both Sunni and Shiite combatants.

All Muslim "insurgents" or "militants" or "terrorists" are driven by Islam's mandate to conquer all the lands of the world for Allah and convert or kill all the non-believers in the process. When it's Muslims against Muslims, the quarrel is over who will lead the worldwide (or regional or local) drive of supremacy. Violence is always an acceptable "tool," but deceit and trickery and infiltration of societies by non-assimilating immigrants who will out-birth the natives are often more effective weapons of conquest.

And where is the money coming from? In Boko Haram's case, it is Sunni so the money most likely is filtering in from the Saudis. Is the U.S. protesting this flow of money into jihad from our ally Saudi Arabia?

The weapons are in large part coming from the broken nation of Libya which the Obama administration decided to destabilize, resulting in, among other things, the murders in Benghazi of our ambassador and three other Americans who, despite Obama's words about the rationale for rescuing the deserter Bergdahl, were indeed "left behind."

To be sure, not all Muslims are bent on world conquest for Allah, but it is difficult to say who is and who isn't. Since there are some 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, the number who will perform violent acts in the cause of Allah is large. Estimates range up to 25%; that more than 325 million. Even a mere 10% is 130 million.

A poll of Muslims 30 and under in the U.S. found that about 28% thought suicide murders could be acceptable under the "right circumstances." How many are true believers who are quietly working now to establish Sharia in place of the Constitution in the United States? This is the declared goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, to conquer America from within.

Why was Major Hasan Nidal in the Army? How did Hillary Clinton happen to have a Muslim as a top aide at the State Department whose family has been deeply involved with the Muslim Brotherhood for decades? Where are the Muslims loudly protesting the carnage done in the name of Islam?

What you hear from is Saudi-funded public relations organizations explaining that these people "misunderstand Islam" or have "perverted" Islam. Trouble is, what these misunderstanders are doing is following the letter of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammad.

The article.
Boko Haram kills more than 200 in assault on three Nigerian Christian villages

Jos bombing Boko Haram.jpg

The aftermath of a bomb attack in the city of Jos in May


By William Wallis in London and agencies for the Financial Times
June 5, 2014

Dozens of civilians have been massacred in three villages in Nigeria's remote north east in the latest attacks carried out by suspected Boko Haram insurgents, who are carrying out almost daily atrocities in the region.

Gunmen in combat uniforms on Tuesday rode army trucks through Borno state's Gwoza area, the main stronghold of the terrorist group, firing on villagers and burning houses and churches to the ground, security sources told Reuters news agency.

Other news agencies and local online media outlets cited witnesses suggesting the death toll from the attacks could be as high as 200.

Andrew Tada, a Gwoza man living in Maiduguri, Borno's capital, said he lost two cousins in the attack. He said residents had told him they were preparing to bury 45 people from one village alone.

"It is very sad and the villages are deserted now," he told Reuters. "We are just asking government to give us security to go there tomorrow to evacuate the corpses for burial."

Boko Haram has killed as many as 12,000 people since launching an insurgency in 2009 and grabbed world headlines after it abducted more than 250 girls from a secondary school in the remote town of Chibok in April.

By some estimates more than 560 civilians have been killed by insurgents since April 14 - the day of the abduction and a bus park bomb in Nigeria's capital, Abuja, that killed at last 75 people. In one of the deadliest single attacks, a bomb in the central city of Jos last month killed 118 people, officials said.

The mass kidnapping and bombings have piled political pressure on President Goodluck Jonathan at a critical moment in the electoral calendar, with political tension already heightened ahead of polls scheduled next February.

His government has flip flopped on whether or not it is prepared to negotiate with the militants to secure the release of the girls, amid daily protests at the government's handling of the hostage crisis.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who used to live in Nigeria, paid a visit to Mr Jonathan on Wednesday, to express condolences for the near daily atrocities carried out by the insurgents, who are attempting to carve out an Islamic state from Nigeria's multi-faith and ethnically divided population.

He expressed "sympathy for the struggles and suffering of the recent days" and said he was "deeply saddened by the bombings in Jos" because he knew the city well.

The security source told Reuters about three-quarters of the residents in the three villages near the Cameroon border - Attagara, Agapalawa and Aganjara - were Christians, but he did not know if Tuesday's attacks had targeted them specifically.

US troops are in neighbouring Chad on a mission to find the abducted girls. Britain and France have also offered help, but the Nigerian authorities fear any attempt to rescue them by force could endanger their lives.

Fifty-seven of the 276 kidnapped girls escaped in the early days of the abduction according to officials in the Borno state government.

Boko Haram is an organization of Islamic true believers whose name freely translated means western education is bad. In northern Nigeria it has killed at least 5,000 over the past four years, burned down schools, churches and homes, mostly targeting Christians, seeking to drive them out of their part of the country. Their goal is to impose Islamic rule, Sharia, which controls every aspect of one's life, over everyone under its power. A leader of Boko Haram was quoted recently saying that they were allied with various al-Qaeda groups because they all had the same aim of advancing the "cause of Islam."

Nigeria is Africa's most populous country with the continent's largest Gross National Product. It is rich in resources and badly governed. It is mostly Muslim in the north and Christian in the south.

To fulfill a need for cooks, cleaners and sex slaves Boko Haram attacked a school and kidnapped more than 200 teen aged girls. The government has been unable to find the girls who disappeared with their abductors into the forest. The search is widening, but Boko Haram has threatened to kill all the girls if the effort to rescue them is not stopped.

This report from the All Africa news service gives one a sense of the barbarity of Boko Haram, the ineffectiveness of the government and the somewhat childlike naivety of those brave women who are mobilizing to join the search. Sad. Pathetic. Evil. Also denial: Nothing to do with Islam.

Nigeria: Boko Haram Threatens to Kill Abducted Schoolgirls If Search Is Not Stopped BY JIMITOTA ONOYUME, JOHNBOSCO AGBAKWURU AND NDAHI MARAMA, 24 APRIL 2014 http://allafrica.com/stories/201404240355.html

Hundreds of girls kidnapped from school

NOBEL Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka, yesterday, called on the Federal Government to ensure the release of 230 students of Government Girls Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State, who were abducted by members of the Islamic sect, Boko Haram.

Professor Soyinka made the call on a day a coalition of women's rights in Borno expressed their readiness to mobilise thousands of women to embark on a voluntary search and rescue mission into the notorious Sambisa forest, to ensure the release of the abducted students.

Senate President, David Mark, on his part described the abduction of the girls as sacrilegious.

Meanwhile, members of the Islamist sect, Boko Haram, have threatened to kill the abducted students, should the search to recover them continue.

Soyinka tasks FG
Professor Soyinka, who gave the keynote address in Port Harcourt at the opening ceremony of declaration of Port Harcourt as UNESCO World Book Capital 2014, said the focus of the event was for the Federal Government to ensure the safe release of the students.

He said he had expected President Goodluck Jonathan to convene an emergency security meeting over the ugly development in the school after the abduction of the students.

He noted that the ongoing book fair in Port Harcourt was a national rejection of Boko Haram, adding that the Islamic sect does not reflect the teachings and values of Islam.

Minutes after his address, former Minister of Education, Dr. Oby Ezekwesili and the Project Director, Rainbow Book Club, Mrs Koko Kalango led the gathering to make a collective demand for the girls' release.

Storming Sambisa forest
The Borno women, under the auspices of BAOBAB Women's Right, have said they were ready to storm the major hide out of the insurgents in Sambisa forest, where the abducted girls were believed to be held.

Spokesperson for the group, Professor Hauwa Biu, told newsmen that they resolved to embark on the rescue mission when it was evident that no reasonable progress was being achieved in the rescue efforts.

Biu said: "We are ready to go into the forest and search for the girls. In fact, we are prepared to risk our lives and get up to Boko Haram camp and appeal to them to release the children to us so that they can re unite with their parents.

"There is nothing extraordinary in our quest to enter the dangerous forest. We learnt that some men in Chibok had earlier embarked on such mission, which later turned out to be fruitless.

"We felt that as mothers, we are in a better position to have the sympathy and concern over the fate of the missing girls.

"Our target is not to fight the abductors, but we want to beg them to release the girls in the name of the God that we all worship."

The group urged security forces to expedite action in their search and rescue mission of the students so that their parents can have rest of mind.

Biu appealed to security agents to make use of sophisticated weapons in detecting the location of the abductors for easy rescue operation.

She described the abduction of the school girls as inhuman, abuse of human rights, capable of scuttling efforts for enhanced girl child education in the state and the country at large.

She said: "The abduction of the innocent girls violates their human rights, and it is a crime against humanity and prohibited under international humanitarian law.

"Women in Borno strongly condemn this act in its totality as it deprives children their right to learn in a safe environment, thereby jeopardising their future."

Appeal
Biu also appealed to the insurgents to lay down their arms and hold dialogue with the government.

She said: "We wish to appeal to the insurgents to lay down their arms and embrace dialogue. We assure them of our motherly support toward rehabilitating them when the need arises.

"We condemn all other attacks in form of bomb blasts and serial killings all over the country and commiserate with the families of those who lost their relations during the unfortunate incidents.

"We commend the efforts of Borno and Federal governments as well as youths and vigilantes in addressing the current insurgency in the country.

"However, bearing in mind the continuous attacks on schools, we appeal for the provision of adequate security to all schools so as to have a safe learning environment for our children."

It's sacrilegious--Mark
Meanwhile, Senate President, Senator David Mark has described as sacrilegious the abduction of the female students and called for their release.

The Senate President, in a statement by his Press Secretary, Paul Mumeh, in Abuja, yesterday, said the abduction was embarrassing and that no nation that had the desire to develop would indulge in such dastardly act.

He pleaded with the captors to listen to the voices of reason and release the teenagers.
According to the statement, "Senator Mark imagined the harrowing experience the students had been subjected to by their captors and the mental and psychological torture parents and guardians of the students had faced."

He said no nation could justify the abduction of the children whose only offence was that they chose to go to school to better their lots and contribute to the socio economic and political development of their fatherland.

Mark said: "It is a sad commentary and a terrible assault on our psyche as a people. In the good old days of Nigeria this was a taboo and unarguably unheard of."

The Senate President canvassed for synergy between and among security agencies, especially in the area of information gathering and sharing to facilitate their rescue, stressing that the deteriorating situation was making a mockery of the nation.

There are too few leading statesmen in the world urging action against the spread of Islamic imperialism. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered such an urgent warning in London this week.

Islam is a political ideology wrapped in a religious cloak that has as its goal nothing less than the conquest of the world and the elimination of all who do not accept true Islam. In the Koran and in the words and actions of Mohammad there is no doubt but that it is the duty of every Muslim to advance Islam however he or she can, by war, by violent means, by terrorism, by deception and stealth, the methods to depend on what is possible at a given place and time.

In the Middle East warring factions, all with the same goal, but differing as to who should be in charge -- Sunnis or Shiites -- are seeking to advance Islam. In Africa where there are weak governments Islamic terror groups are murdering, burning and pillaging to take over territory and drive Christians and other non-Muslims out. The Islamic invasion of the mostly Christian Central African Republic by heavily armed Islamic fighters has resulted in he deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Christians and other people.

In northern Nigeria alone, Boko Haram has killed over 5,000 in the past four years despite efforts of the Nigerian government to stop them. Last week Boko Haram kidnapped more than 200 girls from a school to serve as cooks, cleaners and sex slaves. What is Boko Haram's goal?

Boko Haram is proud to be one of Al Qaeda's African franchises, along with AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb) and al Shabaab in Somalia. "We are together with al Qaeda," Boko Haram spokesman Abu Qaqa told reporters in Nigeria by phone last November. "They are promoting the cause of Islam, just as we are doing. Therefore they help us in our struggle and we help them, too."

And, in Yemen, a top Al Qaeda leader calmly states that its number one target is America as the most important defender of the principal enemy, Christianity.

We must eliminate the cross," he says, referencing what he sees as Christian power. He adds: "The bearer of the cross is America!"

In the United States itself the FBI has thwarted hundreds of attempted terrorist acts, but, sadly, not the bombing at the Boston Marathon in 2013 or the murders of fellow soldiers by Major Nadel Hasan at Ft. Hood. There is strong evidence that the U.S. government is being infiltrated by Islamic true believers whose goal is to supplant the Constitution with Islamic law, the Sharia.

Saudi-backed Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Student Association are on many colleges campuses and Washington is home to the notorious Saudi-funded political propaganda operation the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Islamic organization (the Holy Land Foundation) found guilty of funneling money to the terrorist organization Hamas.

Fortunately, not all Muslims follow the mandates of the Koran, but just want to live a decent life and worship God. But those who are the most knowledgeable of Islam are potentially the most dangerous if they remain Muslims. They are obliged to treat all non-Muslims as the enemy and to strike against them (us) when conditions are right. When will a quiet Muslim true believer becomes a jihadist? No one can say.

As yet, the U.S. has not been affected to the extent Britain has, with neighborhoods, villages and towns taken over by Muslims and run as if they were in a Muslim country, observing Sharia and keeping non-Muslims out. Similar "no go" zones exist in France. But in Hamtramck, Michigan the Muslim muezzin (call to the mosque) is broadcast throughout the city five times a day. In nearby Dearborn, Michigan the terrorist Shiite organization Hezbollah has many fervent supporters and neighborhoods where non-Muslims are not welcomed.

With heavy immigration and a soaring birth rate, the Muslim population of Europe is approaching 40 million and is a serious problem not only in France and Great Britain, but in virtually all countries of western Europe.

Tony Blair speaks of "denial" about the dangers posed by Islam. Denial is a problem throughout Europe and the United States, starting with Washington, D.C. and the national media.

There is an effort by Muslims and some Islamic apologists to draw a distinction between Islam and what is called "Islamism" and "Islamists." Islamists are the extremists who are said to distort Islam's message. The trouble is that Islamists are taking what is in the Koran and the hadiths (words and actions of Mohammad) as the marching orders they are meant to be. As many others put it, including the prime minister of Turkey Recep Erdogan, "Islam is Islam." In other words, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam," but there are "moderate Muslims."


Tony Blair: Fighting Islamism - The Defining Challenge of Our Time

Tony Blair, the Former British Prime Minister, delivered a keynote speech at Bloomberg HQ in London entitled 'Why the Middle East Still Matters.' In it he described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today.

He argued "there are four reasons why the Middle East remains of central importance and cannot be relegated to the second order."

The first three: oil, proximity to Europe and Israel, whilst important, were not the focus of the speech. Blair rapidly moved on to the fourth and most important reason: Islamic extremism also known as Islamism.

He identifies the conflict in the Middle East as one between an open and tolerant viewpoint and a fundamentalist Islamist ideology. He said "wherever you look - from Iraq to Libya to Egypt to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria and then further afield to Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan - this is the essential battle."

Addressing those who regard these conflicts as distinct he said "there is something frankly odd about the reluctance to accept what is so utterly plain: that they have in common a struggle around the issue of the rightful place of religion, and in particular Islam, in politics."

It is this central point that he hammered home again and again over the course of his 40 minute speech.

He argued that this struggle does not end at the borders of the region. Rather, "The reason this matters so much is that this ideology is exported around the world."

He asked listeners to "Take a step back and analyze the world today: with the possible exception of Latin America (leaving aside Hezbollah in the tri-border area in South America), there is not a region of the world not adversely affected by Islamism and the ideology is growing."

He notes that "The Muslim population in Europe is now over 40m and growing. The Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations are increasingly active and they operate without much investigation or constraint. Recent controversy over schools in Birmingham (and similar allegations in France) show heightened levels of concern about Islamist penetration of our own societies."

The main thrust of the speech focused on "two fascinating things."

"The first is the absolutely rooted desire on the part of Western commentators to analyze these issues as disparate rather than united by common elements. They go to extraordinary lengths to say why, in every individual case, there are multiple reasons for understanding that this is not really about Islam, it is not really about religion; there are local or historic reasons which explain what is happening. There is a wish to eliminate the obvious common factor in a way that is almost wilful."

Predictably, opponents took the opportunity to argue exactly that. For example, the Guardian's summary quoted a Saudi Daily paper which blamed Israel. Commentator Mehdi Hassan blamed Tony Blair himself for the problem, because of the Iraq war.

Blair went on to argue "The second thing is that there is a deep desire to separate the political ideology represented by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood from the actions of extremists including acts of terrorism."

He acknowledged the motivation behind these fears, saying "We feel almost that if we identify it in these terms, we're being anti-Muslim, a sentiment on which the Islamists cleverly play."

Blair swept these distinctions aside, acknowledging the laudable motives behind such interpretations, but ultimately pinpointing the profound danger posed by the Islamist ideology, and that it is fundamentally incompatible with the modern world.

He urged the West and indeed the entire world, to unite against the ideology Islamic extremism.

Former Foreign Office Minister Denis MacShane compared the speech to Churchill's 1946 Iron Curtain address. Douglas Murray argued in the Spectator that Blair went too far in his efforts to brand Islamism as disconnected from Islam and called on moderate Muslims to help combat radicalism by driving extremists from their communities.

Blair outlined potential foreign policy options for the West vis-a-vis various Middle Eastern countries in order to combat Islamists and to support religiously open and tolerant elements.

In particular he focused on Egypt saying "on the fate of Egypt hangs the future of the region. Here we have to understand plainly what happened. The Muslim Brotherhood government was not simply a bad government. It was systematically taking over the traditions and institutions of the country. The revolt of 30 June 2013 was not an ordinary protest. It was the absolutely necessary rescue of a nation."

All of these different policies are facets of the same policy: that "across the region we should be standing steadfast by our friends and allies as they try to change their own countries in the direction of reform. Whether in Jordan or the Gulf where they're promoting the values of religious tolerance and open, rule based economies, or taking on the forces of reaction in the shape of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, we should be supporting and assisting them."

Perhaps this statement by Blair sums up the message of his keynote speech best: "When we consider the defining challenges of our time, surely this one should be up there along with the challenge of the environment or economic instability."

The full text of the speech can be found here.

Grievances are all that Muslims need to justify attacking infidels. Osama bin Laden made that very easy for eager jihiadists, not only compiling a long list of infidel transgressions but advising that the default position of every Muslim should be "oppressed" and free to attack whenever feasible:

It is commanded by our religion and intellect that the oppressed have a right to return the aggression. Do not await anything from us but Jihad, resistance and revenge.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's deputy, was apparently exasperated that western leaders hadn't really awakened to the fact that Islam was at war with them so he sent a recorded message to Obama in 2008 after he was elected:

[You are] "facing a Jihadi [holy war] awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognise and pretend not to see."

Obama, like President Bush, nonetheless kept up the fiction of Islam being a "religion of peace," perhaps afraid to face the truth that the basic principles of the ideology of 1.3 billion people requires all Muslims to be at war with all non-Muslims.

The same foolishness was recently echoed by Britain's Prime Minister Cameron right after the murder of the off-duty British soldier on a busy London street in daylight:

"This was not just an attack on Britain, and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to this country. There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

And in late May Obama gave a defense speech claiming the the Global War on Terror was over and it was time to move on. Wishing doesn't make it so.

The reality, as American writer Clare Lopez put it, is this:

The United States is not at war with Islam--but Islam sure is at war with us. And that jihad, by the Dar al-Islam [Abode of Islam] against all of the Dar al-Harb [Abode of War] -- the two worlds into which official Islam divides the world -- is not going to stop unless we capitulate in unconditional surrender to the dictates of Shariah Law.

Nothing has changed in 1400 years except that oil money pouring into Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states has enabled the teaching to generations of young Muslims of what the Koran really says and what Mohammad really demands, namely, jihad, violent if necessary, until the world is subject to Islam. How many true believers are there? No one knows, but most estimates range in the hundreds of millions. When will any one of them now in the West choose to strike after years of seemingly civilized living?

Ms. Lopez agrees with Obama in one respect:

America really is "at a crossroads." In some ways, President Obama's throwing in the towel and calling off the GWOT are going to allow events to speak for themselves, thereby forcing a public reassessment of our failed national security strategy about Islam and the jihad wars.

One wonders how leaders like Obama and Cameron (and George Bush along with virtually every other high government official in the West) can be so blind to the threat to civilized life that can be tracked every day in the news of the world.

The Lopez analysis is worth your time.

Raymond Ibraham principally tracks the persecution of Christians taking place in Muslim majority countries, but also takes note of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims in other countries.

Recently, in commenting on the murder and near-beheading of an off-duty British soldier on the streets of London in broad daylight by two Muslims shouting Alahu Akbar, he laid out what he calls "Islam's Rule of Numbers."


But the greater lesson of the London beheading concerns its audacity--done in broad daylight with the attackers boasting in front of cameras, as often happens in the Islamic world.

It reflects what I call "Islam's Rule of Numbers," a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency: The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world--in this case, brazen violence against "infidels"--appear.(emphasis added)

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon. Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a "religion of peace," and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of "grievances," a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London's butcherers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.... The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

Days later in Stockholm, which also has a large Muslim minority, masked rioters destroyed 100 cars and property. The grievance for this particular outbreak was that police earlier shot a(nother) machete-wielding "immigrant" in self-defense.

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians--bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Sudan was an earlier paradigm, when the Khartoum government slaughtered millions to cleanse Sudan of Christians and polytheists. Historically Christian-majority Lebanon plunged into a deadly civil war as the Muslim population grew.

Once Muslims become the majority, the violence ironically wanes, but that's because there are fewer infidels to persecute. And what infidels remain lead paranoid, low-key existences--as dhimmis--always careful to "know their place."

With an 85% Muslim majority, Egypt is increasingly representative of this paradigm. Christian Copts are under attack, but not in an all-out jihad. Rather, under the Muslim Brotherhood their oppression is becoming institutionalized, including through new "blasphemy" laws which have seen many Christians attacked and imprisoned.

Attacks on infidels finally end when Muslims become 100% of the population, as in Saudi Arabia--where all its citizens are Muslim, and churches and other non-Islamic expressions are totally banned.

Such is Islam's Rule of Numbers.

True believers of Mohammad are embedded in Pakistan's security forces, most notably the intellingence service (ISI). A book published yesterday written by recently murdered Syed Saleem Shahzad recounts how the ISI planned the 2008 Mumbai massacre and handed the plans over to Lashkar-e-Taiba (L-e-T) for execution. Americans were among the hundreds killed and wounded.

Yet the U.S. calls Pakistan an "ally" and showers billions of dollars on the weak government, which itself is infiltrated with hard-core terrorist supporters. Appeasement? Yes. It is an unstable country with nuclear weapons and a danger to the world. No good plan has emerged for dealing with it.

This 99% Muslim, Sunni majority country of 170 million has for generations been "educated" by Saudi imans in what the Koran really requires of Muslims. Saudi-supported madrassas teaching the Koran and little else are more influential than public or private schools and are the prime souce of suicide murderers.

As a consequence, persecution of Christians and other minorities is rampant. As a civilized socienty, Pakistan appears to be sliding backward toward the 7th century more and more every year. Our alliance with India is critical for the years ahead.

ISI scripted Mumbai attack, Qaida cleared it: Shahzad book

NEW DELHI: The 26/11 terror attacks that killed 166 people and brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war was scripted by ISI officers and approved before its execution by al-Qaida commanders, according to a book just written by slain Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad.

The 40-year-old reporter in his book titled `Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taleban -- beyond bin Laden and 9/11' describes the Mumbai plan as one pushed through by Ilyas Kashmiri, a key al-Qaida ally with wide links with the Pakistan defence establishment. Shahzad, who was an authority on terrorism in Afghanistan and the neighbourhood, says in the book that the plan was authored by the Inter-Services Intelligence officers and embraced and executed by Lashkar-e-Taiba.

"With Ilyas Kashmiri's immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal," Shahzad wrote in the book, excerpts of which were published in Karachi's The Dawn newspaper on Wednesday.

Shahzad's friends and family believe the ISI may have had something to do with his kidnapping on Sunday and his death by torture and Shahzad himself had spoken of threats from the ISI. The bureau chief of Asia Times Online was killed days after he had exposed links between Pak navy personnel and al-Qaida, explaining how the devastating attack on the Mehran naval base in Karachi was engineered. He is believed to have been killed for "knowing too much" about how al-Qaida has infiltrated the Pakistani defence forces, sources said. The book, yet unavailable in India, is further proof of the close ties between Pakistani officers and al-Qaida.

"Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza," the book says.

"Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT.

"The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri`s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai on November 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war."

According to a friend of Shahzad, the slain writer and he discussed the militant infiltration in the lower ranks of the defence forces. "He also expressed a fear that there would be a rise in violence as the security establishment is really shaky," the friend was quoted as saying in the Dawn newspaper

Muslim persecution has driven most Jews and Christians out of Muslim lands. The latest outrages in Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan reflect the pressure of Islam to convert, kill or drive out "the other." Now the number of ever-expanding Muslim clusters in the big cities of Europe are driving Jews out of not-yet Islamic countries.

Is this reversible?

RELIGION OF PEACE HIJACKED?

Jonah Goldberg askes an interesting question:

For years, we've heard how the peaceful religion of Islam has been hijacked by extremists.

What if it's the other way around? Worse, what if the peaceful hijackers are losing their bid to take over the religion?

The latest horror in Pakistan in which a popular moderate politician was gunned down by his bodyguard because he supported repeal of that country's blasphemy law prompted Jonah's question.

Any optimism anywhere?

INDONESIA NAILS THE TOP TERRORIST BRAIN

Indonesia deserves a great deal of credit for building the case against and arresting Abu Bakar Bashir, a powerful and influence Muslim cleric. He has been fomenting Islamic radicalism and murder of non-Muslim visitors for years and so far had escaped charges of direct responsibility. If the government follows through with the prosecution successfully, it will be a huge win for moderate Islam's credibility.

Abu Bakar Bashir.jpg

Bashir is an evil force.

Terrorism charges filed against Indonesian cleric

Radical Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir (center) is escorted by anti-terror police as he arrives at Indonesian police headquarters in Jakarta, Indonesia, on Monday, Aug. 9, 2010. Mr. Bashir, once imprisoned for his links to the terror group behind the Bali bombings, was arrested Monday for alleged involvement with a new militant network. (AP Photo/Irwin Ferdiansyah)

By Niniek Karmini
Associated Press

8:51 a.m., Wednesday, August 11, 2010

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- Indonesia's best-known radical cleric was charged Wednesday with helping plan terrorist attacks in this, world's most populous Muslim nation -- a crime that carries a maximum penalty of death, police said.

Abu Bakar Bashir was arrested Monday for allegedly setting up a terror cell and militant training camp in Aceh province that was plotting high-profile assassinations and bloody attacks on foreigners in the capital.

Investigators complied a strong case against the fiery 71-year-old cleric by monitoring his bank records, tapping phones and compiling confessions from other suspected militants, said Lt. Gen. Ito Sumardi, chief detective for the national police.

"He has been officially detained and charged with violating the anti-terrorism law," he told reporters, adding that Mr. Bashir, who always has denied terrorist links, has refused so far to cooperate with authorities. He will not answer any questions or sign any documents.
Indonesia has been hit by a string of suicide bombings blamed on Jemaah Islamiyah, an al-Qaeda-linked network, since 2002, when militants attacked two packed nightclubs on the resort island of Bali, killing 202 people.

Mr. Bashir, best known as a co-founder and spiritual head of JI, has been arrested twice before and spent several years in jail. This is the first time, officials said, they can link him directly to terrorist activities.

They said Mr. Bashir helped set up al Qaeda in Aceh, providing funding, helping choose its leaders -- including Dulmatin, one of the alleged masterminds of the Bali bombings -- and keeping in regular contact with its field commanders.

Though Mr. Bashir faces a maximum penalty of death, few analysts believe he will get that.
"I think the strongest evidence the police are going to have against him is financing the camp in Aceh," said Sidney Jones, an expert on Southeast Asian terror groups, adding that it is her understanding that Dulmatin, killed in a March police raid, reached out to Mr. Bashir, not the other way around.

"Looking at the various charges brought against him, my guess is they would produce around a 10-year sentence."

The overwhelming majority of Indonesians are moderate Muslims who reject violence.
The country's last suicide bombing at the J.W. Marriott and Ritz Carlton hotels in Jakarta ended a four-year lull in attacks blamed on Jemaah Islamiyah and its affiliates. Since 2002, more than 260 people have died in terrorist attacks.

WHO SAYS IT'S "ISLAMIC TERRORISM"?

Obama has banned the linking of the words" Islam" or "Islamic" with terrorist activity.

Some people never get the message: This from today's AP wire:

KAMPALA, Uganda (AP) - An al-Qaida-linked Somali militant group claimed responsibility Monday for twin bombings in Uganda that killed 74 people watching the World Cup final on TV, saying the militants would carry out attacks "against our enemy" wherever they are. It was the group's first international attack.


The claim by al-Shabab, whose militants are trained by militant veterans of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, raises concerns about insecurity in East Africa and has broader implications for global security. Al-Shabab has in the past recruited Somali-Americans to carry out suicide bombings.

"We will carry out attacks against our enemy wherever they are," said Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage, a militant spokesman in Mogadishu. "No one will deter us from performing our Islamic duty."

Will Obama condem this gross violation of his edict?

Or will he condemn this senseless murder by Islamic terrorists?

THE FUTURE THROUGH ISLAMIC EYES

It all boils down to bringing your kids up the right way.


MIDDLE EAST WAR INEVITABLE BY SUMMER?

The new Middle East axis of evil -- Iran/Turkey/Syria -- is ganging up on Israel. Having turned world opinion against Israel because it is being made to defend itself with physical force against would-be hostile invaders, the troika apparently believe the time to strike Israel has arrived. After several wars against Israel have resulted in ignominious defeat, these followers of Mohammed feel they are now ready to do what Mohammed says they should do -- kill all the Jews.

King Abdullah of Jordan predicts there will be war this summer. Summer begins this Monday.

NATO member Turkey going to war with Israel? The American people will stand with Israel, but who can count on Obama, who's been romancing his Muslim brethren since he entered the White House? Is he thinking how he can be a hero to his mentor for 20 years Rev. Jeremiah Wright if he sides with Turkey and Syria and, oh yes, Iran?

Obama is doing nothing about the greatest threat facing the Middle East and the United States -- Iran's nuclear weapons development. Iran already has the missiles. How soon will it have the nuclear warhead? Iran's Ahmadinejad has said Iran will wipe Israel off the map. Israel is right to consider Iran a threat to its very existence. One nuclear bomb could eliminate the country. The certaintly of a nuclear counterstrike might deter most, but fanatic Muslims seeking martyrdom aren't among them.

However, with Turkey alongside Iran, Syria ready to invade the Golan Heights and already supplying Hezbollah with long range missiles, and Hamas attacking from Gaza, perhaps no nuclear bomb is needed.

Israel can be isolated and alone if no word issues from the White House.

If the war breaks out, will Jordan and Egypt observe their peace agreements with Israel?

Remember, there is no concept of right and wrong in Islam. The model of Mohammed is the guide for every Muslim:

What would Mohammed do?

That's easy, since Mohammed did it: He signed a treaty, using the time of peace to build up his forces and when he was ready he broke the treaty and attacked.

So should Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities now before its enemies get an equalizing nuclear capability and use its nuclear advantage to hold off Turkey and Syria (and Egypt and Jordan) if not Iran?

Caroline Glick urgently eyes the "approaching storm."


The threat to Israel from the followers of Mohammed is real. Iran, Syria and Turkey smell Jewish blood and they are seeking war. Turkey's prime minister Erdogan is demanding an Israeli apology and restitution, when it is Israel that should be demanding compensation from Turkey for encouraging the flotilla to invade Gaza by sea despite a blockade.

Iran has now announced it will be sending a terrorist flotilla to invade Gaza. So will Lebanon; although Hezbollah says it has nothing to do with the Lebanon flotilla, no one believes that. And Turkey's Erdogan says its navy may escort its second terrorist flotilla from Istanbul.

Though this Muslim squeeze on Israel with boats loaded with fanatics seeking to be martyrs should sicken the world, it won't.

Having succeeded in having their first Gaza flotilla aggression portrayed by the media as Muslim victimhood, the Islamists once again want confrontation in which Israelis must use force, preferably enough to create a few martyrs to be captured on camera.

The Israeli challenge is to tell the world what is really going on, what this Middle East axis of evil -- Iran, Syria and Turkey -- is up to. Their intent is to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews living there.

This is deadly serious stuff, but how does Israel break through the wall of anti-Semitic reporting that ttransmografies truth into lies?

Once again, Caroline Glick's colleagues try parody to describe the threat Israeli men, women and children face from Muslims determined to wipe them off the earth.

The Turkish government continues its turn away from the West towards Iran and Syria as it dreams of a return to the glorious days of the Ottoman Empire. The secularist, modern state created by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s is being dismantled by Islamist prime minister Recep Erdogan and his Islamist party the AKP.

Prime Minister Erdogan ended decades of Turkey's close cooperation with Israel by sending a ship laden with terrorists to break the Gaza blockade established to prevent weaponry from entering Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The terrorists attacked the IDF troopers coming on board to escort the ship to an Israeli port, hoping that violence would be blamed on the Israelis and anti-Semitism stoked around the world. Unfortunately, this inversion of reality happened and the perpetrators of violence were hailed as victims of the soldiers of Israel, who were acting to defend their country from those tens of millions of Muslims who want to kill Jews and destroy Israel.

However, the Israels found this video shot by a Turk aboard the ship before the Israeli troops boarded which shows the terrorists being coached on how to attack the Israelis as they come aboard. The Israelis added English subtitles. These were not humanitarians, but Islamic terrorists eager to become martyrs and travel to their bordello in the sky.

The perfidy of the Turks succeeded. Israel was condemned for defending itself against terrorists by the UN, the EU and all Muslim countries. Obama even supported a UN investigation, which will yield the usual anti-Israeli result. They could write the report before the "investigation."

How can you make the people of the world understand how the anit-Israeli forces in the world led by the media are feeding information upside down, inside out? Parody is one way and some Israelis, led by the brilliant Caroline Glick, quickly prepared the video below, which had been seen by more than three million people before YouTube took it down because of a bogus copyright violation protest, probably from a Muslim sympathizer. Have a few laughs as you appreciate the truth that's being conveyed.


Now here is a straight-talking American on the war being waged against America by Islam.

You've heard the Attorney General of the United States, who can't seem to comprehend what motivated the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood killer and the would-be Christmas Day suicide murderer.

It's well worth the three minutes to listen to someone who knows who our enemy is and is not afraid to speak clearly about the threat we face.

Colonel Allen West is a candidate for Congress this November in Florida's 22nd Congressional District which is mostly coastal Palm Beach County and some of Broward County, running along the coast from Jupiter to Fort Lauderdale. He will be an outstanding addition to the House of Representatives. Check out his website and make a contribution.

Two articles this weekend make the same point: It is essential that we understand Muslims and the Islam that is the driving force behind their actions. With a western mindset and political correctness we constantly delude ourselves and fail to recognize the real challenge of Islam and how huge a problem it is.

A new book "Son of Hamas" is by the son of a founder of Hamas who defected and now lives in the United States. He strikes to the heart of the matter in this interview posted by the Wall Streeet Journal:

As the son of a Muslim cleric, he says he had reached the conclusion that terrorism can't be defeated without a new understanding of Islam. Here he echoes other defectors from Islam such as the former Dutch parliamentarian and writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Do you consider your father a fanatic? "He's not a fanatic," says Mr. Yousef. "He's a very moderate, logical person. What matters is not whether my father is a fanatic or not, he's doing the will of a fanatic God. It doesn't matter if he's a terrorist or a traditional Muslim. At the end of the day a traditional Muslim is doing the will of a fanatic, fundamentalist, terrorist God. I know this is harsh to say. Most governments avoid this subject. They don't want to admit this is an ideological war.

"The problem is not in Muslims," he continues. "The problem is with their God. They need to be liberated from their God. He is their biggest enemy. It has been 1,400 years they have been lied to."

Former Army intelligence officer Ralph Peters writing in the New York Post makes somewhat the same point less dramatically:

Our reluctance to understand the Taliban on its own terms is strikingly evident in our insistence that Islam isn't a factor. A confederation of franchises, the Taliban has multiple interests, from a regional power-struggle to local issues that vary between valleys. But the common identity of Taliban fighters is that they're 100% Muslim and overwhelmingly Pashtun, members of a stateless ethnic group of 40 million straddling the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Who can say the truth more clearly and elegantly (and humorously) than Mark Steyn


Mark Steyn: Obama can't say who we're at war with

By MARK STEYN
2010-01-08 10:16:34

Not long after the Ayatollah Khomeini announced his fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the British novelist suddenly turned up on a Muslim radio station in West London late one night and told his interviewer he'd converted to Islam. Marvelous religion, couldn't be happier, Allahu Akbar and all that.

And the Ayatollah said hey, that's terrific news, glad to hear it. But we're still gonna kill you.

Well, even a leftie novelist wises up under those circumstances.

Evidently, the president of the United States takes a little longer.

Barack Obama has spent the past year doing big-time Islamoschmoozing, from his announcement of Gitmo's closure and his investigation of Bush officials, to his bow before the Saudi king and a speech in Cairo to "the Muslim world" with far too many rhetorical concessions and equivocations. And at the end of it the jihad sent America a thank-you note by way of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's underwear: Hey, thanks for all the outreach! But we're still gonna kill you.

According to one poll, 58 percent of Americans are in favor of waterboarding young Umar Farouk. Well, you should have thought about that before you made a community organizer president of the world's superpower. The election of Barack Obama was a fundamentally unserious act by the U.S. electorate, and you can't blame the world's mischief-makers, from Putin to Ahmadinejad to the many Gitmo recidivists now running around Yemen, from drawing the correct conclusion.

For two weeks, the government of the United States has made itself a global laughingstock. Don't worry, "the system worked," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano. Don't worry, he was an "isolated extremist," said the president. Don't worry, we're banning bathroom breaks for the last hour of the flight, said the TSA. Don't worry, "U.S. border security officials" told the Los Angeles Times, we knew he was on the plane, and we "had decided to question him when he landed." Don't worry, Obama's counterterrorism chief, John Brennan, assured the Sunday talk shows, sure, we read him his rights, and he's lawyered up but he'll soon see that "there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements."

Oh, that's grand. Try to kill hundreds of people in an act of war, and it's the starting point for a plea deal. In his Cairo speech, the president bragged that the United States would "punish" those in America who would "deny" the "right of women and girls to wear the hijab." If he's so keen on it, maybe he should consider putting the entire federal government into full-body burkas and zipping up the eye slit so that, henceforth, every public utterance by John Brennan will be entirely inaudible. Americans should be ashamed by this all-fools' fortnight.

On Thursday, having renounced over the preceding days "the system worked," the "isolated extremist," the more obviously risible TSA responses, the Gitmo-Yemen express checkout and various other follies, the president finally spoke the words: "We are at war." As National Review's Rich Lowry noted, they were more or less dragged from the presidential gullet by Dick Cheney, who'd accused the commander in chief of failing to grasp this basic point. Again, to be fair, it isn't just Obama. Last November, the electorate voted, in effect, to repudiate the previous eight years and seemed genuinely under the delusion that wars end when one side decides it's all a bit of a bore, and they'd rather the government spend the next eight years doing to health care and the economy what they were previously doing to jihadist camps in Waziristan.

On the other hand, if we are now at war, as Obama belatedly concedes, against whom are we warring? "We are at war against al-Qaida," says the president.

Really? But what does that mean? Was the previous month's "isolated extremist," the Fort Hood killer, part of al-Qaida? When it came to spiritual advice, he turned to the same Yemeni-based American-born imam as the Pantybomber, but he didn't have a fully paid-up membership card.

Nor did young Umar Farouk, come to that. Granted the general overcredentialization of American life, the notion that it doesn't count as terrorism unless you're a member of Local 437 of the Amalgamated Union of Isolated Extremists seems perverse and reductive.

What did the Pantybomber have a membership card in? Well, he was president of the Islamic Society of University College, London. Kafeel Ahmed, who died after driving a burning jeep into the concourse of Glasgow Airport, had been president of the Islamic Society of Queen's University, Belfast. Yassin Nassari, serving three years in jail for terrorism, was president of the Islamic Society of the University of Westminster. Waheed Arafat Khan, arrested in the 2006 Heathrow terror plots that led to Americans having to put their liquids and gels in those little plastic bags, was president of the Islamic Society of London Metropolitan University.

Doesn't this sound like a bigger problem than "al-Qaida," whatever that is? The president has now put citizens of Nigeria on the secondary-screening list. Which is tough on Nigerian Christians, who have no desire to blow up your flight to Detroit. Aside from the highly localized Tamil terrorism of India and Sri Lanka, suicide bombing is a phenomenon entirely of Islam. The broader psychosis that manifested itself only the other day in an axe murderer breaking into a Danish cartoonist's home to kill him because he objects to his cartoon is, likewise, a phenomenon of Islam. This is not to say (to go wearily through the motions) that all Muslims are potential suicide bombers and axe murderers, but it is to state the obvious - that this "war" is about the intersection of Islam and the West, and its warriors are recruited in the large pool of young Muslim manpower, not in Yemen and Afghanistan so much as in Copenhagen and London.

But the president of the United States cannot say that because he is overinvested in a fantasy - that, if only that Texan moron Bush had read Khalid Sheikh Mohammed his Miranda rights and bowed as low as Obama did to the Saudi king, we wouldn't have all these problems. So now Obama says, "We are at war." But he cannot articulate any war aims or strategy because they would conflict with his illusions. And so we will stagger on, playing defense, pulling more and more items out of our luggage - tweezers, shoes, shampoo, snow globes, suppositories - and reacting to every new provocation with greater impositions upon the citizenry.

You can't win by putting octogenarian nuns through full-body scanners.

All you can do is lose slowly. After all, if you can't even address what you're up against with any honesty, you can't blame the other side for drawing entirely reasonable conclusions about your faintheartedness in taking them on.

After that cringe-making radio interview, Salman Rushdie subsequently told The Times of London that trying to appease his would-be killers and calling for his own book to be withdrawn was the biggest mistake of his life. If only the president of the United States was such a quick study.

WHAT WAR?

Why is Obama so reluctant to acknowledge what he must know? Islam is at war with America and will continue to be so until it has conquered America.

Was Obama, like many, if not most or all, Muslim-born babies, inculcated with the poison of Islam at birth? Does the poison still run through his veins?

Not the Manchurian candidate, but the Meccan candidate?

Hollow Words on Terrorism

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Janet Napolitano -- former Arizona governor, now overmatched secretary of homeland security -- will forever be remembered for having said of the attempt to bring down an airliner over Detroit: "The system worked." The attacker's concerned father had warned U.S. authorities about his son's jihadist tendencies. The would-be bomber paid cash and checked no luggage on a transoceanic flight. He was nonetheless allowed to fly, and would have killed 288 people in the air alone, save for a faulty detonator and quick actions by a few passengers.

Heck of a job, Brownie.

The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension. From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face. Napolitano renames terrorism "man-caused disasters." Obama goes abroad and pledges to cleanse America of its post-9/11 counterterrorist sins. Hence, Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management.

And just to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term "war on terror." It's over -- that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term "asymmetric warfare."

And produces linguistic -- and logical -- oddities that littered Obama's public pronouncements following the Christmas Day attack. In his first statement, Obama referred to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as "an isolated extremist." This is the same president who, after the Ford Hood shooting, warned us "against jumping to conclusions" -- code for daring to associate Nidal Hasan's mass murder with his Islamist ideology. Yet, with Abdulmutallab, Obama jumped immediately to the conclusion, against all existing evidence, that the bomber acted alone.

More jarring still were Obama's references to the terrorist as a "suspect" who "allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device." You can hear the echo of FDR: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- Japanese naval and air force suspects allegedly bombed Pearl Harbor."

Obama reassured the nation that this "suspect" had been charged. Reassurance? The president should be saying: We have captured an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians -- and now to prevent future attacks, he is being interrogated regarding information he may have about al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Instead, Abdulmutallab is dispatched to some Detroit-area jail and immediately lawyered up. At which point -- surprise! -- he stops talking.

This absurdity renders hollow Obama's declaration that "we will not rest until we find all who were involved." Once we've given Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, we have gratuitously forfeited our right to find out from him precisely who else was involved, namely those who trained, instructed, armed and sent him.

This is all quite mad even in Obama's terms. He sends 30,000 troops to fight terror overseas, yet if any terrorists come to attack us here, they are magically transformed from enemy into defendant.

The logic is perverse. If we find Abdulmutallab in an al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, where he is merely preparing for a terror attack, we snuff him out with a Predator -- no judge, no jury, no qualms. But if we catch him in the United States in the very act of mass murder, he instantly acquires protection not just from execution by drone but even from interrogation.

The president said that this incident highlights "the nature of those who threaten our homeland." But the president is constantly denying the nature of those who threaten our homeland. On Tuesday, he referred five times to Abdulmutallab (and his terrorist ilk) as "extremist(s)."

A man who shoots abortion doctors is an extremist. An eco-fanatic who torches logging sites is an extremist. Abdulmutallab is not one of these. He is a jihadist. And unlike the guys who shoot abortion doctors, jihadists have cells all over the world; they blow up trains in London, nightclubs in Bali and airplanes over Detroit (if they can); and are openly pledged to war on America.

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy -- jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon -- turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

CAN THE HOLD OF ISLAM BE BROKEN?

Even the New York Times editorial page may be waking up to the internal threat posed by immigrants from barbarian Muslim societies with values far removed from those of the West.

What's happening in Europe is an advanced stage of what can happen and is happening already in America.

Politicians ignore the danger that citIzens increasingly face from unassimilated -- and unassimilable -- Muslims.

Islam is an all-encompassing ideology demanding submission to its command to wage war until Islam rules the world. Its hold on its adherents inculcated from the moment of birth is difficult to break for most and impossible for many.

European politicians turned a blind eye for decades to this fact as they waved Muslim immigrants in. The result is chaos sweeping through Europe with fear, resentment and anger building among the natives. Many are pessimistic about the chances of European civilization surviving the belligerent Islamic onslaught. Political correctness and multiculturalism stand in the way of an aggressive defense.

Oddmakers are betting on Islam.

Op-Ed Columnist

Europe's Minaret Moment

By ROSS DOUTHAT

They toasted to progress in Europe's capitals last week. On Tuesday, the Treaty of Lisbon went into effect, bringing the nations of the European Union one step closer to the unity the Continent's elite has been working toward for over 50 years.

But the treaty's implementation fell just days after a milestone of a different sort: a referendum in Switzerland, long famous for religious tolerance, in which 57.5 percent of voters chose to ban the nation's Muslims from building minarets.

Switzerland isn't an E.U. member state, but the minaret moment could have happened almost anywhere in Europe nowadays -- in France, where officials have floated the possibility of banning the burka; in Britain, which elected two representatives of the fascistic, anti-Islamic British National Party to the European Parliament last spring; in Italy, where a bill introduced this year would ban mosque construction and restrict the Islamic call to prayer.

If the more perfect union promised by the Lisbon Treaty is the European elite's greatest triumph, the failure to successfully integrate millions of Muslim immigrants represents its greatest failure. And the two are intertwined: they're both the fruits of the high-handed, often undemocratic approach to politics that Europe's leaders have cultivated in their quest for unity.

The European Union probably wouldn't exist in its current form if the Continent's elites hadn't been willing to ignore popular sentiment. (The Lisbon Treaty, for instance, was deliberately designed to bypass most European voters, after a proposed E.U. Constitution was torpedoed by referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.) But this political style -- forge a consensus among the establishment, and assume you can contain any backlash that develops -- is also how the Continent came to accept millions of Muslim immigrants, despite the absence of a popular consensus on the issue, or a plan for how to integrate them.

The immigrants came first as guest workers, recruited after World War II to relieve labor shortages, and then as beneficiaries of generous asylum and family reunification laws, designed to salve Europe's post-colonial conscience. The European elites assumed that the divide between Islam and the West was as antiquated as scimitars and broadswords, and that a liberal, multicultural, post-Christian federation would have no difficulty absorbing new arrivals from more traditional societies. And they decided, too -- as Christopher Caldwell writes in "Reflections on the Revolution in Europe," his wonderfully mordant chronicle of Europe's Islamic dilemma -- that liberal immigration policies "involve the sort of nonnegotiable moral duties that you don't vote on."

Better if they had let their voters choose. The rate of immigration might have been slower, and the efforts to integrate the new arrivals more strenuous. Instead, Europe's leaders ended up creating a clash of civilizations inside their own frontiers.

Millions of Muslims have accepted European norms. But millions have not. This means polygamy in Sweden; radical mosques in Britain's fading industrial cities; riots over affronts to the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark; and religiously inspired murder in the Netherlands. It means terrorism, and the threat of terrorism, from London to Madrid.

And it means a rising backlash, in which European voters support extreme measures and extremist parties because their politicians don't seem to have anything to say about the problem.

In fairness, it isn't clear exactly what those leaders could offer at this point. They can't undo decades of migration. A large Muslim minority is in Europe to stay. Persisting with the establishment's approach makes a certain sense: keep a lid on prejudice, tamp down extremism, and hope that time will transform the zealous Islam of recent immigrants into a more liberal form of faith, and make the conflict go away.

Or least keep it manageable. Caldwell's book, the best on the subject to date, has a deeply pessimistic tone, but it shies away from specific predictions about the European future. Other writers are less circumspect, envisioning a Muslim-majority "Eurabia" in which Shariah has as much clout as liberalism.

But even a decadent West is probably stronger than this. The most likely scenario for Europe isn't dhimmitude; it's a long period of tension, punctuated by spasms of violence, that makes the Continent a more unpleasant place without fundamentally transforming it.

This is cold comfort, though, if you have to live under the shadow of violence. Just ask the Swiss, who spent last week worrying about the possibility that the minaret vote might make them a target for Islamist terrorism.

They're right to worry. And all of Europe has to worry as well, thanks to the folly of its leaders -- now, and for many years to come.

Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Islamic Terrorism category.

Islamic supremacism is the previous category.

Israel is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.