Category Archives: Shiite

Scouts Honor: Afghanistan Is No Place For Americans

LET'S DROP THE PLUMB BOB HERE, talk some straight talk, and rid ourselves of mixed emotions on all this war effort hubris. Attempting to transform the wild west of Afghanistan is much too expensive, much too depleting, of Western resources—perhaps not as much as the fiasco in Iraq, but it is simply the same kind of misguided belief in the mutability of Muslim man that pays insufficient attention to the permanent hold of Islam, and what it means for the West.

Resources are limited. Men of valor, war and peace material, morale. They have been squandered, in Afghanistan, as in Iraq. The belief that Afghanistan must be occupied directly by Western troops, that it is a choice of either of keeping those troops, and at the same time curing poverty or remaking, at horrific expense, the hopelessly backward unrepentant country of Afghanistan, or validate the terrorists.

We should not confuse the smooth Karzai, with his Western experience and connections, or a handful of others at the top, with the tribes of Afghanistan. And we should not avail the Afghan-Americans who are involved in "reconstruction" hopes and schemes and dreams who are similarly entirely unrepresentative of the real Afghanistan that Infidel countries must keep steadily in mind.

Wherever Obama Goes, There He Is
America should have as little to do directly with Muslim states as possible. No more messianism. No more spending of American or NATO funds. Let Saudi Arabia fight its own battles and be forced to share with the less fortunate Afghani Muslims, fellow members of the Umma. Let the Camp of Islam take care, if it so chooses, of its own. America should stop enouraging the Karzais of this world to talk wistfully of how they wish they could have that $300 billion spent in Iraq spent, rather, on them—tell them to stop counting on the Americans or other infidels, and if they wish, to go hat in hand to fellow members of the Umma.

Long live Afghanistan, but there is little need to patrol the entire country on a fool's errand. In fact, the extreme mountainous terrain and fractured nature of its tribal peoples make these logistics an impossible task. Despite the recent resurgence of Taliban forces, the notion that somehow the place is indispensable to Al Qaeda is nonsense.

Al Qaeda operatives can train, and are training, in Pakistan, or for that matter, Al Qaeda sympathizers, those who have the same goals, prompted by the same texts, can train with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, or with Hamas in Gaza, or with Jemaah Islamiyya on this or that Indonesian isle, or with Gemaah Islmayyah in a village in Lower Egypt, or with Jaish-e-Muhammad almost anywhere they choose in huge Pakistan. The American government seems to believe that because Al Qaeda once had camps in Afghanistan, this is the only place it can have camps. And it further seems to believe that Al Qaeda is the only or main terrorist threat. But they are all threats, and furthermore, terrorism is not the most effective weapon in the Jihad.

All of this needs somehow to penetrate the seemingly impenetrable skulls of official Washington.

Fight From Afar—Telemachy—should be the motto. Supply first this ruthless warlord, and then that. When necessary, enter the country intermittently, keeping enemies under surveillance and always off-guard. This has been America's foreign policy mistake over for fifty years. The US once backed Saddam Hussein, then turned on him. The US once backed Manuel Noreiga, a former strong ally who worked for the CIA, then turned on him. Yet the US has propped up many a dictator who agreed the do our bidding. No wonder theere is so much distrust of American motives across the globe.

"Bottle up the Camp of Islam, to the extent possible, and exploit, to the greatest extent possible, the sectarian, ethnic, and economic divisions that divide the Camp of Islam. And then turn the attention of Infidels to the instruments of Jihad other than Terror."
According to Kamram Memon a civil rights attorney writing for the "Muslims For A Safe America" website, "For decades, the U.S. government has provided economic and military aid to dictatorships in the Muslim world, on the theory that dictators would provide stability and protect American interests in the Muslim world. When Muslims tried to pick their own leaders, the U.S. government was unsympathetic. The CIA helped overthrow the democratically-elected president of Iran in 1953. President Bush’s father stood silently by as the Algerian military prevented democratically-elected leaders from taking power in the early 1990s."

Memon continues, "After 9/11 highlighted anti-American feeling in the Muslim world, President Bush declared in November 2003 that the U.S. would reverse its policy. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East.”

President Bush has partly justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds of spreading “freedom and democracy. But of course these two wars are about oil, but this motive is always denied while democracy is touted as America's sole export. But make no mistake about this. I believe that there is a large very dangerous sector of the Muslim war that will NEVER be deterred from its jihad against the West, NEVER, unless it is soundly defeated. But this winning the hearts and minds approach is hogwash. According to one writer the US should:

"Bottle up the Camp of Islam, to the extent possible, and exploit, to the greatest extent possible, the sectarian, ethnic, and economic divisions that divide the Camp of Islam. And then turn the attention of Infidels to the instruments of Jihad other than Terror. Start with those campaigns of Da'wa, and the demogrpahic conquest that has already made the countries of Western Europe much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than they would be without a large-scale Muslim presence.

And then like any true eagle scout "be prepared" for the next jihadist move.

But speaking of the Boy Scouts of America, there is more nonsense everyday popping up in this country. According to "The Militant Islam Monitor" the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has signed a lease for up to 25 years with a group that wants to build a Muslim youth camp at Lake Coralville near North Liberty, Iowa. The lease allows the Cedar Rapids-based Muslim Youth Camps of America to build on 114 acres of federal land. Construction can start once the group works out details with county and state regulators, the corps reported in March, 2006.

While the ACLU feels it necessary to take action against symbols of the Christian faith, it seems they do not attribute the same set of standards to Islam.
Plans for the $934,000 camp north of North Liberty call for lodging up to 60 campers ages 10 to 17 in cabins and tents plus staffers during the summer and up to 40 per night in the offseason. When completed, the camp will include a 2,400 square-foot lodge, a beach, recreation trails, five cabins, five tent pods and a bathroom. The initial plan, submitted in 1999, called for a 17,500-square-foot lodge, 12 camping platforms, 10 cabins, bathrooms, trails and a beach. The scaled back plan was presented after an environmental assessment.

Do you think everyday Americans would be alarmed? Think again. Neighbors who had been opposed to the camp said they no longer were as concerned as they had been. Rick Hollis, whose property adjoins the land, said he could live with the scaled-down version. He said it is closer to the size of a Girl Scout camp there previously. "I like the quiet neighborhood the way it is, but if they really keep it the size of the Girl Scout camp, it should not be a big intrusion on the neighborhood," Hollis said.

In July of 2002, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) won a long fought battle to remove a cross from the Mohave Desert public preserve, as a Federal judge ruled that it was in breach of the "establishment" clause of the Constitution.

Of the case, Peter Eliasberg, an attorney at the ACLU stated, "The federal government should not offer public land—owned collectively by people of every faith and of no faith—as a site for the advertisement and promotion of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Pope John Paul II, or any other particular religious figure. Contrary to what some believe, it is not the role of the federal government to advance Christianity or any other sectarian belief." He further stated, "The courts have consistently held that a permanent religious fixture on federal land is a violation of the U.S. Constitution."

While the ACLU feels it necessary to take action against symbols of the Christian faith, it seems they do not attribute the same set of standards to Islam. The group that wants to use the Iowa site calls itself Muslim Youth Camps of America, Inc. (MYCA). Organizers of MYCA say they purposely chose the name so that it would resemble that of the YMCA, the well-known Christian nationwide health and fitness center. "It is not exclusively for Muslims, just like YMCA is not exclusive to Christians," states Manzoor Ali, the Chairman of MYCA. But this statement doesn't exactly jibe with some of the other statements made by the group. Read more.

And yet there have been several well-publicized cases where the Boy Scouts of America have been denied permits for a permanent camp or even a single event on public land. City officials in Norwalk, CN were recently considering denying a permit for the Boy Scouts to use a beach for a recruitment drive based on the parent organization's policy of barring homosexual members.

Norwalk's mayor has asked the law department to determine whether there is legal precedent to deny a Boy Scouts troop use of Shady Beach. He made his request after members of the Common Council's parks committee told the scoutmaster last week that they would vote against issuing her a permit for a three-hour campfire and recruitment program. The continuing controversy about Boy Scouts of America membership arose a few years ago after the organization expelled James Dale, an Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster in New Jersey for 10 years, because he is gay. Dale sued and won reinstatement but the Scouts took their case to the US Supreme Court and, in 2000, prevailed.

But there is still something wrong here, folks. Wake up!

Parsing The Failed State Conundrum

      Democracy don’t rule the world,
      You’d better get that in your head.
      This world is ruled by violence
      But I guess that’s better left unsaid.

      Bob Dylan

      "Politics should be the part-time
      profession of every citizen who would
      protect the rights and privileges of free
      people and who would preserve what is
      good and fruitful in our national heritage."

      Lucille Ball

Another formidable essay by Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihad Watch...

The Late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran
FOR SEVEN YEARS, SUCCESSIVE American administrations have squandered men, money, materiel, morale (both civilian and military) in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan, wars whose goals—something to do with keeping or making these places unified, prosperous, and above all, preventing them from becoming "failed states" (a strange new and fashionable phrase, that is never defined but simply employed as if its significance were obvious) because then, you see, it doth follow as the night the day that as "failed states" they will become putty in the hands of Al Qaeda, which will move in, lock stock and barrel, and the United States will be unable to do a thing about it, then or at any time in the future.

Meanwhile, Muslims attack and kill non-Muslims in the southern Philippines and southern Thailand; the ISI-backed terrorist groups, slightly quieter after the Mumbai murders, have not been disbanded or weakened in any way by the Pakistani military; the zamindars and generals still share power and still exhibit the same sly meretriciousness toward the Americans as they inveigle ever greater amounts of military equipment, and money, and keep on producing weapons-grade plutonium, that is essentially paid for by American taxpayers. Saudi Arabia continues to spend its tens of billions all over the world paying for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, and propaganda churned out, in part, by armies of Western hirelings, some directly and some indirectly employed on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Islam; in American universities Muslims hire and promote each other, or the occasional non-Muslim willing collaborator, in academic departments devoted to the Middle East or to Islam, and in some Ivy League schools, there have been disturbing reports as to how one or two Muslim faculty members can prevent any open discussion of Islam in its historical context, or subject it to scholarly (i.e., unworshipful) study, and they can do this, sometimes, by even threatening to call on local Muslims to enforce such a ban.

The peoples of Western Europe are now enduring, or suffering, the consequences not of undifferentiated "immigration" but. rather, of Muslim immigration—and the American press hardly begins to touch this topic, to sink beneath the surface of things, and everywhere, the indigenous Europeans regret bitterly the heedlessness of their own political and media elites in allowing in so many Musims over just a short time—the last 20-30 years—and the fact that, because of this large-scale Muslim presence, life for those indigenous non-Muslims who live in societies,and countries, created entirely by non-Muslims (and none of their artistic, literary, musical achievements or political and religious freedoms for one minute conceivable under Islam), has become far more unpleasant, unsettled, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale Muslim presence.

Those who did not read what Ayatollah Khomeini wrote, and who thus abandoned the Shah and accepted Khomoeini’s ascent to power— what worse group could one imagine being in control of American policy toward Iran than Gary Sick, William Miller (an early promoter of Khomeini), Zbigniew Brzezinski (that fake “realist” so ignorant of Islam and so determiinedly hostile to Israel), Jimmy Carter (ditto, but with an added holier-than-thou belief in the sheer goodness of a “fellow man of faith”—as he addressed Khomeini in a letter)—have not been sufficiently mocked, and their recent ideological heirs, the ones who believe in diplomatic maneuvering and cajoling long after it has run its course, will regret that they did not deal with the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran when they could.
The West does not have to squander trillions in these idiotic ventures to save Muslim states and societies from the consequences—political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral—of Islam itself. Indeed, it should not do so. And the fact that so many European countries are now unwilling to contribute to the American Building-the-Bridge-Over-the-River-Kwai project, one that is being conducted by the military who are given a task, but whose highest officers are apparently unwilling to question the efficacy and sense of that task, should give one pause. Why, for example, do those, such as Geert Wilders, who sense most keenly the danger of Islam infiltating and encroaching from within, are the least keen on sending soldiers to Afghanistan, to engage in what they rightly recognize as a snare, and a delusion?

Those countries that are part of the West, or part of the Rest—for the world-wide Jihad is a war of Islam against not the West but against All the Rest, and its ideological promptings are those contained in the Immutable and Uncreated Qur'an, as supplemented or glossed by the Hadith and the Sira, the sayings and deeds and biography of that Perfect Man, Muhammad—need to figure out what Islam, taken straight up and not on the rocks, not diluted by local custom or the ability of some Muslims not to take to heart what the texts teach (though at any point anyone still calling himself a Muslim may revert to that old-time religion, the faith straight up, with dangerous consequences for non-Muslims)—means, and intelligently construct a defense that relies mostly on allowing the pre-existing fissures—sectarian, ethnic, economic—within the Camp of Islam to widen, merely by doing nothing to prevent this.

And the other task—the one that is shown in the colossal failure, over many years, to deal effectively with the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran—is to make sure that no Muslim state, no Muslim group, no Muslim groupuscule, anywhere in the world, gets its hands, in posse or in esse, on weapons of mass destruction. It should by now be obvious that nothing except military force will stop the Islamic Republic of Iran in its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. Those who did not read what Ayatollah Khomeini wrote, and who thus abandoned the Shah and accepted Khomoeini's ascent to power— what worse group could one imagine being in control of American policy toward Iran than Gary Sick, William Miller (an early promoter of Khomeini), Zbigniew Brzezinski (that fake "realist" so ignorant of Islam and so determiinedly hostile to Israel), Jimmy Carter (ditto, but with an added holier-than-thou belief in the sheer goodness of a "fellow man of faith"—as he addressed Khomeini in a letter)—have not been sufficiently mocked, and their recent ideological heirs, the ones who believe in diplomatic maneuvering and cajoling long after it has run its course, will regret that they did not deal with the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran when they could.

And it is intolerable as well—flabbergastingly foolish—for the Obama administration to have done everything they possibly can to discourage and prevent Israel, willing—as it has been so many times in the past (bombing the Osirak reactor and then the Syrian nuclear installation, forcing Syrian tanks back from Jordan so as to rescue King Hussein of Jordan, warning Arab rulers of terrorist plots against them).

This Israeli flag is still not vanquished...
It should be the United States, and not little Israel, that as a world power and leader—if it saw itself correctly—of those resisting Jihad, should be dealing with the Iranian nuclear project. The claim that this would "only set back the Iranians by a year or two" is unproven, and in any case silly. The mere demonstration of American willingness to destroy major parts of such a program would not result in a renewed effort by a now at long last chasteneed Islamic Republic of Iran, for if the Americans showed themselves willing to attack once, it would be clear that they would be willing to attack again, and in all kinds of places—the port of Um Qasr, for example, or destroying the Iranian navy in the Gulf, or aiding Kurds in northwestern Iran and in another pocket in northeastern Iran, and Arabs in Khuzistan, and perhaps even suggest to the Azerbaijan government that the Americans wouldn't mind, as they did in 1946 with the Red Army, an expansion into northern Iran, to "re-unify" the Azeri people. All kinds of things are possible, but the very idea that an attack on Iran's nuclear project could only be a one-time thing, and that there would be no effect on the Islamic Republic of Iran—which, if it does acquire nuclear weapons, will never be dislodged by its domestic opponents, some of whom at long last realize this, though they cannot openly call for a Western attack on the nuclear project lest they be accused of treason.

It's madness and if, in a year Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, even the folly of the Bush Administration with its crazed and messianic sentimentalism—and the way in which so many policy-makers allowed themselves to be inveigled by Shi'a exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi, and failed to grasp the nature of Iraq and what would inevitably happen—will seem not quite so bad, for the Obama Administration, prompted by a different kind of naivete, but exhibiting the same willful ignorance about Islam, will have outdone even the Bush Administration. And its entire foreign policy will be seen to have been idiotic, and lie in ruins. For some, that will be a grim consolation. For others, more sensible, it will be no consolation at all.

[Parsing The Failed State Conundrum]

Fitzgerald: How Dumb, How Long?

Islamic Protest
Typical Islamic Protest

Pensive HUGH FITZGERALD of the encyclopedic JIHAD WATCH site, today asks, "How dumb do we have to be, and for how long?" The answer of course, is blowing in the wind. And you know what that means. Massive explosions, terminal destruction.

Bombs and explosions of every sort do indeed tend to present the olfactory sensitive with a peculiar odor of the day. But until then, let's just play with words, and send them money, yep that's what they need, more money, boast our misguided leaders.

News from Yemen today. A bomb rigged to a motorcycle blew up amid a crowd of worshippers leaving Friday prayers at a mosque in a rebel stronghold of northern Yemen, killing at least 18 people and wounding about four dozen, officials said. Want more? Click to this this news article

Shi'a and Sunnis at it again. Yes, of course, the American government must do what it can to try to stop this kind of internecine warfare among Muslims, in Yemen as in Iraq. Otherwise there might be a "catastrophic" situation. Otherwise there might be "chaos" in the Middle East.

And somehow this "chaos" and this "catastrophe" that will ensue will, we are told, be bad for us, in ways always unspecified, as if we are simply to accept the conclusion of our betters—you know, the people in the government who pick up their news just as you and I do, but who lack the time, and the inclination (unlike you, unlike me) to spend the time to read about Islam, to read the texts of Islam, to learn what the Western students of Islam (not the espositos but the real thing) have said about the contents of Islam.

For they are just too occupied and preoccupied to sit in a room and read. They may be cosseted, chauffeured about, and so on, but their daily lives are full of meetings, and hectic busyness, and travelling hither and yon, and getting someone above to "sign off" on something, and coming up with "policies" that need to be formulated by consulting with everyone and his brother, and then written up in the stilted bloodless bureaucratic language which is now the favored medium—they know no other, they have never been exposed to any other—of those in the government, and who presume to instruct, and to protect us. They have to deal now with this crisis, now with that, and with every part of the world.

How can someone as mediocre as Bush, advised by someone as mediocre as Rice—people who have never had the inclination or leisure to read widely in history, or to exercise their imaginative faculty through literature—be expected to have read about Islam? Yet if you cannot imagine something, it is difficult to think about it. If you cannot imagine an islamized Western Europe, if it is simply beyond you, then you will not worry about what that would mean, and are not likely to come up with ways to avoid that completely plausible and deplorable, and entirely avoidable, future for the heart of the West.

One more thing. If leaving Iraq would, as some direly warn, cause great disruption, chaos, a "catastrophe" in the area, then why don't any of the Sunni Arab states, presumably those who would have the most to lose, bother to give any aid at all to the government of Iraq? Answer: why should they? They do not wish to shore up Shi'a who rule in Baghdad. They will, however, continue to urge the Americans to stay, in order to keep the Sunnis in Iraq supplied with guns and money and with a powerful protector that will pressure the Shi'a to make concessions, and concessions—and the Americans will, listening gravely to the advice of rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other small sheikdoms, fall for it, not realizing how they are being suckered.

And if leaving Iraq would, as some direly warn, lead to terrible disruptions in the supply of oil (during the Iran-Iraq War, that lasted for eight years, there was little disruption and the price of oil went steadily down), then why aren't other oil-consuming nations concerned? Why hasn't China lifted a finger, or spent a penny, to help promote stability and prosperity in Iraq? Could it be that the Chinese are, like the Sunni Arabs, perfectly content to watch the continuing squandering of American money, material, men, morale, happy to see us bleed ourselves, in order to do something which will benefit China and other oil-consumers as much as, perhaps more than, it will benefit the United States?

How dumb do we have to be, and for how long?

Get our troops out of Iraq. Let the chips fall where they may. Inform the public what we are really up against, Begin preparations for all-out war. Seal the ALL borders. Stop all Muslim immigration. Issue national identity cards. Begin a national rationing program for pertinent goods, especially petroleum products. Modify trading levels with China until they bulk up their safety oversights and rectify the massive trade deficit the US has been complaining about for over a decade. Tell Americans that each of us need to gird our loins with the American spirit and start acting like we've got good sense. Maybe, just maybe, candidate Ron Paul had a good idea, or two, or several.

And here's some positive news (well, the ACLU is against it, as well as all the usual suspects who are probably not quite as "law-abiding" as they would have us believe) on the defense front. The LA Times has reported that the LAPD has instituted a new anti-terrorism program that should serve as a national model for detecting suspicious activity, reporting it peer to peer and upward to the federal levels.

Send The Clowns Home

Low Information bigot?

Of course we all known that the problem lies not with the Muslims who commit savage acts of violence in the name of Islam, but with the filmmakers who point out that Muslims commit savage acts of violence in the name of Islam. WE are all low information bigots in this country, correct? And the solution is to ban freedom of expression in the name of protecting freedom of expression? What a fascinating exercise in double-think!

As a secular person born into the Shiite faith, I say send all those Moslems back to where they came from if they don't like the Western culture of personal freedom and that of free expression. Just send the clowns home. For the life of me I do not understand why Westerners put up with this hypocrisy, hatred, openly murderous cult. Do you think they would extend the same courtesy to you? I don't think so.

What Moslems need is the same reformation Christians went through several centuries ago. All religions must be defanged for the sake of sanity and humanity.

Weakening The Camp Of Islam

Side By Side

Despite SOS Condi Rice's stern admonition, somebody's not listening as we watch for the weakening of the Camp of Islam. Clearly, one of the most brilliant insights and policies the Reagan administration articulated was that as long as Iran and Iraq were fighting each other, they would constitute a lesser threat to everyone else. History has reflected this, since shortly after the Iran-Iraq war ended, both found new enemies.

When Sunnis and Shiites are channeling their Islamic jihad impulses into fighting each other rather than harassing everyone else, humanity as a whole is safer.

Jihad is a virtual imperative in Islam. It will either seep into the daily lives of those eager to please their bloodthirsty diety as intersectarian, interethnic, intertribal, interparty, inter(whatever) warfare between Muslims or else as warfare against humanity as a whole (e.g. all non-Muslims). The bottom line is that if Muslims are not fighting themselves, they pose an existential threat to everyone else.

There is a strategic lesson here.

But no, Bush had to lunge for Saddam Hussein, who terrified the Saudis; for the belated honor of his dad, Bush senior; supposed easy oil, and some heretical fantasy about being a war president. Democracy? What a joke!

On Reds And Blues Who Just Don't Get It

Islam On Notice
Stephen Colbert Putting Islam On Notice

We can you you mumble, but isn't this crazy fellow a liberal? Sure, he's posing as a conservative for laughs and a fat paycheck, but how could he? Colbert is ACTUALLY, YES, ACTUALLY poking fun at Islam (and the conservatives who fear them), even though he is a liberal, which proves how utterly insightful and brave a liberal he truly is. Give him credit. He got it right, even if he thinks it's all a joke. And yes, while I do like to watch his show, what does that make me? A label licker! Ha!

Around the globe we find that many courageous men and women of knowledge and inspiration are beginning to speak out against what too many are willing to ignore or cover up. Below is a segment of a speech by Ibn Warraq:

"The root cause of Islamic fundamentalism is Islam. What on earth has American foreign policy got to do with the stoning to death of a woman for adultery in Nigeria? It has every thing to do with Islam, and Islamic Law. The theory and practice of Jihad—Bin Laden’s foreign policy—was not concocted in the Pentagon, it is directly derived from the Koran and Hadith, Islamic Tradition. But Western Liberals find it hard to admit or accept or believe this. The trouble with Western Liberals is that they are nice; they are pathologically nice, terminally nice.

They think everyone thinks like them, they think all people including the Islamic fundamentalists desire the same things, have the same goals in life. For liberals, the terrorists are but frustrated angels forever thwarted by the Great Anarch, the Great Satan, the USA".

From the Muslim Brotherhood (in 1991):

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack."

But here at the Scenewash Project's Bellicose Augur, just to show you how radically engaged with the real matters of truth we can be, here's another hard tact by the always persuasive Hugh Fitzgerald:

All this talk about some ill-defined group of "liberals"—"liberal elites" this, and "liberals" that, as being responsible for the widespread failure of virtually an entire political elite, when the Grand Catastrophe of Tarbaby Iraq stares us in the face, and continues to be loyally defended by all those "forward strategy of freedom" enthusiasts, not to mention all kinds of "I-can't-possibly-admit-I-got-the-whole-thing-wrong" and "I-just-can't-be-bothered-to-look-more-fully-into-Islam" and "I-can't-possibly-echo-the-surrendercrats" loyalists, is getting on my nerves.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and foolishness everywhere you look. If you insist on maintaining at this website that is all the fault of "liberals" then you must be asked to look at such people as Dinesh "Family-Values-Through-Higher-Lecture-Fees" D'Souza, or the terminally confused Glenn Beck, or any number of Bush loyalists who keep parroting this crap about the "forward strategy of freedom" in Iraq that ignores what "democracy" in a Muslim country means (always, more Islam), and that the only constraints on Islam or limits on Muslims have been those imposed either by a colonial power (as in the Dutch East Indies, or in India under the British) or by such enlightened despots as Mohammad V, Habib Bourguiba, the Shah of Iran and, most systematically and consciously, Ataturk.

Two things here:

Glenn Beck closes the first segment of "EXPOSED: The Perfect Day" with the following statement:

"As a personal note, this series has put me in the hardest ethical position I think I've been in, in thirty years of broadcasting. In the end, I came down that the information we have is power. There are things that you need to know that you're not being told. We're not the NYT. We're trying to save lives, not expose anything our government does not want exposed."

But earlier in the program when Glenn Beck asked his guest Brad Thor why they would do these unspeakable things (re: Beslan style attack in US) Thor responds:

"They want to force our hand. They want to create something so horrible that we will lose control of our reaction. We will be lynching Muslim people in the streets and burning mosques. They want to reduce us to animals like them so that they can get the Islamic world behind them and finally get them the holy war that they want kicked off and ignited."

Earlier this week, officials in Dearborn, MI, deliberately withheld information about Hussein Zorkot, who had been arrested with a loaded AK-47, wearing all black and camouflage paint on his face—because they were afraid of “stirring anti-Muslim sentiments” and “fanning the flames of terrorism.” The FBI is notorious for issuing "not related to terror" statements upon arrival at the scene of latest qu'ran inspired atrocity prior to even a hint of an investigation. Obviously, these disconnects are part of an official concerted but fraying effort to avoid the ultimate confrontation—which cannot be held off indefinitely.

How many of our citizens are considered disposable? Apparently, four airplanes and three buildings on 9/11 didn't prove enough.

Ponder This Ye Peaceniks Of Yore

Adapted from Hugh Fitzgerald's compelling comments found here at Jihad Watch.

Teaching Peace To The Kiddies, No Doubt

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates—The self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq has given Iran a two-month ultimatum to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs or face all-out war, according to an audiotape posted on the Internet Monday. "We give—the leaders of Iran a period of two months to stop all forms of support to the rejectionists of Iraq, and stop direct and indirect interference in the affairs of the Islamic state," said a voice attributed to the group's leader Abu Omar Al Baghdadi. The term rejectionists is used by Sunni militant groups to refer to Shiites, who dominate the government in Iraq and are in a majority in both Iraq and neighboring Iran.

"Otherwise, expect a fierce war that will annihilate you, which we have been preparing for over the past four years and just waiting to issue the orders to wage the campaign," the voice said.

And at the very same time that the US Administration, at the end of its intellectual and rhetorical tether, tells us that Al Qaeda, with a few thousand men, can "take over Iraq" if the Americans leave, it at the same time tells us that that same uber-Sunni organizqation is now having trouble with other Sunnis, particularly the Anbar tribes.

So, in US policy language, which once upon a tiem shined its spotlight upon the mighty organization of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has now declared war on the Shiites in Iraq, calling them "Rafidite dogs".

Shiites, of course, who in the Sunni playbook, are even more treacherous than the run-of-the-mill American and other Western Infidels (the Crusaders/Zionists we all know). Shiites, the declared enemies of the Kurds, who have no rights in Mosul or Kirkuk or for that matter anywhere else because Al Qaeda, while "universalist" ini the same way as Islam claims to be "universalist," is all about the Arabs, and about Arab supremacist claims. Because Al Qaeda will never support the claims of a non-Arab Muslim people if those claims were made against Arab interests, as with the Kurds, or the Berbers in North Africa, or black African Muslims in Darfur.

Yep, the religion of peace is just a fountainhead of blissful co-existence.

And what makes the absurdity still more absurd is the entire confused and topsy-turveydom that public discussion of the iraq War has become. We should note that from whatever perch or sideline one finds oneself—by those who continue to support the war, by those who have stopped supporting the war, by those who never supported the war, by those who are now eager to see the Americans leave—so many different positions, and so many of them proclaimed without any grasp of the overall picture, or how and why what can and should be achieved—not despite—but BECAUSE of an American withdrawal— we hear and observe daily this doublespeak by the same Bush Administration telling us that "Al Qaeda" will take over while also muttering darkly about how the Iranian agents are everywhere and that Iran, or forces loyal to Iran, will "take over."

The Sunnis of Saudi Arabia, of course, think the Shiites today are the same Shiites of Iraq that they managed to dominate and suppress duriing the entire history of modern Iraq. But they are wrong. And they are also wrong about other things. As Muslims, they have been discouraged at every turn from the habit of free and skeptical inquiry and encouraged, instead, in the habit of mental submission. This has consequences in their grasp of reality. They keep saying, and many of them keep believing, that they constitute, at a minimum, some 42% of the population.

They fail to realize, or come to grips with, the fact that the Shi'a have not only outbred them, but over time, some of the formerly Sunni tribes have become more and more Shii'a (see an article by Nakash on this), and that at present, the Sunni Arabs constitute less than 20% of the population. And that population is concentrated in two places: Anbar Province, and Baghdad. In Baghdad, fabled Baghdad, the Baghdad of Sunni Arab dreams af past (a past which, psychologically, must forever be as real, or even more so, than the present) Islamic glory, the Sunni Arabs have over the past few years been driven out, and now cannot be more than 15% of the population.

Several questions arise. How, exactly, will those remaining Sunnis stay on, if there is a Sunni revolt, or an "Al Qaeda" revolt, against the Shiites? And do the Sunnis realize that the Iran-Iraq border, the one set in 1847 by the Treaty of Erzerum between the Ottoman and the Persian Empires (a treaty which the Czar of Russia helped to bring about) is porous, and do they realize that the Iranian agents are not only in Iraq now, but cannot, not by the Americans, and not by Al Qaeda, be removed?

Or is it that, with a certain panic, they do indeed realize this, and are doing what Muslim Arabs have done before—did in May and the very beginnng of June 1967, did in October 1973, and do whenever they go to war—which is to engage in a great deal of huffing, and puffing, and I'll-blow-your-house-downing, and what's more, believe their own rhetoric.

Look at Al Qaeda threatening Iran. Now begin to consider if you really think that the Bush Administration's claim that we must remain in Iraq to avoid "catastrophe" is the right idea, or if you are beginning to see the sense and wisdom of the notion that the war in Iraq is "won" if it leads to a weakening of the Camp of Islam. Is this not a more perfect parsing of events, not this "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq tasting of "freedom" which George Bush maintains is a universal passion, contradicting many who are skeptical that believers in Islam share, or could possiblly share, if they remain believers, the Western notions about political legitimacy that gave rise to the modern, advanced democracies of the West.

Islam is NOT the religion of peace. Islam is fighting tooth and nail, every man, woman, and child, for world domination. Saudi Arabian style, who have an upper hand due, in historical terms, to its sudden oil wealth. Of course, the Saudis and their Sunni Wahabbi version of peaceful religion seem poised to dispense with the bloodthirsty Shiite renegades first.

And it naturally follows that the weakening of the Camp of Islam, in Iraq, can be obtained only by, and indeed very well by, doing nothing to prevent it. But the Americans have been moving heaven and earth to prevent it. The ethnic Arab Kurds and sectarian (Sunni/Shiite) fissures, fissures which were pre-existing, the Americans did not and could not have caused.

But American foreign policy, always willing to carry someone else's bucket if it returns a trade deal in the end, has given us Paul Wolfowitz: "Iraq has no history of ethnic conflict" and Condaleeza Rice; "They will just have to get over it [the Sunni-Shiite conflict]) to increase the confusion in the public mind about what's going on over there in the Middle East. Fourteen hundred years of sectarian strife will not be cleared away by simple wishful thinking by infidel leadership. Not even close.

In the case of this particularly bloody sectarian conflict, co-religionists on both sides, as a matter of pride and politics, will send in "volunteers" and money and war material, and what's more, there will be consequences for Sunni-Shiite relations in Bahrain, in Eastern Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in Kuwait, in Lebanon, in Pakistan, places where the Shiite have rightly felt discriminated against, and have in the past demonstrated, or rioted, or tried to fight back against the Sunnis who either suppressed them (as in Saudi Arabia), or denied them political power (as in Bahrain, with a Sunni ruler and a population that is 70-75% Shiite), or tried to force them to submit to Sunni rule (the Shiite Zaidis of northern Yemen), or kept them, as they see it, impoverished and out of the corridors of power (as in Lebanon), or subjected them to campaigns of terror (as in Pakistan, with the Sunni group Sipaha-e-Sahaba).

In other words, muddled thinking is the only American policy on the ground. While the Camp of Islam rages on, burning itself everything within its sight, the American leadership campaign smoulders, coughs, and sputters. America should leave Iraq indeed, but leave knowing that a greater war in the Middle East and most likely within our own wide-open borders, is coming, and we should be preparing ourselves for the both fight and the fallout. We shall all be infected by this contagion. There is no escape, but victory is the reward for those who stand firm against this unspeakable menace.

Here's a hint. Islam is NOT the religion of peace. Islam is fighting tooth and nail, every man, woman, and child, for world domination. Saudi Arabian style, who have an upper hand due, in historical terms, to its sudden oil wealth. Of course, the Saudis and their Sunni Wahabbi version of peaceful religion seem poised to dispense with the bloodthirsty Shiite renegades first.

Peaceniks are a strange bunch...